JUDGMENT Smt. Sushma Shrivastava, J. -- 1. Appellant has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and order of sentence passed by Sessions Judge, Bhopal in S.T. No. 230/04, decided on 6.4.2005. 2. Appellant has been convicted under section 302 of IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default further imprisonment for six months, by the impugned judgment. 3. As per prosecution case, Radhabai, the daughter of deceased Monaba (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') was married to one Balram, a resident of Kainchi-Chhola, Bhopal. Appellant Sohanlal is the brother of Balram. Three days prior to the occurrence, Radhabai had given birth to male child. On 6.6.04, her husband sent a telephonic message to the parents of Radhabai at Pushpanagar, Bhopal inviting them for feeding Radhabai on the 3rd day after her delivery. Thereupon deceased Monabai, the mother of Radhabai alongwith her younger daughter Kavita had gone to the place of Radhabai at Kainchi-Chhola, Bhopal at about 12 O' clock in the noon. On the same day, her younger son Madan also came there to see his sister Radhabai and her new born son. Appellant Sohanlal had some unpleasent talks with Madan and also insulted him, whereupon Madan went back to his house, but appellant began talking rubbish with deceased Monabai and her daughter Radhabai then Balram gave two-three kicks to his wife Radhabai. When deceased Monabai objected and said that he was assaulting his wife only three days after delivery, appellant Sohanlal intervened and picked up a knife and stabbed her in abdomen with the result Monabai fell unconcious. She was rushed to the hospital by Balram, but she succumbed to her injuries. 4. The FIR of the incident was lodged by Kavita Bai, the younger daughter of the deceased at Police Station Nishatpura, on the basis of which an offence was registered against the appellant and co-accused Balram and was investigated. Merg inquest report was prepared. The dead body of deceased Monabai was sent for postmortem examination. The knife used in the commission of offence was also seized at the instance of appellant. Blood stained clothes of the deceased received from the hospital in sealed cover were also seized by the Police. The seized articles were sent for forensic examination. After due investigation, appellant and co-accused Balram were prosecuted under sections 302, 201/34 of IPC and were committed for trial. 5. Blood stained clothes of the deceased received from the hospital in sealed cover were also seized by the Police. The seized articles were sent for forensic examination. After due investigation, appellant and co-accused Balram were prosecuted under sections 302, 201/34 of IPC and were committed for trial. 5. Learned Sessions Judge, however, discharged co-accused Balram of the charges under sections 302 and 201 of IPC, but framed a charge against the appellant under section 302 of IPC. 6. Appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. 7. Learned Sessions Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, found the appellant guilty under section 302 of IPC for committing murder of Monabai, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid by the impugned judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court gravely erred in placing implicit reliance on the inconsistent and unreliable testimony of the interested and related witnesses and failed to appreciate that appellant had no intention to kill the deceased and the incident occurred on the spur of the moment in a sudden quarrel without any premeditation and it was a case of single blow. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case of the appellant would not travel beyond the ambit of section 304 Part II of IPC. 9. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified and supported the conviction of the appellant. 10. We have perused the entire evidence on record. It is clearly borne out from the medical evidence of Dr. C.S. Jain (PW-3) that deceased Monabai met a homicidal death Dr. C.S. Jain (PW-3), who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased Monabai found a wound on left side of chest obliquely transverse 3cm lateral to mid line, both ends pointed, size on skin 2x0.5 cm, 14cm deep penetrating to liver, direction left to right above downwards and IXth rib, lower margin sharply cut. 11. In the opinion of Dr. C.S. Jain (PW-3), death of deceased was due to shock as a result of hemorrhage and stab injury to the chest and injury was caused by hard and sharp penetrating object and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and it was homicidal. The postmortem report (Ex.P-3) of the deceased prepared and signed by Dr. C.S. Jain (Ex. The postmortem report (Ex.P-3) of the deceased prepared and signed by Dr. C.S. Jain (Ex. P-3) is also placed on record. 12. There are no reasons to discard or disagree with the aforesaid medical evidence, which remained virtually unrebutted and unchallenged. It was thus clearly evident that death of deceased Monabai was homicidal in nature. 