JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. The judgment and order dated 13.02.2003, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Sibsagar, in Sessioris Case No. 40 (SC) 2001 (New), is in challenge in this appeal. By the impugned judgment and order aforesaid, the accused-Appellant, namely, Sri Prakash Tanti was convicted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, for the offence punishable under Sections 304 Part-II and 324 of IPC. Accordingly, the accused-Appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period of six months and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 324 of IPC. It was directed that both the sentences should run concurrently. Being aggrieved, the accused-Appellant has come up with this appeal. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, as revealed at the trial, may be stated thus: On 10.07.1990, at about 8.30 p.m., the Appellant went to the grocery shop of Satya Narayan Chippa (hereinafter called 'the deceased') for purchasing some items. At that time, Smti Asha Chippa (P.W. 7), the wife of the deceased was in the said shop and, accordingly, when she handed over the items purchased by the Appellant, the Appellant putting a dagger on her chest, demand the key of shelf of the shop. An alarm being raised by Smti Asha Chippa, her husband (deceased) came out and the Appellant fled away by giving a dagger blow on the lower abdomen of the deceased. In the said occurrence, the wife of the deceased i.e. Smti Asha Chippa also sustained injuries on her left hand and chest. The said injured persons i.e. P.W. 7 and the deceased were immediately shifted to the Sibsagar Civil Hospital, wherefrom the deceased was inferred to the Assam Medical College and Hospital, Dibrugarh. While undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to his injuries on 24.07.1990. Sri Rajendra Chippa (P.W. 6), the brother of the deceased lodged an FIR with the O/C, Mathurapur Police Station on 10.07.1990 itself, which was registered as Mathurapur P.S. Case No. 71/90 under Sections 448/326 IPC. Subsequently, due to death of the deceased. Section 302 was added by the prosecution. 3. During the investigation, police visited the place of occurrence, prepared the inquest report, made arrangement for post mortem examination, collected the autopsy report and recorded the statement of the witnesses. Subsequently, due to death of the deceased. Section 302 was added by the prosecution. 3. During the investigation, police visited the place of occurrence, prepared the inquest report, made arrangement for post mortem examination, collected the autopsy report and recorded the statement of the witnesses. At the close of the investigation, police submitted the charge sheet against the Appellant under Sections 448/302/326 IPC, showing the accused person as an absconder. 4. On 11.05.1992, the accused person surrendered before the Court, and the offence being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sonari, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. The learned Asstt. Sessions Judge, Sibsagar, framed charges under Sections 448/302/326 IPC, which was read over and explained to the accused-Appellant to which he pleaded not guilty. The plea of the defence was a denial one. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses including the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer. At the close of the evidence for the prosecution, the accused person was examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused person denied the allegations brought against him and declined to adduce any defence witness. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, considering the evidence on record, held the accused-Appellant guilty of the offence under Sections 304 Part-II and 324 IPC and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced the accused-Appellant as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 6. I have heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Mr. K. Munir, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State-Respondent and carefully perused the evidence on record. 7. Mr. Mahanta, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, has submitted that the prosecution case is based on the evidence of the single eye witness i.e. the P.W. 7 and that there is no corroboration in support of the evidence of the said eye witness. It is further stated that the said eye witness being the close relative of the deceased, the learned trial Judge committed error by relying on such evidence in passing the impugned conviction and sentence. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer did not examine the deceased, who was undergoing treatment in the hospital for about 13 days, and that this latches was fatal for the prosecution. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer did not examine the deceased, who was undergoing treatment in the hospital for about 13 days, and that this latches was fatal for the prosecution. The learned Counsel further contended that the conviction and sentence, recorded by the learned trial Judge, cannot stand for want of sufficient substantive evidence against the Appellant. 8. Controverting the argument advanced by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, Mr. K. Munir, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State-Respondent submitted that P.W. 7 i.e. the wife of the deceased, who was the only natural eye witness, was the most reliable one and that considering the entire facts and circumstances, her evidence cannot be thrown out only on the ground that she was a close relative of the deceased. It is further submitted that there is sufficient corroboration in the evidence of P.W. Nos. 3 and 7 as well as the medical evidence, which substantiate the prosecution version. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, further submitted that the learned trial Judge rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-Appellant and that the said conviction and sentence do not need interference. 9. In order to appreciate the counter argument advanced by the learned Counsels appearing for the parties and to examine the correctness of the impugned judgment and order, it will be appropriate to, briefly, recapitulate the evidence on record as follows: 10. P.W. 1, Sri Lakhiram Nayak, who was the Secretary of the V.D.P. of the concerned village, stated that he was informed by others that the deceased as well as the wife of the deceased sustained injuries and that they had undergone medical treatment. This witness had no personal knowledge about the occurrence and did not say anything incriminating against the accused-Appellant. 