JUDGMENT Mr. S. NAGAMUTHU, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No. 192 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli. He stood charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC. By judgment dated 5.1.2005, the trial Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court, with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- (i) The deceased in this case was one Selvaraj. The accused is his brother. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased and P.W.2 is the daughter of the deceased. P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased as well as the accused. The deceased and the accused were living in a common roof but in different portions of the said house. The ancestral properties had already been partitioned orally between the accused and the deceased but the electricity service connection for the agricultural purpose continued to stand in the name of the father of the accused. It is alleged that without the knowledge of the deceased, the accused changed the same in his name. Because of the said dispute, there had been frequent quarrels and as a result, they were inimical towards each other. (ii) While so, on 26.3.2004, at 7.00 p.m., the deceased, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were in their house. At that time, the deceased shouted at P.W.1 as to how she could be unware of the fact that the electricity service connection had been stealthily transferred in the name of the accused. The accused was in the same house in a different portion. On hearing the above quarrel and the abrasive language used, the accused got provoked and he ran from his portion of the house armed with “Kutthu Eetti” in his hand and by that time, the accused had gone in front of his house. The accused stabbed the deceased on the right side of chest with Kutthu Eetti. The deceased fell down with bleeding injury. The accused ran away from the place of occurrence with the weapon. The occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.1 to 3. The accused stabbed the deceased on the right side of chest with Kutthu Eetti. The deceased fell down with bleeding injury. The accused ran away from the place of occurrence with the weapon. The occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.1 to 3. (iii) Immediately, after the occurrence, P.W.1 went to Vaiyampatti Police station and preferred a complaint at 10.00 p.m., on 26.3.2004. P.W.6, then Inspector of Police, attached to Vaiyampatti Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 65 of 2004 under Section 302 IPC. Exhibit P-1 is the complaint and Exhibit P-13 is the FIR. (iv) P.W.6 then proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch in the presence of P.W.5 and and another witness. He also recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence under Exhibit P-5 Mahazar in the presence of the same witnesses. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and prepared Exhibit P-15 Inquest Report and examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and a few more witnesses. Then, he forwarded the dead body for post-mortem. (v) P.W.4 Dr. Senthilvel was the Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital at Manapparai. He conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 27.3.2004 between 3.00 p.m. and 4.00 p.m., and found the following injuries:- “1 cm horizantally, 0.5 cm Vertically with 0.5 cm depth lacerated wound over the right 4th inter costal space with evidence of heamorrhage leaked from the wound with contusion around the wound. The wound was Present in the 4th space above the arcole in Midclavicular line.” Exhibit P-3 is the Post-Mortem Certificate. He opined that the deceased died due to stab injury. (vi) The accused surrendered before the Court. On 8.4.2004, P.W.6 took custody of the accused on the orders of the learned jurisdictional Magistrate. At 8.30 a.m., on 8.4.2004, while under police custody at the Police Station, the accused gave a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden Kutthu Eetti (MO.1). In pursuance of the same, he took P.W.6, P.W.5 and another witness to the said place at 6.30 a.m., and produced Kutthu Eetti (MO.1). He recovered the same under mahazar in the presence of P.W.5 and another witness. (vii) Then, P.W.6 collected the dress materials found on the dead body of the deceased and forwarded the same to the Court. In pursuance of the same, he took P.W.6, P.W.5 and another witness to the said place at 6.30 a.m., and produced Kutthu Eetti (MO.1). He recovered the same under mahazar in the presence of P.W.5 and another witness. (vii) Then, P.W.6 collected the dress materials found on the dead body of the deceased and forwarded the same to the Court. On the request made by P.W.6, the Material Objects were subjected to chemical examination. Exhibit P-19 is the chemical analysis report wherein it is stated that no blood was found on Kutthu Eetti (MO.1). Blood was found on the dress materials and bloodstained earth recovered from the place of occurrence. On completing the investigation, P.W.6 laid charge sheet against the accused. 3. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charge under Sections 302 IPC against the accused. The accused pleaded innocence. In order to establish the charge, the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses and marked 20 documents besides 5 Materials Objects. 4. Out of the above witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 3 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.Ws.1 and 2 have vividly spoken to about the entire occurrence. P.W.3, the mother of the deceased, however, turned hostile. She has not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.4 has spoken to about the injury found on the deceased which resulted in the death. The others are official witnesses. 5. When the above incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false. However, he did not choose to examine any witness nor mark any documents. 6. Having considered the above materials, the trial Court found the accused guilty under Section 302 IPC and accordingly, punished him. This is how the accused is before this Court. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the records carefully. 8. As we have already pointed out, the prosecution mainly relies on the eye-witness account of P.W.1 and P.W.2 but the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 deserves only to be disbelieved for more than one reason, according to him. 8. As we have already pointed out, the prosecution mainly relies on the eye-witness account of P.W.1 and P.W.2 but the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 deserves only to be disbelieved for more than one reason, according to him. It is the consistent evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that the occurrence had taken place inside the house of the deceased, but according to the Observation Mahazar, the dead body was found 15 feet away from the place of occurrence. This, according to the learned counsel, is a material contradiction which belies the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. 