13. The eyewitness account of the incident is given by Radhabai (PW-7) and Kavita (PW-8). Both Radhabai (PW-7) and Kavita (PW-8) are the daughters of the deceased. The FIR of the incident (Ex. P-9) was also lodged by Kavita (PW-8), which was recorded by Sub-Inspector C.D. Dubey (PW-11) at Police Station Nishatpura, Bhopal on 6.6.04. 14. Kavita (PW-8) deposed in her evidence that her sister Radhabai (PW7) had given birth to a baby boy on 3.6.04 and three days after she had gone to place of Radhabai alongwith her mother Monabai on a telephonic call from her brother-in-law for giving food to Radhabai. According to Kavita (PW-8), they reached there at 12 0' clock in the noon and made' laddu ' till evening; when her brother Madan came there in the evening, her sister's father-in-law and appellant Sohanlal altercated with him. As per further deposition of Kavita (pW8), when her sister Radhabai complained of the same to her husband, he got annoyed and gave her two-three kicks; on oppugnation by the deceased to it, there was a wordy quarrel between the appellant and deceased Monabai and Balram and thereupon appellant Sohanlal stabbed her mother with a knife in her abdomen; as a result her mother fell unconscious and died in the hospital. 15. The evidence of Kavita (PW-8) stands substantially corroborated by the testimony of Radhabai (PW-7). She also deposed that on the third day of her delivery, her mother was called at her in-laws' place for 'laddu' ceremony. Radhabai (PW-7) also deposed that there was some quarrel and altercation between her husband, appellant and deceased Monabai, then appellant Sohanlal had stabbed her mother by knife, which landed on her abdomen and her mother died. 16. The aforesaid witnesses were cross-examination in extenso, but nothing has been elicited so as to discredit their version that appellant Sohanlal stabbed the deceased by means of a knife resulting into her instantaneous death. Although Radhabai (PW-7) was confronted on some points with her police statement (Ex. 16. The aforesaid witnesses were cross-examination in extenso, but nothing has been elicited so as to discredit their version that appellant Sohanlal stabbed the deceased by means of a knife resulting into her instantaneous death. Although Radhabai (PW-7) was confronted on some points with her police statement (Ex. D-1), but the contradictions or omissions brought forth .are not vital and material. Both Radhabai (PW-7) and Kavita (PW-8) have denied the suggestions given in their cross-examination that their brother Ramsingh had tried to assault appellant Sohanlal by knife and their mother got hurt while intervening. The defence evidence of Chunnilal (DW-1) led in this behalf is not found to be cogent and trustworthy. Had it been a fact, that deceased got a knife blow of her son Ramsingh in the scuffle between the appellant and her son, appellant Sohanlal himself or some else from his family would have lodged the report against Ramsingh, when the occurrence took place at their place. The defence evidence is thus not found to be reliable and acceptable. 17. On the other hand, there are no cogent reasons to disbelieve the statement of Radhabai (PW-7) and Kavita (PW-8) that appellant stabbed the deceased by knife. As the occurrence took place at in-laws' place of Radhabai (PW-7), where she was staying after her delivery, her presence on the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. There are also no reasons to doubt the presence of Kavita (PW-8) on the place of occurrence. She had also gone to her sister's place along with her mother in connection with some post delivery ceremony of her sister Radhabai. The version given by Kavita (PW-8) also stands duly corroborated by the FIR (Ex. P-9) lodged by her soon after the incident. 18. In fact, there are no reasons to doubt or disbelieve the statement of Radhabai (PW-7) and Kavita (PW-8) that appellant Sohanlal had stabbed their mother Monabai. Appellant Sohanlal is admittedly the brother-in-law (husband's brother) of Radhabai, therefore, she would not falsely implicate him without any rhyme or reason. The evidence of Radhabai (PW-7) and Kavita (PW-8) cannot be discarded merely because the other witnesses, namely, Geeta Bai (PW-1), Laxmibai (PW-4), Harprasad (PW-5), who are the family members of the appellant, and one Raju (PW-2) have not supported the prosecution version. The family members of the appellant must naturally be interested in protecting and saving the appellant. The evidence of Radhabai (PW-7) and Kavita (PW-8) cannot be discarded merely because the other witnesses, namely, Geeta Bai (PW-1), Laxmibai (PW-4), Harprasad (PW-5), who are the family members of the appellant, and one Raju (PW-2) have not supported the prosecution version. The family members of the appellant must naturally be interested in protecting and saving the appellant. Therefore, if they have not supported the prosecution version and turned hostile to prosecution, it does not cause any dent to the prosecution case. 19. The evidence of Radhabai (PW-7) and Kavita (PW-8) cannot be rejected on the ground that they are near relatives of the deceased. It is well settled, as reiterated by the apex Court in the case of Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2006 AIR SCW Page 4143 that the evidence of a witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is either partisan or interested or closely related to the deceased, if it is otherwise found to be trustworthy and credible. 