Judgment : S. NAGAMUTHU, J. 1. This is an unfortunate case where a Member of a legal fraternity killed another Member of the same fraternity, that too in the Court premises when the letter was just entering into the Court to do his day‘s work. 2. The appellant, stands convicted for offence under Section 304 (i) I.P.C., and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Challenging the same, the appellant, is now before this Court with this appeal. 3. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: The deceased Mr. Ramadoss was a Senior Lawyer practicing in the Court at Poonamalee at the outskirts of Chennai city and the did not behave properly, the deceased stopped him from attending be developed grudges against the deceased. On 7.4.2000 at about 10.45 a.m., when the Court proceedings were going on in the Court Hall of learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Poonamallee, the deceased was just about to enter into the said Court to attend the cases in which he was appearing. At that time, the accused suddenly appeared with a knife. He stabbed the deceased with the said knife on his abdomen with force. This took place on the verandah of the Court. P.W.1 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. He is also a Member of the legal fraternity. At the time of occurrence, he was standing in the verandah of the Court and on witnessing the occurrence he wa standing in raised alarm. P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 are all Members of the legal fraterrnity. They were also in the verandah of the Court preparing into to enter into the Court for their day‘s work. They all witnessed the occurrence. All of them raised alarm. P.W.5 was then working as a Head Constable attached to Mangadu Police Station which falls within the jurisdiction of the said Court. He was also on the verandah of the said Court returning after meeting the Head Clerk of the Court in connection with a case in Crime No. 508 of 1997 on the file of the said police station. He heard the hue and cry of the deceased Ramadoss stating that “he stabbed me catch him, catch him”. Attracted by the said alarm raised, he rushed towards the accused and caught him hold along with knife. He heard the hue and cry of the deceased Ramadoss stating that “he stabbed me catch him, catch him”. Attracted by the said alarm raised, he rushed towards the accused and caught him hold along with knife. P.W.6, yet another Member of the legal fraternity who was in the Bar Association then rushed towards the place of occurrence on hearing the hue and cry raised by the deceased. He found P.W.5 catching the accused hold along with the knife with blood stain. Thereafter, P.W.1 and others rushed the deceased to Sundar Hospital, Poonamallee which is a private hospital on the same day at 11.05 a.m. P.W.11 Doctor-Sundar Raj examined him and found a stab injury measuring 10 cms on the left side of his stomach. Fresh bleeding from the wound was noticed. He was unconscious. P.W.11 gave first aid treatment and advised to take the deceased to Ramachandra Medical College Hospital. Exhibit P-10 is the Accident Register. According to P.W.11, the said injury would have been caused by a weapon like M.O.1. The deceased was admitted at 11.20 a.m., on 7.4.2000 at Porur Sri Ramachandra Medical College Hospital. P.W.9, Doctor Bhavani examined him. At that time, the deceased had regained consciousness. He told the Doctor that he was stabbed by his junior lawyer by name Arun at 10.45 a.m. in the Judicial Magistrate Court‘s verandah at Poonamallee with knife. She noticed a spindle shaped stab injury on the abdomen of the deceased. He was immediately shifted, to the operation theater for surgery. She has also opined that the injury would have bean caused by a weapon like M.O.1. s4. In the meanwhile, P.W.1 proceeded to the police station at 11.45 a.m., on 7.4.2000 and preferred a complaint under Exhibit P-1. P.W.14, the then Inspector of Police attached to Poonamallee Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 470 of 2000 for offence under Section 341 , 324 Section 341 , 324 and 307 I.P.C. Exhibit P-11 is the F.I.R. By about 12.00 p.m., P.W.5 the Head Constable who caught hold the accused at the place of occurrence brought him to the Poonamallee Police Station by 12.00 noon. He also produced M.O.1 the knife. P.W.14 arrested the accused at 12.15 p.m., in the presence of two witnesses. He gave a voluntary confession and the same was reduced into writing by P.W.14. Then he recovered M.O.1 under Exhibit P-3 mahazar. He also produced M.O.1 the knife. P.W.14 arrested the accused at 12.15 p.m., in the presence of two witnesses. He gave a voluntary confession and the same was reduced into writing by P.W.14. Then he recovered M.O.1 under Exhibit P-3 mahazar. Then he proceeded to the place of occurrence and in the presence of P.Ws.6 and another witness he prepared an observation mahazar under Exhibit P-4 and he also prepared a rough sketch under Exhibit P-12. Then at 3.00 p.m., he proceeded to Sri Ramachandra Medical College Hospital to examine the deceased who was undergoing treatment. But, the deceased was in unconscious condition. Therefore, he could not examine him. Then he examined the wife of the deceased and recorded her statement in the hospital itself. He recovered the blood strained clothes of the deceased in the hospital from the wife of the deceased under a mahazar in the presence of witnesses. 