JUDGMENT S. NAGAMUTHU, J. 1. The appellant is the accused in S.C. No. 527 of 2004, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai. Altogether, there were four accused in this case including this appellant. The second accused stood charged for an offence under Section 302 IPC and the third and the fourth stood charged for an offence under Section 302 IPC read with 109 IPC. The trial Court acquitted the accused 2 to 4 from the relevant charges against them. 2. So far as the appellant is concerned, the trial Court by judgment dated 6.1.2005 convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, this appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief would be as follows: 3.1. The deceased in this case were two in numbers. The deceased Madhavi was the daughter of the another deceased, namely, Maniammal. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, let us refer to the said Madhavi as D.1 and the said Maniammal as D.2. D.1 was given in marriage to one Karuppiah, the brother of the appellant herein. They have got a male child born out of their wedlock. After the birth of the child, due to misunderstanding between them, they were living separately. D.1 was working in the Primary Health Centre at Ucchampatti Village. Therefore, she was staying in Government Quarters at Ucchampatti Village. D.2 was the mother of D.1 and she was residing with her. The male child of D.1 was also with D.1. D.1’s brother is one Mohan (P.W.5). P.W.5 is a resident of Nadumuthalai Kulam, Othapatti Village. P.W.1 is the son of P.W.5. He was staying with his parents at Nadumuthalai Kulam, Othapatti Village. 3.2. During the relevant time of occurrence, P.W.1 was studying 12th standard in a School at Vikramangalam. 4.11.2002, was the day of Deepavali. On 3.11.2002, P.W.5 had requested P.W.1 to go over to Ucchampatti Village to bring D.1 and 2 and the child of D.1 also to Nadumuthalai Kulam, Othapatti Village to celebrate Deepavali with P.Ws.1 and 5. 3.2. During the relevant time of occurrence, P.W.1 was studying 12th standard in a School at Vikramangalam. 4.11.2002, was the day of Deepavali. On 3.11.2002, P.W.5 had requested P.W.1 to go over to Ucchampatti Village to bring D.1 and 2 and the child of D.1 also to Nadumuthalai Kulam, Othapatti Village to celebrate Deepavali with P.Ws.1 and 5. Accordingly, P.W.1 went to the house of the deceased, at about 4.00 p.m. D.1 and 2 told P.W.1 that they could go over to the house of P.W.5 on the next day. Therefore, at their request, P.W.1 stayed overnight at the house of the deceased. During the night, D.1 was sleeping in the room along with her child on a cot. P.W.1 was also sleeping in the same room. D.2 was sleeping in a different room. At about 11.45 p.m, somebody knocked at the doors of the house of the deceased. D.2 got up and opened the door. They found the appellant/first accused with another person entering into the house by force. Both were armed with knives. This appellant is the brother of Karuppiah the husband of D.1. 3.3. According to the case of the prosecution, the second accused was the one who accompanied the appellant. After entering into the house, this accused shouted at D.1 stating that she had brought shame to his family because of her illicit intimacy with someone else. So saying, he suddenly took out a knife and cut D.1 indiscriminately on her face and other parts of the body. D.2 tried to intervene. At that time, the second accused cut D.2 with a knife indiscriminately. P.W.1 was hiding under the cot. Out of fear, he did not raise any alarm. D.1 and D.2 died instantaneously. Thereafter, the accused 1 and 2 fled away from the scene of occurrence along with the weapons. 3.4. After the accused left the place of occurrence, P.W.1 came out of the house and cried for help. The villagers gathered. With the help of one Kali, P.W.1 proceeded to his village, and informed his father (P.W.5) about the occurrence. Thereafter, P.W.5 took him in his motorcycle to Sindupatti Police Station. At about 6.00 a.m. on 4.11.2002, P.W.1 preferred a complaint (Exhibit P-1) to P.W.13, the then Head constable attached to the said police station. The villagers gathered. With the help of one Kali, P.W.1 proceeded to his village, and informed his father (P.W.5) about the occurrence. Thereafter, P.W.5 took him in his motorcycle to Sindupatti Police Station. At about 6.00 a.m. on 4.11.2002, P.W.1 preferred a complaint (Exhibit P-1) to P.W.13, the then Head constable attached to the said police station. On the basis of the said complaint, registered a case in Crime No.119 of 2002 under Section 302 read with 109 IPC. In the complaint, P.W.1 had mentioned that the accused 1 and 2 had committed murder at the instigation of the accused 3 and 4. The third and the fourth accused are the father and the mother of the first accused. Therefore, the case was registered against all the four. P.W.13 forwarded Exhibit P-1 and the First Information Report-Exhibit P-8 to the jurisdictional Magistrate forthwith. Then, he handed over the case diary to P.W.14 for further investigation. 