9. Nextly, the learned counsel would submit that from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, in respect of the manner of occurrence also, there is material contradiction. According to the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, P.W.1 was also attacked by the deceased whereas no injury was found on P.W.1 and she was not even sent to hospital. 10. Then, the learned counsel would submit that one police constable Mr. Subramani, who was a signatory to Exhibit P-1, has not been examined. 11. For these reasons, the learned counsel would submit that the accused is entitled for acquittal at the hands of this Court. In his concluding argument, the learned counsel would submit that even assuming that the evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2 could be believed, the act of the accused would be liable for punishment only under Section 304 (I) IPC. 12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would stoutly oppose this Criminal Appeal. The evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are natural and there are no contradiction also. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2. He would also submit that the contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel are immaterial and on that score the evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2 cannot be disbelieved. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are no materials to infer that the accused acted out of grave and sudden provocation. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court do not require any interference at the hands of this Court. 13. We have considered the above submissions. 14. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the wife and daughter respectively of the deceased. The time of occurrence time was 7.00 p.m.,. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court do not require any interference at the hands of this Court. 13. We have considered the above submissions. 14. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the wife and daughter respectively of the deceased. The time of occurrence time was 7.00 p.m.,. Therefore, it was quite natural that P.W.1 and P.W.2 would have been in their house at the crucial time. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have very vividly stated about the occurrence. Though they have been subjected to cross examination at length, nothing has been elicited from them which would make the evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2 at least doubtful. As a matter of fact, no material has been elicited from P.W.1 and P.W.2, in favour of the accused. Thus, evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2 clearly would go to show that it was this accused who caused injury found on the deceased. 15. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is contradiction in respect of the place of occurrence deserves only to be rejected. A perusal of the Observation Mahazar would go to show that the dead body was found just a few feet away from the entrance of the house. It does not mean that there is major contradiction in respect of the place of occurrence. Therefore, this argument is rejected. 16. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W.1 was not sent to hospital for treatment also deserves to be rejected because P.W.1 was not sent to hospital as there was no injury to her. Insofar as the non-examination of Subramani, in our considered view, it is immaterial. Therefore, we hold that the evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are believable and based on their evidences, we further hold that it was this accused who caused injury on the deceased. 17. P.W.4 Dr. Senthilvel who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased has stated that the death of the deceased was caused only by the stab injury. Thus, it has been clearly held that the death of the deceased was caused only by the accused and thus, it is a homicide. 18. Now, coming to the nature of the offence committed by the accused, we find some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. Thus, it has been clearly held that the death of the deceased was caused only by the accused and thus, it is a homicide. 18. Now, coming to the nature of the offence committed by the accused, we find some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. In our considered view, the act of the accused squarely falls within the 3rd limb of Section 300 IPC, which also falls within the first exception to Section 300 IPC. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that there was wordy quarrel between the deceased and P.W.1. The deceased was shouting at P.W.1 only referring to the accused in abrasive language. The accused was after all residing in the same house in the same roof. Therefore, on hearing the same, the accused would have been provoked. On hearing the provocative words uttered by the deceased, the accused had rushed to the portion where the deceased was residing and in the process he had stabbed the deceased. Apart from that, the accused did not cause any more injury after causing a lone injury on the deceased. In our considered opinion, the said act of the accused is due to the grave and sudden provocation caused by the deceased. Therefore, the act of the accused squarely falls within the first Exception to 300 IPC and so the accused is liable to be punished for the same under Section 304 (I) IPC. 19. Now, turning to the quantum of punishment, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that at the time of occurrence, the accused was 45 years old and he has 3 daughters and a son, besides his old mother. The accused is an agricultural coolie. He has to take care of the entire family. Apart from that, as we have already stated the occurrence is not out of any pre-meditation. Having regard to the above mitigating circumstances and also the aggravating circumstances such as the weapon used and the nature of the injury caused, we are of the view that imposing punishment of rigorous imprisonment for 7 years will meet the ends of justice. 20. Having regard to the above mitigating circumstances and also the aggravating circumstances such as the weapon used and the nature of the injury caused, we are of the view that imposing punishment of rigorous imprisonment for 7 years will meet the ends of justice. 20. In view of the above, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 302 IPC is set aside and instead, he is convicted under Section 304 (I) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks. The fine amount if paid already shall be accordingly, adjusted. The trial Court is directed to secure the presence of the accused and commit him in prison to undergo the remaining period of imprisonment. Appeal partly allowed.