5. P.W.13-Doctor Srinivasan a Surgeon attached to Porur Sri Ramachandra Medical College Hospital conducted surgery on the deceased. He noticed 5 litres of fluid blood in the abdominal cavity and he noticed a “T” shaped injury on the abdomen and internally spleen was ruptured. Correspondingly, there was injury to the peritoneum also. Internally also, bleeding was noticed. He removed the fluid blood and stitched the wounds by means of surgery. Despite the above efforts, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 11.4.2000 at about 6.15 p.m. 6. On receiving the death intimation, P.W.14 altered the case into one under Section 302 I.P.C, and sent a report to the Court under Exhibit P-13. On 11.4.2000, between 8.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m., he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and prepared Exhibit P-14, the Inquest Report. He examined P.W.1 and few more witnesses during inquest. On 7.4.2000 itself he had forwarded the accused for judicial remand. Then he examined the boctorsr collected the medical records and recorded their statements .Then at his request, the blood stained cloth and the knife were sent for chemical examination. On such chemical examination, Exhibit P-20, report was submitted opining that there was human, blood found on the cloth as well as on the knife. Exhibit P-17 is the Chemical Analyst Report and Exhibit P-18 is the Serology Report. On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet on 14.4.2000. On such chemical examination, Exhibit P-20, report was submitted opining that there was human, blood found on the cloth as well as on the knife. Exhibit P-17 is the Chemical Analyst Report and Exhibit P-18 is the Serology Report. On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet on 14.4.2000. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed a lone charge against the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. Since the accused denied the said charge, the trial Court went ahead with the trial. 7. As many as 14 witnesses were examined and 18 documents were exhibited on the side of the prosecution. Out of the prosecution witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4 are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence who are all the Members of the Bar. P.W.5 is the Head Constable who has spoken to about the alarm raised by the deceased and he has also spoken to the effect that he caught hold the accused along with the blood stained knife. He has further stated that he handed over the accused to the Investigating Officer. P.W.6 is yet another Member of the legal fraternity who had seen the accused being caught hold by P.W.5 and also spoken to about, the fact that the accused was found with the blood stained knife (M.O.1). P.W.7 has spoken to about the recovery of blood stained cloth of the deceased at the Hospital and P.W.8 has spoken to the effect that on 7.4.2000 at 9.00 a.m., the accused purchased M.O.1 from a shop situated at Valasaravakkam Arcot Road, for a sum of Rs. 50/-. He has identified M.O.1 as the one which was purchased by the accused on the date of occurrence. The other witnesses are Doctors and Police officials. P.W.10 is the Doctor who conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased and he found the following injuries: “1. Obliquely placed incised wound 4 x 2 cms, surgically sutured with 2 sutures over the left hypochondriuin close to the mid line (Gems) (wound of jejunostomy). 2. Oblique incised wound, surgically sutured with 4 suture, 6 x 2.5 cms over the contour of the 7th rib 7 cm from the midline (infra mamary region close to nipple). 3. Obliquely placed incised wound 4 x 2 cms, surgically sutured with 2 sutures over the left hypochondriuin close to the mid line (Gems) (wound of jejunostomy). 2. Oblique incised wound, surgically sutured with 4 suture, 6 x 2.5 cms over the contour of the 7th rib 7 cm from the midline (infra mamary region close to nipple). 3. Surgically sutured wound in the form of ‘…….‘ (two limbs) containing 19 sutures on the vertical limb and 13 sutures on the onlique limb, measuring 23 cms x 15 cms, placed over the midline of obdomen, extending from mid epigastrium to just below umbilicus, vertically and extending obliquely along the lower border of the 8th rib for the length mentioned above, placed, parallel to the incised wound on the 7th rib. 4. Sutured wound in the left paraumbilical region containing 2 sutures (for drain) left in splenic-bed-with ooze of blood from the region. On Dissection: Injury No. 2, found to tissues in the corresponding into the viscous. Lungs – No abnormality Pale; Heart – Contains clotted blood; Walls, Orifices, Valves – NAD; Clotted blood accumulated in tissues, under the posterior surface of liver close to the portal triad, and undersurface stomach (retroperitoneal tear) with blood clots present surrounding the left kidney; Stomach – Tear in anterior wall found sutured in two layers; Pancreas & Spleen – found removed Pecitorxeal cavity – contained 1000ml of frank blood; Eyes – Closed; Cornes – cloudy; Conjunctive – muddy; Nose & Mouth – Nil discharge; Tongue – Within oral cavity Teeth 7/8 7/8 Generative organs – Bilateral hydrocele; Finger Nails – Pale; Opening of Thorax & Abdomen: Heart – NAD; Coronary Vessels – Patent; Great Vessels – NAD; Lungs – Pale Larynx-C/s – Pale; Cucosa – Empty Hyoid bone – Intact; Stomach – Contains greenish viscous material; Black mucinous fluid 30 ml; Mucosa – Rugosity maintained; No definite smell; clotted blood found beneath the stomach; Pancreas – Distal one fourth found removed; Liver – Pale; Clotted blood under the posterior surface; Spleen – Found removed; Kidneys – Both pale; Clotted blood under left kidney; Intestines – Contains chyme & formed faceal material; Bladder – Contains 30 ml of clear urine; Pelvis – Intact; Opening of the Skull: Membranes – Intact; Brain – Pale Spinal Column – Intact; Opinion: The deceased would appear to have died due to the complications of abdominal stab injury sustained.” 8. When the above incriminating evidences placed by the prosecution were put to the accused, he denied the same as false. However, he has not chosen to examine any witness on his side nor he chose to mark any document. 9. Having considered the same, the trial Court, found him guilty under Section 304(1) I.P.C., instead of Section 302 I.P.C. That is how the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 10. I have heard Mr. T.R. Ravi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. V. Rajagopal, learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the State and also perused the records. 11. As I have already stated, P.Ws.1 to 3 are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence who are members of the legal fraternity. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that their evidences are liable to be rejected because they are either closely related or highly interested in the affairs of the deceased. He would point out that P.W.1 happens to be the brother-in-law of the deceased and the others, are Lawyers who were very friendly to the deceased. For these reasons, the learned counsel would submit that their evidences should be rejected. In my considered opinion, the said argument cannot be countenanced at all. It is not the law that simply because the witnesses are either closely related or highly interested in the affairs of the deceased, their evidences should be rejected. The law is that their evidences require only close scrutiny. In this case, the presence of P.Ws.1 to 4 at the time of occurrence cannot be doubted at all. Indisputably, the occurrence was at 10.45 a.m. The witnesses 1 to 4 being members of the legal fraternity practicing in the said Court would have been present and such is quite natural. The appellant himself is a Member of the legal fraternity and he was also a member of the Local Bar. He has not brought on record any material to show that P.Ws.2 to 4 were inimical towards him and therefore, their evidences should be doubted. These witnesses have spoken vividly about the attack made by the accused with a knife on the stomach of the deceased. 12. Yet another strong piece of evidence is that of the evidence of P.W.5. He has not brought on record any material to show that P.Ws.2 to 4 were inimical towards him and therefore, their evidences should be doubted. These witnesses have spoken vividly about the attack made by the accused with a knife on the stomach of the deceased. 12. Yet another strong piece of evidence is that of the evidence of P.W.5. As I have already stated, P.W.5 is the Head Constable attached to Mangadu Police Station and he came to the Court in connection with Crime No. 508 of 1997 to meet the Head Clerk of the Court. So, his presence also cannot be doubted. Further, he caught the accused red-handed with a knife (M.O.1) at the place of occurrence. Further, the knife contained human blood and the same, has been proved by the Chemical Analyst Report. P.W.6 is yet another Lawyer who had an occasion to notice the accucsed being caught hold by P.W.5. The accused was immediately taken to the Poonamallee Police Station. There are no reasons to doubt the presence of P.Ws.5 and 6 and their evidences. The very fact that the accused was trying to escape at the crucial moment having M.O.1 with human blood, will further strengthen the case of the prosecution. 13. How coming back to the evidence of P.W.9 Doctor Bhavani, she has stated that the deceased regained consciousness when he was brought to the hospital and at that time, he told P.W.9 that he was stabbed by his Junior Lawyer by name Arun within the Poonamallee Judicial Magistrate Court complex. Though the Doctors are expected not to record the name of the assailant, when they make entries in the Accident Register, in this case, the Doctor has chosen to by the deceased. In the said statement the name “Arun” refers only to the accused/appellant herein and his/name is Arunachalam @ Arun Charles. Further, his nick name is Arun. The said statement squarely falls within the ambit of Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act as dying declaration and this also assumes much importance which again go to prove the case of the prosecution. 14. The evidence of Doctor P.W.10 would go to show that the death of the doceaaed was due to the injuries caused by the accused. Thus, the prosecution has clearly established that it was this accused who caused stab injury on the stomach of the deceased. 