JUDGMENT P. Durga Prasad, J. This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.156 of 2005 by the VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Anantapur on 17.11.2008. 2. The appellants herein are A1 to A3 and they were prosecuted for the offences under Sections 324, 307 and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. According to the prosecution, the deceased Venkata Swamy and A1 to A3 are residents of P.Yerragudi village of Gooty Mandal, Anantapur District. There exist misunderstandings between the accused family and the deceased family. The wife of PW.1 was elected as Sarpanch of P.Yerragudi village. The wife of A1 is working as an Ayah in the local elementary school. A new building was under construction for the elementary school at P.Yerragudi village. The deceased was supervising the construction of the school building. The deceased asked Nallapothula Obulesu to attend to the curing of the new building. A1’s wife complained to A1 that the deceased directed her to attend to the watering of the school building under construction and A1 took it as an insult. On 04.08.2004 morning the deceased went to Gooty town on some personal work and at about 4.00 p.m. when the deceased and PW.4 were going near Gandhi Statue in Gooty on a two wheeler, A1 stopped them and questioned the deceased as to why he asked his wife to attend to watering of the new school building and warned the deceased that he will kill them if they asked A1’s wife to attend to watering the new school building. On the same day night at about 7.00 p.m. the women folk of deceased and women folk of accused were altercating about A1 quarreling with deceased in public in Gooty town. At that time PWs.1 to 3 were present in front of the house of the deceased. A1 armed with a dagger, A2 armed with a spear, came there and A1 stabbed the deceased with the dagger on left side of abdomen and as a result intestines protruded. A3 caught hold of PW.1 and A2 hit him on the head of PW.1 with a spear and attempted to kill him. PW.1 received bleeding injury. PW.4 and others rushed to the spot to rescue PW.1 and A1 went away from the spot. A3 caught hold of PW.1 and A2 hit him on the head of PW.1 with a spear and attempted to kill him. PW.1 received bleeding injury. PW.4 and others rushed to the spot to rescue PW.1 and A1 went away from the spot. PW.1 and others shifted the deceased to the Government hospital, Gooty in an auto where the doctor declared him as brought dead. On receiving the medical intimation, PW.9 rushed to the hospital and recorded statement of PW.1 and registered the case in Cr.No.131 of 2004 under Sections 324, 307, 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and issued the FIR. Thereafter PW.10 took up the investigation and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body for autopsy. PW.8, the doctor, who conducted autopsy, opined that the deceased died due to trauma and heamorrhagic shock. The blood stained clothes of the deceased were seized and sent to RFSL and the Assistant Director of RFSL examined and detected human blood on the said clothes. On 20.08.2004 PW.11 arrested the accused near Nagasamudram cross and seized one dagger from A1, which was used in the commission of the offence under cover of panchanama in the presence of PW.6 and another and sent them to remand. After completion of the investigation, PW.11 has filed the charge sheet against the accused. 4. The Sessions Judge has framed the charges under Sections 324, 307, 302 read with Section 34 of IPC against the all accused and all the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charges. 5. The prosecution in order to establish the said charges, examined PWs.1 to 11, got marked Exs.P-1 to P-9 and MOs.1 to 6. No oral or documentary evidence was produced on behalf of the accused in defence. 6. Taking into consideration of said oral and documentary evidence, the Sessions Judge found A1 guilty for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. A2 is found guilty for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and A3 is found guilty for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and both of them were convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each. A2 is found guilty for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and A3 is found guilty for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and both of them were convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each. 7. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed. 8. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution could establish the charge under Section 302 of IPC against A1, Section 323 of IPC against A2 and Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC against A3 beyond reasonable doubt? POINT: 9. The appellants’ counsel has pleaded that the prosecution has failed to establish the alleged motive for the commission of the offence and there is no explanation for the second injury found on the dead body of the deceased by PW.8 and the alleged eye witnesses PWs.1 to 3 are related to the deceased, as such they are interested witnesses and as such their evidence cannot be relied upon. He further pleaded that the presence of PW.4 at Gooty along with PW.2 is doubtful and as such the trial Court has committed an error in convicting the accused for the above said charges. 