JUDGMENT : B.R. Gavai, J. 1. Present appeal takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Trial No. 87 of 2011 thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 452 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine, to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The prosecution story in nutshell as could be gathered from the material placed on record is thus:- On 2.3.2011 at around 5 p.m., the first informant P.W. 1 Lata, an aunt of the deceased, heard the commotion from the backside of her house. Therefore, she along with her daughter Ankita went outside. They saw the altercation was going on in between Sunil, the nephew of P.W. 1 Lata and accused Anil. At that time, wife of the accused informed him that Sunil loves their daughter. The accused got provoked and brought a knife from the house and rushed towards Sunil to assault him. Due to that Sunil entered into the house of P.W. 1 by running. However, the accused entered in the house of Lata and dragged Sunil out of the house and gave a blow of knife on the left lateral side of chest. Sunil went towards the field of Prakash Wankhede, however, accused chased him. Lata and Uttam also followed them. The accused again dealt a blow of knife on the neck of Sunil due to which he collapsed. Thereafter the accused went away. On the basis of the oral report of Lata, first information report came to be registered vide Crime No. 11 of 2011. The investigation was set into motion. At the conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hinganghat. However, as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the same came to be committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Wardha. 2. The learned trial Judge framed the charge. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant/accused as aforesaid. However, as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the same came to be committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Wardha. 2. The learned trial Judge framed the charge. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant/accused as aforesaid. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed. 3. Mr. Daga, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that all the prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses and as such the conviction on the basis of the interested witnesses would not be sustainable. In the alternative, it is submitted that the assault by the accused on the deceased is on account of provocation as the wife of the appellant had informed to the appellant that the deceased was loving their daughter. He, therefore, submits that the case would fall under Part I or Part II of Section 304 and not under Section 302 of the I.P.C. 4. The learned APP on the contrary submits that the learned trial Judge has rightly passed the order of conviction under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and as such the interference would not be warranted in the present appeal. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned APP, we have scrutinised the entire evidence on the record. 6. P.W. 8 Dr. Pavan Khadase has conducted the post mortem on the body of the deceased. The injuries sustained by the deceased are thus:- "1. Stab wound of size 4 c.m. X 1 c.m., 5 c.m. deep which is about 2 c.m. above the middle third of left clavicle in neck. Directed downwards and medially. Margins are clean cut, angle acute, carotid artery and jugular vein cut. Blood is oozing, colour is red. 2. Stab wound over left lateral side of chest in mid axillary line in sixth inter costal space of size 4 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. cavity deep, reddish parietal pleura cut. 3. Abrasion over anterior aspect of chest on the left side of the chest of size 6 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. in sixth and 7th inter costal space, reddish. 4. Abrasion over anterior aspect of sheen of right tibia of size 3 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. above 9 c.m. above the ankle joint reddish. 5. 3. Abrasion over anterior aspect of chest on the left side of the chest of size 6 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. in sixth and 7th inter costal space, reddish. 4. Abrasion over anterior aspect of sheen of right tibia of size 3 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. above 9 c.m. above the ankle joint reddish. 