JUDGMENT : S.NAGAMUTHU, J. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.42 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram. He stood charged for offences under Section 302 IPC. By judgment dated 30.01.2009, the trial Court found him guilty under Section 302 IPC and convicted him and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. But no fine was imposed. 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: The deceased in this case was one Mr.Govindan belonging to Valantharavai Village. P.W.1 is also a resident of the same village. The accused also belongs to the same village. The father of the accused had developed illicit intimacy with a Muslim woman in Pamban near Rameshwaram and he was living with her. On 08.07.2007, at about 7.00 pm., the accused and P.W.1 were standing near Mariamman Temple at Valantharavai Village and they were talking to each other. At that time, the accused incidentally came to the said place. On seeing the accused, the deceased ridiculed the accused by singing a song citing the relationship between the father of the accused and the Muslim woman. The accused questioned the same. This resulted in a quarrel between the accused and the deceased. P.W.1 tried to pacify them. The accused immediately rushed back to his house and came again with an aruval in his hand. He questioned the deceased again. In the said quarrel, it is alleged that the accused attempted to cut the deceased. The first blow fell on the left palm. The accused gave another blow, which fell on the abdomen of the deceased. The accused immediately fled away from the scene of occurrence with the weapon. P.W.3 took him to the Government Hospital at Ramnad. 2.1. P.W.7 is the Doctor. At that time, the deceased told the Doctor that he was attacked by a known person at 7 pm., near Mariamman Temple with aruval. P.W.7 noticed the following injuries: (1) A cut injury measuring 15 x 8 cm on the abdomen just below the chest. The intestine was found protruding out from the said injury. There was also bleeding through the injury. (2) A cut injury measuring 5 x 3 cm and muscle depth on the right palm. P.W.7 admitted him as inpatient in the said hospital and treated him. The intestine was found protruding out from the said injury. There was also bleeding through the injury. (2) A cut injury measuring 5 x 3 cm and muscle depth on the right palm. P.W.7 admitted him as inpatient in the said hospital and treated him. According to him, these two injuries could have been caused by a weapon like MO.1 – aruval. Ex.P7 is the Accident Register. Then, the deceased was forwarded to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, for further treatment. 2.2. P.W.1, went to the police station and made a complaint about the said occurrence at 10 p.m. on 08.07.2007. P.W.14 – the Sub Inspector of Police, Kenikarai Police Station, received Ex.P1 complaint and registered a case in Crime No.494 of 2007 under Section 307 IPC at 10 pm on 08.07.2007. Ex.P12 is the FIR. Then, he forwarded both the documents to Court and handed over the case diary to P.W.15 – Inspector of Police for investigation. 2.3. Taking up the case for investigation, P.W.15 proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar in the presence of P.W.4. He has also prepared a rough sketch. He recovered bloodstained earth (M.O.4) and sample earth (M.O.5) in the presence of P.W.4 under Ex.P4 mahazar. Then, he examined P.Ws.1 to 4. Then, he went to the Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai and examined the deceased. (But unfortunately the said statement, which is a dying declaration has not been marked in evidence) From the deceased, he recovered a bloodstained cloth of the deceased under a mahazar. During the course of investigation, on 11.07.2007, at 8.00 am., he arrested the accused in the presence of P.W.5 and another witness at Valathur Bus stop. On such arrest, he made a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place, where he had hidden an aruval. In pursuance of the same, he took P.W.15 and P.W.5 to the said place and produced M.O.1 aruval from the hide out. P.W.15 recovered the same under a mahazar. On returning to the police station, he forwarded the accused to Court and handed over the material objects also. While so, on 13.07.2007, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. On getting information from the hospital, P.W.15 altered the case into one under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P15 is the alteration report. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of Panchayatdars. While so, on 13.07.2007, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. On getting information from the hospital, P.W.15 altered the case into one under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P15 is the alteration report. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of Panchayatdars. Ex.P16 is the inquest report. Then, he forwarded the body for postmortem. 2.4. P.W.13 – Dr.Natarajan, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and noticed the following injuries. 1. A midline partly healed sutured surgical wound 20 x 2 cms x cavity deep (Laparotomy wound) is noticed on front of abdomen. 2. A partly healed sutured wound 6 x 4 cms x lumen deep with transfixed proximal portion of transverse colon is noted on right hypochondrium (Colostomy wound) 3. An oblique partly healed sutured wound 10 cms x 3 cms x cavity deep is noted on upper part of right side of front of abdomen. 4. Partly healed sutured wound 6 x 4 cms x lumen deep with transfixed distal loop of transverse colon is noted on front of left side of middle of abdomen (colostomy wound) 5. Two drainage wounds each measuring about 2 cms x 1 cm x cavity deep with tube is situ is noted on right flank of the abdomen and front of lower part of left side of abdomen. 6. Partly healed sutured wound 6 cms x 1 cm x muscle deep is noted on palm of left hand. Ex.P11 is the postmortem certificate. He gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of abdominal injuries and its complications there of. P.W.15 collected the medical records from the Doctor and examined him. He made a request to the Court for forwarding the material objects for chemical examination. The report revealed that there was human blood on earth, shirt and lungi. But there was no human blood found on the aruval. On completing the investigation, P.W.15 laid charge sheet against the accused. 2.5. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed a lone charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused. He denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 15 witnesses were examined, 19 documents and 5 material objects were marked. 2.6. Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 3 are the eye witnesses, who have vividly spoken about the entire occurrence. He denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 15 witnesses were examined, 19 documents and 5 material objects were marked. 2.6. Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 3 are the eye witnesses, who have vividly spoken about the entire occurrence. P.W.1 has further stated about the complaint made by him to the police. P.W.3 has spoken to the fact that he took the deceased to the hospital. P.W.4 has spoken about the observation mahazar and the recovery of bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence. P.W.5 is the witness, in whose presence, the accused was arrested and the discovery of M.O1 was made. P.W.6 is the wife of the deceased, who has not stated anything incriminating against the accused. P.W.7 is the Doctor, who admitted the deceased in the hospital at Ramanathapuram and treated him. P.W.8 is the Doctor, who admitted the deceased at Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai and treated him. P.W.9 is an official from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, who has spoken about the fact that there was no failure of electricity at the place of occurrence on 08.07.2007. P.W.10 is the Chemical Analyst, who has spoken about the fact that he conducted chemical analysis on the material objects. He has stated that except aruval, other objects, there was human blood. P.W.11 is the Constable, who carried the FIR to the Court and handed over the same to the Judicial Magistrate. P.W.12 is the Constable, who carried the dead body for postmortem. P.W.13 has spoken about the autopsy conducted by him and his final opinion. P.W.14 – Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the case on the complaint of P.W.1 and P.W.15 has spoken about the investigation. 