15. 14. The evidence of Doctor P.W.10 would go to show that the death of the doceaaed was due to the injuries caused by the accused. Thus, the prosecution has clearly established that it was this accused who caused stab injury on the stomach of the deceased. 15. Now coming to the offence said to have been committed, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the offence would not fall under Section 304 (i) I.P.C., and the same would fall only under Section 304 (ii) I.P.C. For this, the learned counsel would submit that, the confession made by the accused to the police may be looked into by this Court. For this proposition, the learned counsel would rely on the following judgments: (i) in Thangavelu v. State represented by Public Prosecutor 1991 L.W. Cri. 333 (ii) inKhanjan Pal v. State of U.P. 1991 SCC Cr 44 : LNIND 1990 SC 393 and (iii) in Hemraj v. State (Delhi Administration) 1990 SC Cri 713 16. I have considered the above submissions. 17. In the confession given to the police, he has narrated vividly about the tortures meted out to him by the deceased. This according to the learned counsel would mitigate the offence and he would further submit that according to the Doctor, death was not directly attributable to the injuries. For these reasons, according to the learned counsel, the offence would fall within the ambit of Section 304 (ii) I.P.C. In my considered opinion, having regard to the fact that the death was due to peritonitis which was the result of the injuries sustained in the occurrence, the trial Court has convicted the appellant for offence under Section 304 (i) I.P.C., in which I do not find any infirmity. The confession of the accused to Police shall not mitigate the gravity of the offence. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 (i) deserves only to be confirmed. 18. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, the learned counsel would submit that after the said occurrence, the appellant is not practicing as a lawyer. The learned counsel would make a statement that the accused is going to give a letter to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to suspend his practice. The learned counsel would further submit that he has got a family to look after and he has also reformed himself. The learned counsel would make a statement that the accused is going to give a letter to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to suspend his practice. The learned counsel would further submit that he has got a family to look after and he has also reformed himself. Having regard to the above, the learned counsel would pray for leniency in the matter of sentence. 19. In the legal fraternity, a Junior Lawyer treats his Senior Lawyer as his “Guru” for ever and he extends all respect for him. It is in practice that when his senior who is his guru enters into the Court Hall to occupy a chair, the Junior Lawyer would immediately leave the seat to him and he would stand behind him. They move as a family. Such is the tradition of this profession. But, it is vividly spoken that the glory of this profession is slowly getting eroded. This is not the first occasion for this Court to come across such a case but there are few more cases in the State of Tamil Nadu where Members of the legal fraternity did involve in murder cases. There are also occurrences where Lawyers have been killed in Court premises by the fellow Lawyers. The instant case is a typical example of the hedge grazing the crop. Though the crime committed by the appellant is so grave in nature which does not require any leniency in the matter of sentence, considering the fact that the appellant states that he has reformed himself and he will be a useful citizen of this Country and having regard to the other family circumstances of the appellant and all the other attending circumstances, as pleaded by the learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the view that reducing the substantive sentence of imprisonment from 10 years to 7 years and by enhancing the fine amount ot Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-would meet the ends of justice. 20. On instruction from the appellant, who is present in Court, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that if three months time is granted, the appellant will pay the said fine amount. 21. In view of all the above, the appeal, is allowed in part in the following terms: (i) The conviction for offence under Section 304 (i) I.P.C., is confirmed. 21. In view of all the above, the appeal, is allowed in part in the following terms: (i) The conviction for offence under Section 304 (i) I.P.C., is confirmed. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment for 10 years rigorous imprisonment is reduced to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment. (ii) The fine amount of Rs. 5,000/- imposed by the trial Court is enhanced to Rs. 50,000/-. The appellant is directed to deposit the said enhanced fine amount within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In default of making payment, of the said fine amount, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. (iii) In all other respects, the criminal appeal stands dismissed.