10. The Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has pleaded that even though PWs.1 to 3 are related to the deceased, they are the probable witnesses present at the time of incident as such their evidence cannot be discarded and PW.4 is an independent witness, who was present along with PW.2 at Gooty and also at the time of incident in the village. He further pleaded that the second injury found on the dead body of the deceased is only scratches and they might have been occurred during the attack made by A1 on the deceased and non-explanation of the same is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. 11. He further pleaded that the second injury found on the dead body of the deceased is only scratches and they might have been occurred during the attack made by A1 on the deceased and non-explanation of the same is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. 11. According to the prosecution, there are misunderstandings between the accused family and the deceased family prior to the commission of the offence and PW.1’s wife was elected as Sarpanch of P.Yerragudi village and A1’s wife is working as Ayah in the local elementary school and the deceased was supervising the newly constructed school building and as the PW.2 has instructed A1’s wife to attend to the watering work of the school building under construction, A1 felt insulted and attacked on the deceased. 12. PWs.1 to 3, who are the brothers and wife of the deceased respectively, have stated about the disputes with regard to PW.1’s wife electing as Sarpanch of the village and the accused supporting the rival candidate in the said election and as such there are disputes in between them but as admitted by PW.10, PWs.1 to 3 have not spoken the said fact in their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the said evidence with regard to the enmity due to Sarpanch elections is an omission in their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and an improvement made before the Court. Therefore, the said motive was not established by the prosecution. 13. The next aspect with regard to motive is that, the PW.2 demanded A1’s wife to pour water for curing of the newly constructed school building, due to which A1 got annoyed and quarreled with the PW.2 at Gooty. According to PW.1, who is the brother of the deceased, his brother asked the wife of A1 to pour water to the building under construction for curing on which A1 became angry and felt insulted. On 04.08.2004 at about 6.30 p.m. his deceased brother and another brother Ramaiah and women folk were at the foundation laid by him. The deceased was at his house, when PW.2 came to them and informed about A1 reprimanded him at Gooty for directing his wife to pour water on the new construction, the incident has occurred. 14. PW.2, who is another brother of the deceased, has supported the version of PW.1. The deceased was at his house, when PW.2 came to them and informed about A1 reprimanded him at Gooty for directing his wife to pour water on the new construction, the incident has occurred. 14. PW.2, who is another brother of the deceased, has supported the version of PW.1. According to him on 04.08.2004 he directed the wife of A1 to pour water on the new constructed building in the school premises as she was pouring water since two days prior to that date. But on that day A1’s wife refused to pour water. This was informed by the women members of his family. Then he came to Gooty after instructing the son of PW.3 to pour water. Himself and PW.4 came to Gooty on TVS moped and after completion of work, they were planning to go to village at 4.00 p.m. When they were at Gooty on Guntakal road, A1 came across and stopped the Moped and abused him in filthy language for directing his wife to pour water on the new construction and further threatened that he would kill him and his brothers if they direct his wife to pour water on the new constructions and there was an altercation between him and A1 and PW.6 and others intervened and separated them. 15. PW.3, who is the wife of the deceased, also supported the version of PWs.1 and 2 with regard to PW.2’s directing A1’s wife to pour water on the newly constructed school building and PW.2 informing them about the quarrel that took place between him and A1 at Gooty. 16. PW.4 is the locality person, who accompanied PW.2 to Gooty, also supported the version of PW.2 with regard to the quarrel that took place between PW.2 and A1 at Gooty with regard to PW.2’s directing the wife of A1 to pour water on the new construction and according to him, he intervened and separated them and thereafter they came back to the village. 17. Therefore, the motive for the commission of the offence that A1 got annoyed when PW.2 directed his wife to pour water on the newly constructed school building, and a quarrel took place between them at Gooty in that regard, was established by the prosecution from the evidence of PWs.2 and 4. 