2.7. When the above incriminating materials 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 on his side nor marked any documents. His defence was a total denial. Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC and accordingly punished him. That is how, he is before this Court with this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and we have also perused the records carefully. 4. Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC and accordingly punished him. That is how, he is before this Court with this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and we have also perused the records carefully. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 3 cannot be believed. He would further submit that the FIR is a doubtful document. He would submit that even assuming that the death was caused on account of the injury caused by the accused, his act would not fall under Section 302 IPC. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently oppose this appeal. According to him, there is no reason to reject the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 3, who are natural witnesses. He would further submit that the medical evidence corroborate the eye witness account. So far as the FIR is concerned, absolutely there is no reason to doubt the genuineness of the same. He would further add that the discovery of M.O.1 – aruval also strengthens the case of the prosecution. Thus, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts. He would lastly contend that the act of the accused would clearly fall only under Section 302 IPC. 6. We have considered the above submissions. 7. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, a careful reading of the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 3 would go to show that there is absolutely no reason to reject the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 3. They are the residents of the same place. Their presence is quite natural. During cross examination, nothing has been elicited about their very presence and the veracity of their evidence. Thus, we do not find any reason at all to reject P.Ws.1 to 3. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, we hold that the prosecution has clearly established that both the injuries found on the deceased were caused only by the accused. According to P.W.13, the death was due to the complications due to the injuries. But death was not instantaneous. He was in the hospital for more than a week. But, unfortunately, the medical records pertaining to the treatment have not been proved in evidence by the prosecution. According to P.W.13, the death was due to the complications due to the injuries. But death was not instantaneous. He was in the hospital for more than a week. But, unfortunately, the medical records pertaining to the treatment have not been proved in evidence by the prosecution. Therefore, it is not known as to what was the condition of the deceased during the interregnum period. P.W.15 has stated that he recorded the statement of the deceased, while he was in the hospital. That statement would amount to a dying declaration falling within the sweep of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. But, unfortunately, that has been suppressed by the prosecution. However, regarding the nature of the injuries, there can be no doubt at all. The injury on the abdomen was so deep, that the intestine was protruding out. It is a common knowledge that any injury of such a nature caused on the abdomen, would probably result in death. The possibility of death is more than the possibility of survival. Thus, in our considered view, the injury caused by the accused on the abdomen is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Thus, the act of the accused would squarely fall under 3rd limb of Section 300 IPC. 8. It is in evidence that there was no motive at all between the accused and the deceased. The meeting of the accused and the deceased itself was by chance. The deceased and P.W.1 were standing there near the Temple talking to themselves. They would not have anticipated that the accused would come there at that crucial time. Similarly, when the accused casually went to the Temple. He would not have anticipated that the deceased would be standing there and he would ridicule him. Thus, the very meeting of the accused and the deceased was by chance. At that time, the provocation came only from the deceased. The fact remains that the father of the accused had married one Muslim woman at his old age at Pamban. This became the subject of ridicule by the deceased. He started singing a song ridiculing the accused citing the above illicit intimacy between the father of the accused and the Muslim woman. When the accused questioned the same, it resulted in a quarrel. This became the subject of ridicule by the deceased. He started singing a song ridiculing the accused citing the above illicit intimacy between the father of the accused and the Muslim woman. When the accused questioned the same, it resulted in a quarrel. It was only in that quarrel, the accused ran to his house, took out an aruval and cut the deceased. In our considered view, there was no time for the accused to realise also. Thus, it cannot be said that the accused would have had reflection. All happened in the course of the same transaction. Since the provocation was so sudden and unexpected and since it was so grave, the accused had lost his self control, brought the weapon and caused one injury on the vital part of the body. He had not taken any undue advantage. Thus, the act of the accused would squarely fall within the ambit of first exception to Section 300 IPC. Secondly, the act of the accused would fall under 2nd limb of Section 299 IPC and punishable under Section 304(i) IPC. 9. Now, turning to the quantum of punishment, the accused is a young man. He has got a wife and children to take care of. He is a coolie by profession. There is no history of any bad antecedents for him. After the occurrence also, he has not involved in any crime. The occurrence was not a premeditated one. As we have already pointed out, it was only the deceased, who provoked the accused by ridiculing him. Having regard to all these aggravating and mitigating circumstances, by way of striking a balance between these two, we are of the view that imposing a sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- would meet the ends of justice. 10. In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed in the following terms: (i) The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial Court under Section 302 IPC is set aside and instead, he is convicted under Section 304(i) IPC and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks. (ii) The trial shall take steps to secure the accused to commit him in prison to serve out the remaining period of sentence. (ii) The trial shall take steps to secure the accused to commit him in prison to serve out the remaining period of sentence. (iii) It is directed that the period of sentence already undergone by the accused is ordered to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.