5. Incised wound of size 0.5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m., muscle deep on back above the right buttock, 8 c.m. lateral to the mid line. Clean cut. Reddish." The witness has stated that all the above surface injuries are ante mortem in nature. Probable cause of death of the deceased as given by the said witness is due to shock and haemorrhage due to stab injury over neck. The accused has also been examined by the said witness. The accused has sustained the following two injuries:- "1. Small abrasion over scalp 1/2 c.m. x 14 c.m. on right side of mid line. 2. Small abrasion over medial aspect of left thumb 1 c.m. x 2 c.m." 7. In view of the above evidence of P.W. 8 Dr. Pavan and the post mortem report below Exh. 61-C, we do not find that any interference is warranted with the findings that the death of the deceased is homicidal. We will have to, therefore, consider as to whether the author of the crime is the present appellant or not. 8. No doubt that the two witnesses viz. P.W. 1 Latabai and P.W. 5 Ankita are interested witnesses inasmuch as they are related to the deceased. However, merely because the witnesses are interested, cannot be a ground to discard their testimony. The only rider is that the evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinised with a greater caution and the conviction should be based only when their evidence is found to be trustworthy, reliable and cogent. 9. P.W. 1 Latabai is the aunt of the deceased Sunil. She states that on the day of the incident, Sunil had come to her house. When she asked him why he had been to her house, Sunil told her casually and then went away. In the meantime she heard the commotion from the back side of her house. She and her daughter Anikita went to see what happened. At that time altercation was going on in between accused Anil and Sunil. Wife of accused Anil told her husband that Sunil loves their daughter. In the meantime she heard the commotion from the back side of her house. She and her daughter Anikita went to see what happened. At that time altercation was going on in between accused Anil and Sunil. Wife of accused Anil told her husband that Sunil loves their daughter. Accused Anil brought a knife from his house and rushed towards Sunil. Due to which Sunil came to her house running. Accused Anil followed him in her house, caught hold of the hand of Sunil and dragged him outside the house and gave a blow of knife on his waist. Sunil went towards the field of Prakash Wankhede. She followed Sunil by running and one Uttam Londhe also came there. In the field, accused Anil gave a blow of knife on the neck of Sunil due to which he collapsed in the field. She, thereafter approached to Police Station Wadner and lodged the report. Though this witness has been thoroughly cross-examined, her evidence has remained unshattered. Her evidence is also corroborated by her oral report below Exh. 25 and the first information report below Exh. 26-C. 10. P.W. 5 Ankita is the daughter of P.W. 1 Lata. Her evidence is also similar with that of P.W. 1. Though this witness has been cross-examined, her evidence has also remained unshattered. 11. P.W. 6 Uttam is an independent witness. He states that at around 5 to 5.30 p.m. he heard the commotion. Hence he went outside by running. He saw that deceased Sunil was running ahead and the accused was running behind him with knife. P.W. 1 Lata was following them. Hence he also followed them. Sunil went towards the field of Prakash Wankhede. Accused gave a blow of knife on the neck of Sunil due to which Sunil collapsed. Latabai was raising the shouts "Dhavare Bapa" so also he raised the shouts "Dhavare". In spite of thorough cross-examination, his evidence also remained unshattered. 12. In view of the ocular testimony of P.W. 1 Latabai and P.W. 5 Ankita and an independent witness P.W. 6 Uttam, we find that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it is the appellant who has assaulted the deceased and is responsible for his death. 13. That leaves us with the question as to whether the conviction under Section 302 of the I.P.C. needs to be maintained or altered to a lesser offence. 14. 13. That leaves us with the question as to whether the conviction under Section 302 of the I.P.C. needs to be maintained or altered to a lesser offence. 14. Evidence of P.W. 1 Latabai, P.W. 5 Ankita and the first information report would itself reveal that there was a fight between the appellant and the deceased. The wife of the appellant told the appellant that the deceased was loving their daughter. Provoked by that, he went inside the house and brought a knife and assaulted the deceased. It could thus be seen that there was no premeditation to commit the murder of the deceased. It could further be seen that explanation to Exception-4 provides that it is immaterial which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. As such though the provocation is on account of the wife of the appellant telling the appellant that the deceased loves their daughter, the same would be immaterial and the accused would be entitled to get benefit of Exception-4. The nature of the injuries and the evidence of P.W. Nos. 1, 5 and 6 would show that it cannot be said that the accused has taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. In that view of the matter, the case would not fall under Section 302 of the I.P.C. but would fall under Part I Section 304 of the I.P.C. Criminal Appeal No. 373 of 2012 is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is altered to Part-I of Section 304 of the I.P.C. The sentence is reduced to R.I. for 10 years from life imprisonment. Rest of the order is maintained. Needless to mention that the appellant would be entitled to set off for the period he has already undergone. Appeal Allowed.