17. Therefore, the motive for the commission of the offence that A1 got annoyed when PW.2 directed his wife to pour water on the newly constructed school building, and a quarrel took place between them at Gooty in that regard, was established by the prosecution from the evidence of PWs.2 and 4. Even though the prosecution could not establish about the previous enmity between the accused family and the deceased family with regard to the Sarpanch elections, they could establish the quarrel that took place between PW.2 and A1 at Gooty with regard to his directing the wife of A1 to pour water and A1 threatening PW.2 to kill him and his brothers. 18. With regard to the occurrence of the incident, the incident has taken place on 04.08.2004 at 6.30 p.m. near the house of the deceased. PW.1 has categorically stated that on 04.08.2004 at 6.30 p.m., the brother of the deceased, PW.2 and women folk were at the foundation laid by him and PW.2 came there and informed them about A1 reprimanding him at Gooty for directing his wife to pour water to the new construction. Their women folk were questioning the women folk of accused as to why PW.2 was cheded at Gooty and an altercation took place in between them. Then A1 to A3 came from the house of A1 and A1 was armed with a dagger, A2 was armed with spear and A3 was armed with a pipe. All of them went upon the house of deceased. A1 stabbed the deceased on the stomach with a dagger on the left side saying that ‘kill him bastered’. When he went to the rescue of the deceased, A3 caught hold of him from behind, A2 pocked with spear on his forehead and he made an attempt to avoid attack and the blow slipped near his forehead and he sustained bleeding injury. When he raised cries, Pothulaiah, Kadirappa and other villagers came to the scene of offence and intervened and separated them then the accused ran away and thereafter himself, PWs.2 and 4 took the deceased in an auto to the Government hospital, where the doctor declared him as dead. Thereafter, the police came to the hospital and recorded his statement and Ex.P-1 is the statement, which contains his signature. Thereafter, the police came to the hospital and recorded his statement and Ex.P-1 is the statement, which contains his signature. PW.2 is the other brother of the deceased and he was also an eye witness to the incident and he also supported the version of PW.1 with regard to A1 attacking the deceased with a dagger and stabbing him on his stomach and when PW.1 tried to rescue the deceased, A3 caught hold of him and A1 pocked spear and it slipped and fell on his head. PW.3, who is the wife of the deceased, was also an eye witness to the incident and she supported the version of PWs.1 and 2 with regard to the attack made by A1 on deceased and A2 and A3 on PW.1. 19. According to PW.9, the Sub-Inspector of Police, on 04.08.2004 at 8.30 p.m. he received medical admission intimation and also the death intimation from the Government hospital, Gooty and he made a G.D. entry and went to the hospital and secured the presence of PW.1 and also noticed the dead body of the deceased in the hospital. He recorded statement of PW.1 and returned to police station and registered the case in Cr.No.131 of 2004 under Sections 324, 307 and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. In Ex.P-1 also PW.1 has stated the same facts as stated by him with regard to the overt acts of the accused. 20. The investigating officer, PW.10, stated that after receiving of the FIR, he went to the village and searched for the accused but they were absconding. On the next day, he went to Government hospital and found the dead body of the deceased in the mortuary and conducted inquest in the presence of PW.5 and another. PW.5, the mediator for the inquest, has stated about PW.10 holding the inquest on the dead body of the deceased and they observed an injury on the left side of the stomach of the deceased and they opined that the deceased appears to have died of stab injury. In Ex.P-2 inquest report also, it was mentioned that the deceased died due to stab injury. 21. PW.8 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found two external injuries, which are as under: 1. In Ex.P-2 inquest report also, it was mentioned that the deceased died due to stab injury. 21. PW.8 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found two external injuries, which are as under: 1. A perforaged injury of 2” x ½” x 3” depth over the left iliac fossa with petrusion of intestines outside. 2. Small leniar multiple abrasions of varying size 4” x ½“ on the left upper arm on lateral aspect. He opined that the deceased died due to huge trauma and heamorrhagic shock. Therefore, from the above evidence, the prosecution could establish that the death of the deceased is a homicidal death. 22. With regard to the accused causing the said injuries to the deceased, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, who are eye witnesses to the incident, whose evidence with regard to the specific overt acts of the accused was stood unrebutted in the cross-examination clearly establishes that A1 stabbed the deceased with a spear on the left side of the stomach and the same was also supported by the independent witness, PW.4. Therefore, the prosecution could establish that A1 stabbed the deceased with a dagger on the left side of the stomach due to which the intestines have come out and the deceased has declared dead when he was shifted to the hospital. Therefore, the death of the deceased occurred due to injury caused by A1. 