3.5. Taking up the case for investigation, P.W.14, the then Inspector of Police attached to the said police station proceeded to the place of occurrence and in the presence of P.W.8 and another witness, prepared an Observation Mahazar, Exhibit P-6 and also prepared Exhibit P-9, a rough sketch showing the place of occurrence. Then, he arranged for photographs being taken showing the place of occurrence, where the dead bodies were found. He recovered blood stained earth and sample earth (M.Os.3 and 4) respectively from the place of occurrence under Exhibit P-7 recovery Mahazar. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of D.1 and prepared Exhibit P-10 inquest report and he then conducted inquest on the body of D.2 and prepared Exhibit P-11 inquest report. During the inquest, he examined P.W.1 to 7 and recorded their statements. Then, he forwarded the bodies for post-mortem. 3.6. P.W.2, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Usilampatti, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 4.11.2002. She found the following injuries on the body of D.1: “External injuries: Bleeding discharge from the both nostrils, ear present. 1. A cut injury on the left chin, cheek extended on left ear 13x1cmx2cm bone deep. Fracture left mandible present fracture left maxilla bone present. 2. A cut injury on the left eye to left side fore head 10cmx1cmx2cm bone deep, fracture left frontal bone. 3. A cut injury on right chest 6x2cm bone deep fracture right mandible and right maxilla bone. Fracture left mandible present fracture left maxilla bone present. 2. A cut injury on the left eye to left side fore head 10cmx1cmx2cm bone deep, fracture left frontal bone. 3. A cut injury on right chest 6x2cm bone deep fracture right mandible and right maxilla bone. 4. Cut injury on the right forehead 4x1x1 bone deep. (not bony injury). 5. Cut injury on the left side neck to accipital region 6x2cmx1cm fracture left occipital bone. Hyoid intact: Trachea midline chest: Ribs normal. No fracture Heart pale. Chambers empty. Lung. Pale. Thoraxic Cavity empty. Adbomden: Stomach pale. Contains undigested food matter rice present 100ml of struchord. Intestine kidney, Liver, Spleen Pale. Bladder Pale. Empty. uterus (sic) normal and pale cavity empty. Liver and spleen normal. External Genetalia Spinal Column normal Hear: Fracture of frontal bone. fracture both mandible fracture both maxilla, fracture accipital bone. Brain Pale. Mucosa-normal. Brain fracture and bone occipital region.” Exhibit P-2 is the Post-mortem Certificate wherein, she has opined that the the death was due to shock and hemorrhage and also due to injuries on the body of the deceased. 3.7. Then, she conducted autopsy on the body of D.2 and found the following injuries on the deceased: “External injuries: 1. A cut injury on the left arm 6x1xbone deep. Fracture of left humer bone middle 1/3. 2. A cut injury on left axilla, 3x1x1 cm 3. A Stabe injury on the left hypochondrium 3x1x6cm 4. Stab injury on left chest 5th rib level fracture left 5th rib 3x5xbone deep. No (nc) injury. Neck: Hyoid intack, Thrachea midline. Thorax: Ribs fracture present. Left 5th rib. Thoraxic cavity filled with blood out 300ml (unclotted) Lungs pale. Left lung injured lowbel injury on the middle. Heart-pale Chambers empty. Abdomal cavity. All organ pale(nc) Stomach contains undigest food materials with 200ml of struchord fluid present. 500ml of undiluted blood present into(nc) cavity kidneys. Liver spleen pale. Intestine pale. Uterus pale (nc) Pale Bladder empty pale. Heart: No external injury. No internal injury. Brain-pale. Brain with in the (nc) Menings intact. Spinal Column intact.” Exhibit P-3 is the Post-mortem Certificate in respect of D.2. The Doctor opined that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage and also due to the cumulative effect of the injuries found on the body of D.2. 3.8. Heart: No external injury. No internal injury. Brain-pale. Brain with in the (nc) Menings intact. Spinal Column intact.” Exhibit P-3 is the Post-mortem Certificate in respect of D.2. The Doctor opined that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage and also due to the cumulative effect of the injuries found on the body of D.2. 3.8. Turning back to the investigation conducted by P.W.14, on 5.11.2002, he arrested the fourth accused at Karumattur bus stop. She was sent to Court for judicial remand. On 6.11.2002, he arrested the first accused at Nattarmangalam Karupu Kovil, in the presence of P.W.9 and another witness. On such arrest, he made a voluntary confession which was reduced into writing by P.W.14. In the said confession statement, he disclosed the place, where he had hidden the weapons. Exhibit P-12 is the admitted portion of the statement. Based on the same, he took the police to Sakkaraipatti to a sugarcane field belonging to one Ilango, from where, he produced M.Os.1 and 2. P.W.14, recovered the same under Exhibit P-13 in the presence of the same witnesses. Then, he forwarded the first accused to the Court for judicial remand. The second accused surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Madurai, on 6.11.2002. Then, he examined few more witnesses on 9.11.2002. On 12.11.2002, he gave a request to the Court for holding identification parade in respect of the second accused. 