11. P.W. 2, Adesh Tanti, stated about the existence of the grocery shop of the deceased. According to this witness, the deceased and his wife used to manage the said shop. He further stated that, prior to the occurrence, on the date of occurrence, he went to the said shop for purchasing some articles and that after returning home and hearing hue and cry he rushed to the place of occurrence and found the deceased and his wife in injured condition. This witness does not have any personal knowledge about the occurrence. This witness does not have any personal knowledge about the occurrence. From the evidence of the said witness, it appears that on the fateful night, the wife of the deceased was in the said shop, selling articles. 12. P.W. 3. Shri Shyam Tanti, stated that prior to the occurrence, he went to the shop of the deceased for purchasing mustard oil. According to this witness, after about half an hour of his return from the said shop, he heard hue and cry, which took place in the said shop. Accordingly, he rushed to the said shop of the deceased and found him in injured condition. This witness further stated that he found the wife of the deceased also in injured condition. He was informed by the wife of the deceased i.e. P.W. 7 that the accused-Appellant had assaulted them with dagger. This witness was duly cross-examined on behalf of the defence but, no contradiction could be elicited to render his evidence disbelievable. Hence, from the evidence of P.W. 3, it stood established that on the fateful night they had visited the shop of the deceased and after returning from the said shop, hearing hue and cry, he rushed to the said shop and on his arrival, he found both the deceased and his wife in injured condition. This witness was reported by the wife of the deceased that the injuries were caused by the accused-Appellant. 13. Now, turning to the evidence of the wife of the deceased, who was examined as P.W. 7. it is found that she was present in the said shop at the time of the occurrence. Smti. Asha Chippa (P.W. 7) i.e. the wife of the deceased, in the evidence, clearly stated that prior to the occurrence. Sri Shyam Tanti (P.W. 3) and two other boys went to her shop for purchasing some articles and that after they had left her shop, the accused person went there and asked her to give him some items and that while she was preparing to give the items, wanted by the accused, the accused person, by putting a dagger on her chest, asked her to hand over the key of the locker of the shop. According to this witness, while trying to remove the said dagger, she sustained injuries on her left hand as well her chest. According to this witness, while trying to remove the said dagger, she sustained injuries on her left hand as well her chest. This witness further stated that, on being so threatened by the accused, she raised alarm and that as soon as her husband had come out, the accused person gave a dagger blow on the lower abdomen of her husband as a result of which, her husband sustained injuries. This witness further stated that her husband was initially taken to the garden hospital, wherein her brother-in-law Sri Rajendra Chippa (P.W. 6) had met them. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the Sibsagar Civil Hospital and therefrom he was referred to the Assam Medical College and Hospital. Dibrugarh, wherein he succumbed to his injures on 24.07.1990. She further stated that her husband had informed the P.W. 6 that the accused person had caused the injuries. P.W. 7 was duly cross-examined On behalf of the defence, but no contradiction, to discredit her evidence, could be established. 14. A careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.W. Nos. 3, 5 and 7, reveals that there is sufficient corroboration in the evidence of the said witnesses to find that the deceased and P.W. 7 sustained injuries on the night of 10.07.1990. P.W. 3, supporting the evidence of P.W. 7, stated that, at the lime of the occurrence. P.W. 7 was managing the said shop and that on his arrival in the place of the occurrence, he was informed by P.W. 7 that the accused had caused the injuries to them. 15. The Medical Officer, who performed the autopsy of the deceased could not be examined as he retired from service. Therefore, the prosecution, in order to prove the post mortem report, examined another Medical Officer, namely, Sri Bhusan Ch. Rai Medhi as P.W. 10, who was acquainted with the hand writing of the Medical Officer, who performed the autopsy. P.W. 10 exhibited the post mortem examination report as Exbt. 5. Deposing from the said post mortem examination report, P.W. 10 stated that the cause of death of the deceased was due to septicemia followed by failure of the heart resulting from perforation of the intestine. The said Medical Officer, in his evidence, also stated that the following injuries were found in respect of the deceased: Peritoneal cavity of the abdomen was full of pus. The said Medical Officer, in his evidence, also stated that the following injuries were found in respect of the deceased: Peritoneal cavity of the abdomen was full of pus. Kidney: Pus was present in the left kidney and the right kidney was congested. Liver and Spleen: found pale. Stomach: Healthy. Small intestine was perforated and contained pus. Heart: Healthy and the chambers were full of blood on right side - left chambers were empty. 16. P.W. 5, another Doctor, who examined the deceased on the night of the occurrence, stated that he found a stab wound measuring 2.5" below the umbilicus almost at the midline showing the abdominal contents (omental and intestinal tissue) outside the abdominal wall. The said Medical Officer found the size of the injury to be 2.5 cm x 1 cm. The evidence of P.W. Nos. 5 and 10 and the post mortem examination report (Exbt.-5) indicate that there was an injury on the mid-line of the abdomen indicating perforation and as such it can be safely concluded that the perforation of the intestine was caused due to the said injury sustained by the deceased at the hands of the accused-Appellant. 