20. The evidence of Radhabai (PW-7) and Kavita (PW-8) against the appellant, also stands duly corroborated by the medical evidence. The stab wound found by Dr. C.S. Jain (PW-3) on the left side of chest placed obliquely transverse and 3cm lateral to the mid line penetrating to the liver, also lends corroboration to the ocular version that deceased Monabai was stabbed with knife. The medical evidence of Dr. C.S. Jain (PW-3) reveals that the stab wound was 14cm deep penetrating to the liver and 9th rib of the lower margin was also sharply cut, which indicates that knife blow was given with force. According to Dr. C.S. Jain (PW-3) injuries found on the person of the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 21. Thus, in view of the aforesaid ocular and medical evidence, it becomes aptly clear that the appellant gave a knife blow to the deceased with intention of causing such bodily injury, as was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and thereby caused the death of deceased Mona Bai. 22. 21. Thus, in view of the aforesaid ocular and medical evidence, it becomes aptly clear that the appellant gave a knife blow to the deceased with intention of causing such bodily injury, as was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and thereby caused the death of deceased Mona Bai. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, strenuously urged that appellant had no intention to kill the deceased and the incident occurred on the spur of moment without any premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and there was only a single blow. Thus according to learned counsel for the appellant, the case would not go beyond the ambit of section 304 Part II of IPC and Exception-4 of section 300 of IPC would be applicable. Reliance was placed in this behalf on the decision rendered in the case of Manke Ram v. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court Page 4117. 23. We have considered the aforesaid submission. It is manifest from the evidence of both Radhabai (PW-7) and Kavita (PW-8) that the incident occurred on the spur of moment upon a sudden quarrel. The evidence of both Radhabai (PW-7) and Kavita (PW-8) indicates that deceased Monabai had gone to the in-laws' place of Radhabai for some post delivery ceremony of her daughter Radhabai (PW-7), and there was some atercation between the deceased and Balram, the husband of Radhabai, who had kicked his wife, which enraged the appellant who picked up a knife and assaulted the deceased. It transpires from the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses that the act of the appellant was not premeditated and the incident occurred on the super of the moment in a sudden fight upon a sudden quarrel in the fact of passion and there was only a single blow. 24. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered opinion, that Exception-4 to section 300 would be applicable to the facts of the instant case and the case of the appellant would come within the purview of section 304 Part I of IPC. The conviction of appellant Sohanlal under section 302 of IPC, therefore, deserves to be altered to one under section 304 Part I of IPC. 25. The conviction of appellant Sohanlal under section 302 of IPC, therefore, deserves to be altered to one under section 304 Part I of IPC. 25. As regards the sentence, keeping in view the nature of injury caused to the deceased by means of a knife and the other facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that ten year's rigorous imprisonment to the appellant with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, as imposed by the trial Court, would meet the ends of justice. 26. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of appellant Sohanlal under section 302 of IPC is altered to one under section 304 Part I of IPC and the life imprisonment awarded to him is modified and reduced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. We, however, affirm the sentence of fine of Rs.5,000/- in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months imposed on the appellant. 27. Needless to add the substantial sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant shall be set off against the modified term of his imprisonment. Appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above.