3.9. On 20.12.2002, P.W.3, the then Judicial Magistrate No. VII conducted identification parade in the Central Prison, Madurai. In the said identification parade, the second accused was identified by P.W.1. Exhibit P-5 is the record relating to the identification parade conducted by P.W.3. P.W.14 further proceeded with the investigation. He examined the accused 2 and 3 and recorded their statements. On completing the investigation, he laid a charge sheet on 26.12.2002 against all the accused. 3.10. Based on the above materials, charges were framed as described in the first paragraph of this judgment. All the accused denied the charges. Therefore, they were put on trial. During the trial, on the side of the prosecution as many as 14 witnesses were examined and 13 documents were exhibited. Of the said witnesses, P.W.1 is the only eyewitness to the alleged occurrence. P.W.5, the father of D.1, has spoken to about the motive. All the accused denied the charges. Therefore, they were put on trial. During the trial, on the side of the prosecution as many as 14 witnesses were examined and 13 documents were exhibited. Of the said witnesses, P.W.1 is the only eyewitness to the alleged occurrence. P.W.5, the father of D.1, has spoken to about the motive. When the Trial Court examined the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the incriminating evidences available against them, they denied the same as false. Thereafter, on the side of the accused, one Ponnusamy was examined as D.W.1. In his evidence, he has stated that the matrimonial dispute between Karuppiah and D.1 was discussed in a Panchayat on 4.1.1998. In the said Panchayat, D.W.1 participated and the matrimonial dispute was amicably settled, by which they got customary separation. Therefore, according to D.W.1, after 4.1.1998, the said Karuppiah had no grudge against D.1. Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court acquitted all the accused except this appellant and sentenced him in respect of the death of D.1 as stated above. That is how, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. We have also perused the records carefully. 5. At the outset, before going into the grounds raised in this appeal, we would like to record our displeasure over the way in which the charges have been framed in this case. It could be seen from the records that the accused 3 and 4 were not present at the time and the place of occurrence. They had no actual participation in the alleged occurrence. However, during the investigation, materials were collected that A.1 was instigated by A.3 and 4 to do away with the deceased. Therefore, the trial Court was right in framing the charges under Section 302 read with.109 IPC against the accused 3 and 4. 6. So far as the A.1 and 2 are concerned, in our considered opinion, the trial Court had failed to bestow its attention, while framing charges. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused 1 and 2 barged into the house together. Both were armed with dangerous weapons with a common intention to commit murder. 6. So far as the A.1 and 2 are concerned, in our considered opinion, the trial Court had failed to bestow its attention, while framing charges. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused 1 and 2 barged into the house together. Both were armed with dangerous weapons with a common intention to commit murder. From the fact that they went together, both were armed with dangerous weapons, the time chosen, and that both the deceased were killed in the same transaction, it could be prima facie found that both the accused entered into the house with a common intention to commit the murder. Of course, as per the case of the prosecution, the first accused attacked D.1 alone and not D.2. When the first accused attacked D.1, D.2 intervened and attempted to prevent further attack of D.1. At that time, the second accused attacked D.2 indiscriminately with a deadly weapon. Due to the said injuries, both of them died instantaneously. Thus, both D.1 and 2 died in the very same transaction. If that be so, it is easily inferable that both the accused 1 and 2 had common intention and therefore, the trial Court should have framed proper charges against both the accused invoking Section 34 IPC. In fact, the trial Court ought to have framed the charges against the first accused on two counts under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. Similarly, against the second accused also, the trial Court should have framed charges under Section 302 read with.34 IPC for two counts. But, unfortunately, the trial Court had framed a charge against the first accused under Section 302 IPC simplicitor in respect of the death caused to D.1 and as against the second accused, a charge under Section 302 IPC simplicitor in respect of the death of D.2. Apart from that, there