JUDGMENT S.NAGAMUTHU, J. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.7 of 2010, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. By judgment dated 26.07.2010, the trial Court convicted him under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 307 IPC. 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 Manikandan. P.W.1 and P.W.3 are his friends. On 29.03.2009, at about 4.30 p.m., the deceased and P.W.3 had gone to Periyar Bus stand at Madurai in the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN67 X 5067. When they were returning in the same motorcycle, at a place known as Mariamman Kovil bus stop, P.W.1 was standing and he was waiting for the bus. On seeing P.W.1, the deceased stopped the vehicle. P.W.1 told the deceased that he was to go to his house. Therefore, the deceased and P.W.3 took P.W.1 also along with them. Thus, all the three of them were proceeding in the motorcycle. When the vehicle had reached one Kajimar Thoppu 1st street, an old lady crossed the road. The motorcycle hit her. P.Ws.1, 3 and the deceased fell down from the motorcycle. 2.1. The accused, who hails from that place, came to the place of occurrence, on seeing the accident, questioned the deceased, P.W.1 and P.W.3 as to why they had driven the motorcycle in such a rash manner in the residential locality, that too in their area. This resulted in a quarrel between the deceased party and the accused. In the said quarrel, there were exchange of blows between them. Suddenly, the accused ran to the nearby place and returned with a knife and stabbed the deceased on the left elbow and on the left side of the stomach. The deceased fell down. P.W.3 attempted to rescue the deceased. In the said quarrel, there were exchange of blows between them. Suddenly, the accused ran to the nearby place and returned with a knife and stabbed the deceased on the left elbow and on the left side of the stomach. The deceased fell down. P.W.3 attempted to rescue the deceased. The accused stabbed him also on his left side of hip, right side of the palm and other parts of the body. P.W.2 – the uncle of the deceased also had witnessed the occurrence. He rushed to the place of occurrence. On seeing all of them, the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. Shortly, on some information from some unknown source, 108 ambulance came to the spot. P.Ws.1 and 2 took the deceased and P.W.3 in the same and rushed them to the Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai. 2.2. By about 6.30 p.m., the deceased died. P.W.3 was taken from the Government Rajaji Hospital to Apollo Hospital at Madurai. One Dr.Amarnath examined him at 7.15 p.m. on 29.03.2009. He found a lacerated injury on the left side of the chest and a lacerated injury on the right hand. He was discharged from the hospital on 05.04.2009. Ex.P14 is the Accident Register. 2.3. P.W.1, after the death of the deceased, went to the Madurai City South Gate Police Station. Mr.Pandiarajan (not examined as eye witness) registered a case on the complaint of P.W.1 in Crime No.325 of 2009 under Sections 307 and 302 IPC. Mr.Pandiarajan, took up the case by himself for investigation, proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared an observation mahazar and rough sketch in the presence of witnesses. 2.4. Then, P.W.11 took up the case for investigation. He proceeded to the place of occurrence and recovered the motorcycle (M.O.2), in which, the deceased had travelled and the chappals (M.O.1) of the deceased from the place of occurrence. Then, he examined few more witnesses at the place of occurrence. He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and then forwarded the body for postmortem. 2.5. P.W.7 – Dr.Alaudeen conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 30.03.2009 at 11.15 a.m. He found the following injuries: 1.Oblique stab injury 6 x 1.5 cms x cavity deep noted on left side of abdomen, 18 cms away from the umbilicus. He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and then forwarded the body for postmortem. 2.5. P.W.7 – Dr.Alaudeen conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 30.03.2009 at 11.15 a.m. He found the following injuries: 1.Oblique stab injury 6 x 1.5 cms x cavity deep noted on left side of abdomen, 18 cms away from the umbilicus. On dissection, the wound passes backwards and medially piercing the underlying muscles, peritoneum through & through, small intestines through & through and enters the duodenum. Cavity contains 1.5 litres of blood with clots. 2.An oblique cut injury 3 x 1 cms x muscle deep noted on ulnar aspect of middle of left forearm. On dissection, the wound passes obliquely along the muscle plane. Ex.P8 is the postmortem Certificate. He gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to the stab injuries. 2.6. Continuing the investigation, P.W.11 arrested the accused at 4.00 p.m. on 30.03.2009 near Meenakshi Theatre in the presence of P.W.5 and another witness. On such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place, where he had hidden a knife. In pursuance of the same, he produced the knife (M.O.3) near the compound wall of the house of one Mr.Jeyapaul. He forwarded the accused to Court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects also to the Court. Finally, he laid the charge sheet against the accused. 2.7. Based on the materials, the trial Court framed charges against the accused under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. The accused denied the same. To prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 11 witnesses were examined, 18 documents and 7 material objects were marked. 3. Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 3 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. They have vividly spoken about the entire occurrence, more particularly, P.W.3 is an injured eye witness. P.W.4 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.5 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar, rough sketch and the recovery of material objects at the place of occurrence. P.W.6 has stated that he took P.W.3 from the Government Hospital to Apollo Hospital and admitted. P.W.7 has spoken about the postmortem conducted and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.5 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar, rough sketch and the recovery of material objects at the place of occurrence. P.W.6 has stated that he took P.W.3 from the Government Hospital to Apollo Hospital and admitted. P.W.7 has spoken about the postmortem conducted and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.8 is the Head Clerk of the learned Judicial Magistrate, who has stated that she forwarded the material objects for chemical examination. Ex.P12 is the Scientific Analysis report and Ex.P13 is the serology report. According to these reports, human blood of 'A' Group was found on all material objects including the knife (M.O. 3). P.W.9 is the Constable, who has stated that he handed over the FIR to the Court. P.W.10 is a Doctor, who has spoken about the treatment given to P.W.3 at Apollo Hospital. P.W.11 has spoken about the investigation done and the final report submitted by him. 4. 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 the charges and accordingly punished him. That is how, he is before this Court with this appeal. 5. Since the counsel on record had withdrawn his appearance, Mr.A.Nawaz Khan has been appointed by this Court as a legal aid counsel to argue this criminal appeal. We have heard him for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. We have also perused the records carefully. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that P.Ws.1 to 3 are interested witnesses and their evidences cannot be believed. He would further submit that the original FIR, in this case, has been suppressed and in its place, Ex.P1 has been substituted. He would further submit that there was no motive for the accused to commit murder of the deceased. He would further focus his argument on the ground that P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 had not seen the accused prior to the occurrence and still there was no Test Identification Parade held. Thus, the identification held for the first time in Court cannot be believed. He would further focus his argument on the ground that P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 had not seen the accused prior to the occurrence and still there was no Test Identification Parade held. Thus, the identification held for the first time in Court cannot be believed. The learned counsel would further submit that P.W.2 has admitted that he did not see the occurrence and as a matter of fact, when he rushed to the place of occurrence along with P.W.1, he found the deceased lying in a pool of blood. Thus, according to him, P.Ws.1 and 2 would not have seen the occurrence. The learned counsel would further submit that the medical records pertaining to the treatment given to P.W.3 and the deceased at the Government Rajaji Hospital had not been produced. Thus, according to him, the prosecution has not come forward with clean hands and the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, oppose this appeal. According to him, P.W.3 is an injured eye witness, whose presence cannot be disputed at all. He has vividly spoken about the occurrence. Though P.W.2 has stated that he did not see the actual assault made on the deceased, he has spoken about the attack made on P.W.3. He would further submit that the presence of P.W.1 is quite natural. Thus, from the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 3, the prosecution has clearly proved the case, he contended. He would further submit that though it is true that the medical records pertaining to the treatment given by the Government Rajaji Hospital have not been produced, the same has not caused any harm to the case of the prosecution. Thus, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts. 8. We have considered the above submissions. 9. As rightly submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, P.W.3 is an injured eye witness. His presence cannot be doubted. He has categorically stated that it was this accused, who caused the injuries on the deceased. He has further stated that when he attempted to intercept to rescue the deceased, the accused stabbed him also. Thus, we do not find any reason to reject the evidence of P.W.3. 10. His presence cannot be doubted. He has categorically stated that it was this accused, who caused the injuries on the deceased. He has further stated that when he attempted to intercept to rescue the deceased, the accused stabbed him also. Thus, we do not find any reason to reject the evidence of P.W.3. 10. Now, turning to the evidence of P.W.2, of course, he has stated that he did not see the actual blow caused on the deceased by the accused, because P.W.3 had gone along with P.W.1 and the deceased in a motorcycle and he was just following them. Even before, he could reach, the occurrence had started. He could, therefore, see the later part of the occurrence, in which, P.W.3 was stabbed by the accused. His evidence clearly corroborates the evidence of P.W.1 in respect of the participation of the accused in the occurrence. P.W.1's presence also cannot be doubted, because it was he, who took the deceased to the hospital. His presence has been spoken to by P.Ws.2 and 3 also. Though, these three witnesses were cross examined at length, nothing has been elicited on record so as to doubt their veracity, even remotely. Thus, we do not find any reason to reject the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 3. 11. It is true that the medical records pertaining to the treatment given to the deceased as well as P.W.3 at the Government Rajaji Hospital have not been produced. As rightly submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the same has not caused any dent in the case of the prosecution. The injuries found on P.W.3 as well as the deceased have been spoken to by the Doctors. The postmortem has revealed that a number of injuries on the deceased and the cause of death. Thus, the prosecution has clearly proved that the death of the deceased was caused by the accused and the injuries on P.W.3 were also caused by this accused. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the original FIR has been suppressed in the case. We do not find any merit in the said argument, as we do not find any material to substantiate the said contention. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there was no Test Identification Parade held and therefore, the identification made for the first time in Court by these three witnesses cannot be believed. We do not find any merit in the said argument, as we do not find any material to substantiate the said contention. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there was no Test Identification Parade held and therefore, the identification made for the first time in Court by these three witnesses cannot be believed. A close reading of the evidences of these three witnesses would go to show that P.Ws.1 and 3 had stated that they had no acquaintance with the accused. But, even before P.W.1 made a complaint, he came to know about the name of the accused. That is how, he mentioned his name in the complaint itself. 13. Further, the occurrence did not take place in a short while, so that the witnesses could have just a glimpse of the identification features of the assailant. The occurrence went on for a considerable time, during which, P.Ws.1 to 3 had enough time to notice the identification (features) of the deceased. Therefore, in the instant case, going by the facts and circumstances of the case, the failure of the Investigating Officer to arrange for Test Identification Parade has not resulted in any harm to the case of the prosecution. When we find that the evidence of the injured eye witness, which is supported by the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 2, has fully inspired the confidence of this Court, the fact that no Test Identification Parade was conducted would not be fatal. The identification made during the Test Identification Parade is not substantive, as it is only corroborative. In the instant case, the failure of the prosecution to conduct the Test Identification Parade has deprived them of a corroborative piece of evidence. Thus, in our considered view, the prosecution has not lost nothing more out of the same. Though the act of the Investigating Officer, in not extending a request to the learned Judicial Magistrate to conduct the Test Identification Parade, cannot be appreciated, on that score, for the fault committed by the Investigating Officer, we find no reason to reject the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 3, which are, otherwise, quite convincing. 14. Now, the next question is, “what is the offence that has been committed by the accused by his act?”. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, there was no motive for the accused. The occurrence was not premeditated. 14. Now, the next question is, “what is the offence that has been committed by the accused by his act?”. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, there was no motive for the accused. The occurrence was not premeditated. It happened because of the accident, which occurred in the residential locality. It was quite natural for the accused to have questioned the deceased and the other two persons as to why they had driven the motorcycle in such a rash manner in a residential locality. It is in the evidence of P.W.1 that this resulted not only in a wordy quarrel, but also in exchange of blows, against each other. It was only in that occurrence, the accused had taken the knife and caused injuries on the deceased. In our considered view, having regard to the circumstances, under which, the occurrence had taken place, which went on for a considerable time, we hold that the accused had lost his self control on account of the provocation caused not only by words, but by the act of the deceased party. Thus, the act of the accused would squarely fall within the first exception to Section 300 IPC. Since his act would fall under limb 2 of Section 299 IPC, he is liable to be convicted under Section 304(i) IPC for having caused the death of the deceased. 15. So far as the injury caused on P.W.3 is concerned, his act would not fall under any one of the limbs of Section 299 IPC, at the most, the accused had no motive against P.W.3 also. When, P.W.3 intervened, he had voluntarily caused hurt. Thus, the accused has committed offence only under Section 324 IPC. 16. Now, turning to the quantum of punishment, the accused is an young man. He is also poor and having a big family to take care of. He has got no bad antecedents. After this occurrence also, he has not committed any crime. The occurrence was not premeditated. Having regard to these mitigating as well as aggravating circumstances, we deem it appropriate to impose a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 304(i) IPC, besides fine of Rs.500/- and for the offence under Section 324 IPC, to impose a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. 17. Having regard to these mitigating as well as aggravating circumstances, we deem it appropriate to impose a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years for the offence under Section 304(i) IPC, besides fine of Rs.500/- and for the offence under Section 324 IPC, to impose a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/-. 17. In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed in the following terms: (i) The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Sections 302 and 307 IPC are set aside and instead, he is convicted under Sections 304(i) and 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one week for the offence under Section 304(i) IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one week for the offence under Section 324 IPC. (ii) The sentences are to run concurrently. (iii) The trial Court shall take steps to secure the accused/ appellant to commit him in prison to serve out the remaining period of sentence. (iv) 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. 18. We appreciate the services rendered by Mr.A.Nawaz khan, as legal aid counsel and the Legal Services Authority is directed to pay his remuneration.