17. P.W. 7, who was the eye witness to the occurrence, clearly stated that the accused had inflicted a dagger blow on the abdomen of the deceased. Therefore, the evidence of P.W. Nos. 5, 7 and 10 conclusively lead to the irresistible conclusion that the deceased died due to the abdominal injuries caused by the accused. The suggestion put to P.W. 7 by the defence, lead to find that a scuffle had taken place between the accused and the deceased. This suggestion also fortifies the prosecution version regarding the involvement of the accused person. 18. P.W. 4, Sri Indra Kumar Dutta, is the scribe of the FIR. This witness exhibited the FIR as Exbt.-1 and his signature as Exbt.- 1(1). This witness stated that he wrote the FIR on being narrated by one Sri Rajendra Kumar Chippa (P.W. 6), who is the brother of the deceased. 19. P.W. 6, Sri Rajendra Kumar Dutta, deposing as P.W. 6, stated that upon hearing about the occurrence. he rushed to the garden hospital, wherein he found the deceased and his wife in injured condition. According to this witness, the deceased had told him that the accused-Appellant had caused the injury by means of a dagger. 19. P.W. 6, Sri Rajendra Kumar Dutta, deposing as P.W. 6, stated that upon hearing about the occurrence. he rushed to the garden hospital, wherein he found the deceased and his wife in injured condition. According to this witness, the deceased had told him that the accused-Appellant had caused the injury by means of a dagger. This witness supported the contention made in the FIR. In his cross-examination, this witness stated that the deceased died while undergoing treatment in the Assam Medical College and Hospital, Dibrugarh. In his cross-examination also this witness stated that his elder brother i.e. the deceased had told him that the accused had committed the offence. Therefore, it appears that the deceased made a dying declaration before the said witness implicating the accused-Appellant. No suggestion was put to this witness denying the said dying declaration. 20. P.W. Nos. 8 and 9 were the Investigating Officers of this case. P.W. 8 denied the suggestion that he had falsely submitted the charge-sheet against the accused-Appellant without making proper investigation. Though the said Investigating Officers were duly cross-examined on behalf of the defence, no contradiction could be established to discredit the evidence given by the witnesses, more particularly, the evidence of the eye witness who deposed as P.W. 7. 21. A careful perusal of the evidence of P.W. 7 lead to find that there is no dispute regarding the identity of the accused person and that none other than the accused had caused the said injuries. 22. In the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the evidence as discussed above. I find that it has been established, beyond reasonable doubt, that none other than the accused had caused the injuries on the person of the deceased and P.W. 7 and that due to the injuries caused by the Appellant, the deceased had died. 23. As discussed by the learned trial Judge, the intention of the accused-Appellant was to take money or any other valuable items from the said shop and he had no intention to kill the deceased. Admittedly, the accused-Appellant had inserted the knife into the abdomen of the deceased. Therefore, though the accused had no intention to kill the deceased, it can be safely concluded that he had the knowledge that the insertion of dagger into the abdomen might cause death of a person. Admittedly, the accused-Appellant had inserted the knife into the abdomen of the deceased. Therefore, though the accused had no intention to kill the deceased, it can be safely concluded that he had the knowledge that the insertion of dagger into the abdomen might cause death of a person. Therefore, the accused-Appellant could be imputed with the know ledge that he was likely to cause an injury, which might have caused the death of a person. Therefore, the learned trial Judge committed no illegality by recording the conviction and sentence against the accused-Appellant under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. 24. From the evidence of P.W. 7 as well as from the Medical Officer (P.W. 5), it appears that P.W. 7 also sustained injury on her person. P.W. 7 had clearly stated that she sustained the said injuries caused by a dagger blow inflicted by the accused-Appellant. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the finding of the learned trial Judge that the accused-Appellant committed the offence under Section 324 IPC. Hence, I find nothing to interfere with the conviction recorded by the learned trial Judge. 25. The occurrence took place on 10.07.1990. It is submitted that the accused-Appellant is on bail and that during the last 20 years the accused-Appellant had suffered both mentally and financially and that there is no adverse report against the accused-Appellant after the said occurrence. It is also submitted that the Appellant who is aged about 40 years, is having his family to maintain and that in the event of sending him in jail for a longer period at this stage, his family life will be ruined resulting suffering for his wife and children. 26. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the present case and the delay in disposal of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that a lesser period of imprisonment instead of seven years will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. 27. Accordingly, the sentence recorded under Section 304 Part-II IPC is reduced to two years rigorous imprisonment without interfering with the sentence with regard to payment of fine and the sentence recorded under Section 324 IPC. As directed by the learned trial Judge, both the sentences shall run concurrently and the period of detention already undergone by the accused-Appellant shall be treated as set off under Section 428 Code of Criminal Procedure. As directed by the learned trial Judge, both the sentences shall run concurrently and the period of detention already undergone by the accused-Appellant shall be treated as set off under Section 428 Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the accused-Appellant, Sri Prakash Tanti is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court to serve the remaining period of the sentence, if any. 28. With the above modification in respect of the sentence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC, this appeal is party allowed. Send down the Lower Court Records.