was no charge framed for the house trespass made by the accused for the purpose of committing the heinous crime of murder. Because of the above improper charges framed, now the first accused cannot be dealt with in respect of the death caused to D.2. As mentioned earlier, the appellant/first accused stands convicted under Section 302 IPC (single count) only in respect of the death of D.1 and there is no conviction for him in respect of the death of D.2 as though he had nothing to do with the death of D.2. As mentioned earlier, the appellant/first accused stands convicted under Section 302 IPC (single count) only in respect of the death of D.1 and there is no conviction for him in respect of the death of D.2 as though he had nothing to do with the death of D.2. The second accused Pandi, who stands acquitted fully, should have been held constructively liable for punishment for the death of D.1 provided his presence and participation has been proved. Because the second accused has been acquitted and no appeal has been preferred challenging the same, we are not able to deal with the case against the second accused. 7. Now, coming to the grounds raised in this appeal, as we have already stated, the prosecution relies only on the evidence of P.W.1, who claims to be an eyewitness to the entire occurrence. P.W.5 has spoken to about the motive, which is not very seriously disputed by the appellant. Sofar as the eyewitness account of P.W.1 is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant would seriously assail the very presence of P.W.1 at the time of occurrence. He would submit that P.W.1 would not have been there at the house at all which could be known from his conduct. He would further point out, had it been true that P.W.1 was present at the time of occurrence, it would have been quite natural for him to raise alarm, when two persons belonging to his family were indiscriminately cut by the accused. Per contra, P.W.1 kept mum. According to the learned counsel, it would only go to show that P.W.1 would not have been an eye witness to the alleged occurrence. 8. Nextly, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that after the occurrence, P.W.1 proceeded to his village with the help of one Kali. However, the said Kali has not been examined by the prosecution. This, according to the learned counsel, is a very serious flaw. After going over to his house, he along with his father P.W.5, proceeded to the police station and preferred the compliant. Thus, there is an inordinate delay in preferring the complaint. In the meanwhile, according to the learned counsel, P.W.1 would have been tutored, and out of deliberation, Exhibit P-1 would have been drafted. After going over to his house, he along with his father P.W.5, proceeded to the police station and preferred the compliant. Thus, there is an inordinate delay in preferring the complaint. In the meanwhile, according to the learned counsel, P.W.1 would have been tutored, and out of deliberation, Exhibit P-1 would have been drafted. Thus, Exhibit P-1 cannot be true a document at all and therefore, much reliance cannot be made on the evidence of P.W.1, he contended. Further, he would point out that P.W.1 was not examined during inquest by the investigating officer. Had it been true that P.W.1 was an eyewitness to the occurrence, he would have been examined by the investigating officer. The non-examination of P.W.1 by the investigating officer, according to the learned counsel, creates a doubt about the evidence of P.W.1. 9. Nextly, the learned counsel would contend that M.Os.1 and 2 were not sent for chemical examination. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the relevance of M.Os.1 and 2 with the crime has not been established. 10. Lastly, the learned counsel would submit that there are material contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 in respect of the individual overt acts of the accused 1 and 2. He would point out that P.W.1 identified A.2, as one of the assailants, at the time of the identification parade, however, before the Court, he had not identified him. The learned counsel would contend that that this is a point in favour of the first accused as well. 11. For all the above reasons, the learned counsel for the appellant would pray for the acquittal of the accused. 