JUDGMENT : S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No. 104 of 2006, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil. He stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. By Judgment dated 05.10.2010, the Trial Court has convicted the accused, as detailed below: Convicted under Sections Sentence imposed Fine Amount 341 IPC To undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 320 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this Criminal Appeal. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: "(i) The deceased, in this case, was one Mr. Radhakumar. P.W. 1 is his brother-in-law. It is alleged that the deceased had borrowed money from the accused and he did not repay the same. This resulted in a quarrel between them one year before the occurrence. It is alleged that the deceased stabbed the accused with a knife and in this regard, a case had been registered on the file of the Manavalankurichi Police Station in Crime No. 105/2003 under Section 307 of I.P.C against the deceased. From then onwards, the accused had a strong enmity towards the deceased and this is stated to be the motive for the occurrence. (ii) On 04.09.2004 at about 8.30 p.m. it is alleged that P.Ws. 1, 4 and one Radhakrishnan had gone to an electrical shop of one Jayasekaran at Ammandivilai village. They found the shop closed, therefore, they started proceeding to the house of Mr. Jayasekaran. When they were nearing his house, the accused suddenly emerged there, scolded the deceased and cut him with an aruval on his right side of the forehead, left side of the fore head and on the left eyebrow. Then the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence with the weapon. The occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws. 1, 4 and Mr. Radhakrishnan. Then, all of them immediately made arrangement to take him to Asari-pallam Government Medical College Hospital. (iii) P.W. 2, Dr.Usha the Assistant Surgeon at Asaripallam Government Medical College Hospital examined the deceased and found him dead. She declared him dead and transferred the body to the mortuary. She gave death intimation to the police. 1, 4 and Mr. Radhakrishnan. Then, all of them immediately made arrangement to take him to Asari-pallam Government Medical College Hospital. (iii) P.W. 2, Dr.Usha the Assistant Surgeon at Asaripallam Government Medical College Hospital examined the deceased and found him dead. She declared him dead and transferred the body to the mortuary. She gave death intimation to the police. P.W. 10, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Vellichandai Police Station on receiving the said intimation from the hospital went to the hospital at 10.45 p.m. on 04.09.2004, recorded the statement of P.W. 1, returned to the police station and at 11.45 p.m. registered a case in Crime No. 179/2004 under Section 302 of I.P.C. Ex. P9 is the F.I.R. and Ex. P1 is the complaint. He forwarded both the documents to the Court and handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. (iv) P.W. 12 the then Inspector of Police took up the case for investigation, reached the place of occurrence on 05.09.2004 at 01.15 a.m. and prepared the observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of P.W. 1. Then, he recovered bloodstained tarred stones and sample earth from the place of occurrence. On reaching the hospital, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the dead body for post mortem. P.W. 3 Dr.Vasuhinathan conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 05.09.2004 at 10.00 a.m. and he found the following injuries: "External Injuries: (1) Cut injury 3cm x 2 cm x bone depth partially oblique in direction just above left eyebrow. (2) Cut injury 10cm x 2cm x bone depth, partially oblique in the right side of forehead just above right eyebrow. (3) Cut injury 3cm x 2cm x bone depth on right eyebrow. (4) Cut injury 2cm x 2cm x bone depth on left side of forehead 2cm above left eyebrow. Jaws clenched, eyes closed, tongue inside, finger and toe nails are pale. Internal Exam: Heart Chambers empty, C/s Pale. Hyoid bone intact, stomach contains 500ml of straw coloured fluid, No odour, Skull Transverse fracture of 6 cm present in the frontal bone. Blood clots seen in Extra & Infra dural space Diffuse infracerebral clots seen. Brain 1400 gms. C/S pale. All other internal organs are normal size and C/S Pale." Ex. P.4 is the postmortem certificate. Hyoid bone intact, stomach contains 500ml of straw coloured fluid, No odour, Skull Transverse fracture of 6 cm present in the frontal bone. Blood clots seen in Extra & Infra dural space Diffuse infracerebral clots seen. Brain 1400 gms. C/S pale. All other internal organs are normal size and C/S Pale." Ex. P.4 is the postmortem certificate. He gave a opinion that the deceased appeared to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to heavy cut injuries in the head. (v) On 07.09.2004, at Edayanvillai village, at 05.30 a.m, he arrested the accused in the presence of P.W. 8 and another witness. On such arrest, the accused gave a voluntary concession, in which, he disclosed the place where he has hidden the aruval. In pursuance of the same, the accused took P.W. 12 and P.W. 8 and another witness to the said place and produced the aruval (M.O.I) from the hide out. P.W. 12 recovered the same under a mahazar. On returning to the police station, P.W. 12 forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand. He handed over the material objects to the Court and made a request to the Court to forward the material objects for examination. Ex. P.14 is the chemical examination Report and Ex. P.15 is the Serology report. According to this report, human blood was found on all the material objects including the aruval but the grouping test was inconclusive so far as aruval is concerned and others revelled that the blood group was that of 'B'. P.W. 12 collected the medical reports and examined the Doctors. On completing the investigation, he laid charge-sheet against the accused. (vi) Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges under Sections 341 and 302 of I.P.C. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 12 witnesses were examined, 15 documents and 6 material objects were marked. (vii) Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws. 1 and 4 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence and they have vividly spoken about the entire occurrence. P.W. 1 has further stated about the complaint made by him to the police. P.W. 2 is the doctor who examined the deceased at the Government Medical College Hospital at Asaripallam and declared him dead. 1 and 4 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence and they have vividly spoken about the entire occurrence. P.W. 1 has further stated about the complaint made by him to the police. P.W. 2 is the doctor who examined the deceased at the Government Medical College Hospital at Asaripallam and declared him dead. P.W. 3 has spoken about the autopsy conducted and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W. 5 has spoken about the observation maha-zar and the rough sketch prepared and recovery of the bloodstained tarred stones and sample earth from the place of occurrence. P.W. 6 is the police photographer who took photographs of the dead body in the place of occurrence and he has spoken about the same. MO-4 series are the said photographs. P.W. 7, an official from T.N.E.B, has stated that there was no electricity failure at the relevant point of time. P.W. 9 is the Head Constable, who took the dead body for postmortem and he has also spoken about the recovery of bloodstained dress materials found on the dead body. P.W. 10 has spoken about the registration of the case. P.W. 11 the Inspector of Police has spoken about the registration of the earlier case against the deceased in respect of the motive occurrence, in which the deceased had stabbed the accused. P.W. 12 has spoken about the investigation done by him. (viii). 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 both charges and accordingly punished him. That is how, he is before this Court with this appeal." 2. 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. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that P.Ws. 1 and 4 are chance witnesses and their presence at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful. He would further submit that the non-examination of Mr. Radhakrishnan is fatal to the case of the prosecution. He would further submit that the First Information Report, in this case, is a doubtful document. 1 and 4 are chance witnesses and their presence at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful. He would further submit that the non-examination of Mr. Radhakrishnan is fatal to the case of the prosecution. He would further submit that the First Information Report, in this case, is a doubtful document. He would further add that the prosecution has not examined any independent witness from the locality. Thus, according to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts and therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would however vehemently oppose this appeal. According to him, the presence of P.Ws. 1 and 4 cannot be doubted at all as their presence at the place of occurrence has been duly explained by them. He would further submit that they, along with Mr. Radhakrishnan, had taken the accused to the hospital to save him, which would go to prove that they were very much present at the place of occurrence. He would further submit that after the deceased was declared dead, P.W. 1 had promptly lodged the complaint, upon which, the present case was registered. Absolutely, there is no reason to doubt the First Information Report, he contended. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the medical evidence corroborates the eye witnesses account. 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 duly proved the case beyond reasonable doubts. 5. We have considered the above submissions. 6. Admittedly, P.Ws. 1 and 4 are chance witnesses, but, on that score, their evidences cannot be out-right rejected. As per the settled law, if the presence of a chance witness is duly explained to the satisfaction of the Court, then, there cannot be any impediment to accept the presence of the said witness at the crucial point of time of the occurrence. Here, in this case, P.Ws. 1 and 4 have stated that they accompanied the deceased to the shop of Jeyasekaran for the purpose of purchasing certain electrical goods and since the shop was closed, they were all returning to the house of Jeyasekaran and when they were on their way, the occurrence had taken place. This explanation offered by P.Ws. Here, in this case, P.Ws. 1 and 4 have stated that they accompanied the deceased to the shop of Jeyasekaran for the purpose of purchasing certain electrical goods and since the shop was closed, they were all returning to the house of Jeyasekaran and when they were on their way, the occurrence had taken place. This explanation offered by P.Ws. 1 and 4 in respect of their presence at the time of occurrence cannot be doubted. Thus, we believe that P.Ws. 1 and 4 were present at the time of occurrence. 7. According to their evidence, the accused suddenly appeared there and started attacking the deceased. Though we are prepared to believe that it was this accused who cut the deceased thrice on his face, to some extent, we have got our own doubts about the very origin of the occurrence, as spoken to by P.Ws. 1 and 4. But, at the same time, we wish to reiterate that the evidence P.Ws. 1 and 4 cannot be rejected in toto. The principle "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" is not applicable to Indian Criminal Jurisprudence. If a witness deposes falsely on certain facts, on that score, his entire evidence cannot be rejected. If the Court is able to separate the grain from the chaff, then, there can be no impediment to act upon the said evidence. Here, in this case, though P.Ws. 1 and 4 have not come forward with the true version of the origin of the occurrence, their evidences regarding the attack made by this accused cannot be disbelieved. Therefore, we have no doubt in the case of the prosecution that it was this accused, who cut the deceased thrice on his head, which resulted in his death. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that no independent witnesses were examined, which, according to him, creates doubt in the case of the prosecution. It is true that P.Ws. 1 and 4 are interested witnesses and they are also closely related to the deceased. But, again, on that score, their evidence cannot be outright rejected, if their evidences inspire the confidence of the Court. Even in the absence of any corroboration from any independent source, the Court can very well act upon their evidences and accept the same. 1 and 4 are interested witnesses and they are also closely related to the deceased. But, again, on that score, their evidence cannot be outright rejected, if their evidences inspire the confidence of the Court. Even in the absence of any corroboration from any independent source, the Court can very well act upon their evidences and accept the same. In this case, to the extent that this accused only cut the deceased, we hold that their evidences inspire the confidence of the Court. Therefore, though there is no independent witness examined to speak about the occurrence, we are prepared to act upon their evidences. 9. Though, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that F.I.R. is a doubtful document, we do not find any force in the said argument. A perusal of the records would go to prove that F.I.R. was lodged promptly and the same was forwarded to the Court without any delay. Similarly, non-examination of Mr. Radhakrishnan also has not caused any dent in the case of the prosecution. 10. In view of the above discussion, we hold that it was this accused who caused the death of the deceased. The next question is "what is the offence that the accused has committed by his act?". 11. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that his act would fall under Exception 1 to Section 300 of I.P.C. But the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would state that there is no evidence available on record to prove that the accused was provoked by the deceased. In our considered view, there is some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. As we have already pointed out, P.Ws. 1 and 4 have not come forward with clean hands in respect of the origin of the occurrence. We have already held that they are suppressing the altercation between the accused and the deceased preceding the actual attack made by the accused. There are many reasons to come to the said conclusion. First of all, the occurrence had taken place just outside of the house of the accused. The arrival of the deceased, P.Ws. 1 and 4 at the crucial moment would not have been anticipated by the accused at all. Similarly, the deceased and his party would not have anticipated that the accused would come to the place of occurrence at the crucial moment. The arrival of the deceased, P.Ws. 1 and 4 at the crucial moment would not have been anticipated by the accused at all. Similarly, the deceased and his party would not have anticipated that the accused would come to the place of occurrence at the crucial moment. Thus, their meeting, at the place of occurrence, at the crucial time, itself was by chance. Therefore, the accused would not have premeditated to do away with the deceased. Similarly, it is equally unnatural that the accused would have suddenly emerged with an aruval and cut the deceased. Going by the natural human conduct as provided under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, we presume that the deceased party would have gone to the house of the accused and developed a quarrel and that is the reason why the occurrence had taken place just in front of the house of the accused. 12. From the above facts and circumstances, we are able to presume that the deceased would have provoked the accused and it was only due to loss of control out of the said provocation made, the accused had cut the deceased with aruval thrice. Thus, we hold that the act of the accused would squarely fall within the ambit of Exception 1 to Section300 I.P.C. His act would fall under the third limb of Section 300 I.P.C. and since his act would fall within the ambit of Exception 1 to Section 300 I.P.C, the same would not amount to culpable homicide, amounting to murder, but it is only culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Thus, the act of the accused would, eventually, fall only under the second limb of Section 299 I.P.C. Therefore, he is liable to be punished under Section 304 Part I of I.P.C. 13. So far as the offence under Section 341 IPC is concerned, since the origin of the occurrence has not been clearly established, it is not sure as to whether the accused restrained the deceased or not and therefore the appellant is entitled for acquittal from the charge under Section 341 of I.P.C. 14. Now, turning to the quantum of punishment, the appellant is an young man having a big family to take care of. He has no history of bad antecedents. The occurrence itself was out of provocation and not out of premeditation. There are lot of chances for his reformation. Now, turning to the quantum of punishment, the appellant is an young man having a big family to take care of. He has no history of bad antecedents. The occurrence itself was out of provocation and not out of premeditation. There are lot of chances for his reformation. Having regard to all the above aggravating and mitigating circumstances, by way of striking a balance between these two, we are of the view that imposing a sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3,000/- would meet the ends of justice. 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 341 of I.P.C. is set aside and he is acquitted from the said charge. (ii) The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial Court under Section 302 I.P.C. is set aside and instead, he is convicted under Section 304 Part I of I.P.C. and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for four weeks. (iii) It is directed that the period of sentence already undergone by the accused shall be ordered to be set off under Section 428Cr.P.C. (iv) Bail bond executed by the appellant and the sureties shall stand cancelled. The Trial Court shall take steps to secure the accused and commit him in prison to serve out the remaining period of sentence."