23. The appellants’ counsel has pleaded that there is no intention for A1 to cause the death of the deceased but it is only occurred in a spur of moment due to quarrel between the women folk and as such he cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. 23. The appellants’ counsel has pleaded that there is no intention for A1 to cause the death of the deceased but it is only occurred in a spur of moment due to quarrel between the women folk and as such he cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision reported in Jawahar Lal and another v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1983 SC 284 ), wherein the Apex Court has observed as under: “Where the accused, the immature boy aged about 19 years, in the background of the trivial quarrel, with “A”, had given a solitary blow of knife to the deceased which fell on his chest, the accused had no malice against the deceased, he had no quarrel with the deceased and the accused did not make any attempt at giving second blow in the dim light available at the time of occurrence, the accused could not be said to have intention to cause that particular injury. Even if the injury proved to be fatal, the case would not be covered by S.300, Para 3. However, since the accused could be attributed the knowledge that he was likely to cause death, the accused could be convicted under Sec.304, Part II and not under S. 302.” 24. The other decision relied upon by the appellants’ counsel is Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1983 SC 463 ), wherein the Apex Court held as follows: “Sudden quarrel on spur of moment arising out of trivial reason on chance meeting of parties and when there is no premeditation or malice, a young man caused single blow by a knife on the chest of the victim causing his death. Intention to cause death or causing particular injury could not be imputed to him, but his knowledge that he was likely to cause injury which was likely to cause death could however, be inferred and hence the act of the accused will fall under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and not under Section 302 of IPC.” In the present case, as per the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, PW.1 after returning from Gooty informed about the attack made by A1 on him at Gooty and the women folk of the deceased and the accused were quarrelling in that regard and at that time A1 to A3 came out of the house and A1 stabbed the deceased with a dagger on the left side of the stomach. PW.2 has stated that when the quarrel took place at Gooty, the accused threatened him that he would kill him and his brothers if they direct his wife to pour water on the newly constructed school building. But the said fact was not stated by PW.4, who was present along with PW.2 at the time of the said incident. Therefore, it cannot be said that A1 has to a pre-determined to cause the death of the deceased. But in view of the fact that A1 coming to scene of offence and stabbing the deceased on the left side of the stomach with dagger shows that A1 has prepared to cause injury to the deceased but no intention to cause death, but he has got knowledge that causing injury with a dagger would likely to cause the death of the deceased. Therefore, in view of the decisions referred to above, the act of A1 in causing injury on the left side of the stomach, would fall under Section 304 Part-II of IPC but not under Section 302 of IPC. 25. With regard to the offence under Sections 323 of IPC against A2 and Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC against A3, PWs.1 to 3 have specifically stated about A3 catching hold of the deceased and A2 was trying to stab PW.1 and it hit on his head and the same was also supported by the independent evidence of PW.4 and the doctor, PW.7, who examined PW.1. Thus, the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and 4 is supported by the evidence of the doctor, PW.7, who found a lacerated injury over the frontal area at the centre size ¼ x 3” bone deep and he opined that the injury could be caused with a blunt object and it is simple in nature. 26. Therefore, in the above circumstances, the trial Court has rightly convicted A2 for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and A3 for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of IPC. Thus, the prosecution could establish the said charges framed against the A2 and A3. 27. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of A1 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC is modified to that of Section 304 Part-II of IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for life is modified to that of rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years, and the sentence of fine imposed against A1 and the conviction and sentence passed against A2 and A3 in S.C.No.156 of 2005 by the VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Anantapur on 17.11.2008, are hereby confirmed.