12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently oppose this appeal. According to him, P.W.1’s presence at the place of occurrence is quite natural and probable and there is no reason to reject the very presence of P.W.1 at the place of occurrence. He would point out that the non-examination of the said Kali would not in any manner shake the credibility of the evidence of P.W.1. He would further point out that there is no delay in preferring the complaint. Therefore, the question of deliberation does not arise at all. He would further submit that non-sending of M.Os.1 and 2 for chemical examination is not a very serious flaw, and the same would not destroy the case of the prosecution, in any manner. He would further point out that there is no delay in preferring the complaint. Therefore, the question of deliberation does not arise at all. He would further submit that non-sending of M.Os.1 and 2 for chemical examination is not a very serious flaw, and the same would not destroy the case of the prosecution, in any manner. Sofar as the overt acts are concerned, he would contend the contradictions which are pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant are very trivial in nature which would not in any way cause any dent in the case of the prosecution. He concluded his argument by saying that the prosecution has proved the entire case beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, according to him, the conviction and the sentence imposed on the appellant should be confirmed in respect of the charges framed against him. He would also submit that the trial Court ought to have framed charges by invoking Section 34 IPC. But, it omitted to do so. However, this would not in any manner be a ground to acquit the accused from the charges levelled against him. 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. We have also perused the records carefully. 14. As we have already pointed out, in respect of the motive, there has been no much dispute raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, D.1 was residing separately and there was no love-last between her and her husband. There were allegations that D.1 was having illicit intimacy with someone else, which had brought shame to the family of the accused. The first accused is the brother of the husband of D.1. It is because of this motive, according to the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place. However, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, because of this motive, this appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. Thus, the fact remains that there was enough motive between the parties and the same has been clearly established by the prosecution. 15. Now, coming to the occurrence, the prosecution has relied only on the eyewitness account of P.W.1. It is not the law that the evidence of a solitary witness should always be either disbelieved or discarded. The true test is its reliability. 15. Now, coming to the occurrence, the prosecution has relied only on the eyewitness account of P.W.1. It is not the law that the evidence of a solitary witness should always be either disbelieved or discarded. The true test is its reliability. If the evidence of the solitary witness inspires the confidence of the Court and there is no doubt regarding the truthfulness of the said evidence, then there can be no legal embargo to base conviction, solely, on such evidence. In the case on hand, the evidence of P.W.1 is assailed mainly on the ground that he would not have been present at the place of occurrence. In support of his arguments, as we have already narrated, the learned counsel submitted that the contact of P.W.1 is highly unnatural. But, we do not find any substance in the said argument. Ofcourse, at the time when the occurrence was in progress, P.W.1 did not raise any alarm at all. This has been explained by P.W.1 during cross-examination. He has stated that out of fear that he could also be killed by the armed assailants, he was hiding under the cot and did not raise any alarm. Immediately, after the assailants left the place of occurrence, he raised alarm and came out of the house and informed the villagers. This conduct of P.W.1 cannot be stated to be unnatural. In our considered opinion, it is quite natural. After that, he had gone to his house with the help of one Kali. Non-examination of the said Kali will in no way affect credibility of the evidence of P.W.1. After reaching his house, without any delay, he went to the police station along with his father and preferred the complaint. The said compliant was registered at 6.00 a.m. itself. The First Information Report was received by the learned Judicial Magistrate at 9.00 a.m. Thus, there is no delay in preferring the complaint. But, the learned counsel would contend that the First Information Report was received by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned only at 9.00 a.m., which, according to him, creates doubt in the case of the prosecution. But, the fact remains that even before the First Information Report could reach the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, inquest was completed, body was sent for post-mortem along with the request to the Government Hospital with the history of the case, which contains all the above details. But, the fact remains that even before the First Information Report could reach the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, inquest was completed, body was sent for post-mortem along with the request to the Government Hospital with the history of the case, which contains all the above details. Therefore, though there is a delay in the First Information Report and the complaint being forwarded to the Court, on that ground, in the instant case, we cannot hold that the First Information Report would not have come into existence at 6.00 a.m. We hold that Exhibit P-1 would have come into being at 6.00 a.m. without any delay and therefore, there can be no initial doubt in the case of the prosecution. 16. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that during the inquest, P.W.1 was not examined. This argument is based on the evidence of P.W.1 during cross-examination. But, the fact remains that he was examined at the time of inquest. May be during his cross-examination, P.W.1 has stated that he was not examined during inquest. It may be due to fading memory. But, on this account, we cannot hold that during inquest he was not examined and therefore, his evidence is liable to be rejected. 17. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there are material contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1, in respect of the overt acts. He would point out that in his chief examination P.W.1 has stated that D.1 was cut on her face indiscriminately by this appellant. But, in the First Information Report, it has not been specifically stated that D.1 was cut by this appellant on her face indiscriminately. In our considered opinion, this so called contradiction that P.W.1 has not stated in Exhibit P-1 cannot be made use of, because, P.W.1 was not contradicted on this aspect as required under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, it is not available for the appellant to make any argument stating that there is such contradiction. Assuming that there is contradiction, still, as the contradiction is a minor contradiction, the same will not cause any harm to the case of the prosecution. 18. Nextly, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that M.Os.1 and 2 were not sent for chemical examination. It is true that normally M.Os.1 and 2 should have been subjected to chemical examination. 18. Nextly, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that M.Os.1 and 2 were not sent for chemical examination. It is true that normally M.Os.1 and 2 should have been subjected to chemical examination. But, in this case, it was not done. Of course, it is an infirmity. But, this will not in any manner cause any damage to the case of the prosecution. The purpose of sending the weapons for chemical examination is to prove the connection between the weapon and the crime by getting a report from the expert that there is human blood found on the weapon which tallies with the blood group of the deceased. But, in the case on hand, the relevance of M.Os.1 and 2 has been established by the prosecution through P.W.1. Infact, P.W.1 has identified the weapon, which were used by the accused in the occurrence. In such view of the matter, the non-sending of M.Os.1 and 2 for chemical examination has not caused any dint in the case of the prosecution. 19. The learned counsel would strenuously contend that due to previous motive the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. Of course, as we have already pointed out motive is a double edged weapon. Simply, because there was motive, it cannot be concluded that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the case. Therefore, this argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is rejected. 20. Having made a scientific analysis of all the materials available on record, we are forced to hold that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts. As per law, this accused should have been convicted under Section 302 IPC for two counts by invoking Section 34 IPC. Since there was no charge as against this accused in respect of the death caused to D.2, he now stands unduly benefited. Therefore, we are constrained to confirm the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant in respect of death caused to D.1. But, at the same time, in respect of fine amount, having regard to the family background of the accused and all the other attending circumstances, we are inclined to reduce the fine amount imposed on the appellant to Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees Thousand Only) in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. 21. But, at the same time, in respect of fine amount, having regard to the family background of the accused and all the other attending circumstances, we are inclined to reduce the fine amount imposed on the appellant to Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees Thousand Only) in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. 21. In the result, this criminal appeal is partly allowed in the following terms: (i) The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 302 IPC is confirmed and the substantive sentence of imprisonment for life is also confirmed. (ii) The fine amount of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on the appellant is reduced to Rs. 1,000/- and in default, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. (iii) The bail bond shall stand discharged and the trial Court shall take steps to secure the the appellant and commit him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence. Appeal partly allowed.