JUDGMENT : S.Nagamuthu. J. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.105 of 2012 on the file of the District Mahila Sessions court, Cuddalore. She stood charge for offences under Sections 307 and 302 IPC. By judgment dated 11.03.2014, the trial Court convicted her under both the charges and sentenced her to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years for offence under Section 307 I.P.C., and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The accused Mrs.Valli @ Veeravalli is the wife of P.W.2. The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Alamelu. She was the mother of P.W.2 and mother-in-law of the accused. Out of the wedlock, the accused has a female child. Before the birth of the said child, there were frequent quarrels between the accused and P.W.2 as P.W.2 started demanding dowry from the accused. After valaikappu function was over when she was 7 months pregnant, the accused was taken to her parental home. Even after the birth of the child, P.W.2 did not care to take back the accused along with the child. The accused was therefore staying with her parents along with the child. P.W.2 did not even maintain her. While so, on the date of occurrence (on 29.09.2010), the accused had gone to the house of P.W.2 in order to persuade him to take back her into the matrimonial fold and to sort out the issues between them. At that time, P.W.1, the daughter of the deceased was sitting outside the house of P.W.2. The accused enquired her about P.W.2. P.W.1 told that P.W.2 was inside the house. The accused entered into the house and asked P.W.2 as to why he was not showing any interest in taking her back along with the child to his house. This resulted in a wordy quarrel. There were exchange of abusive words between P.W.2 and the deceased. P.W.2 even manhandled the accused and attacked her. The accused entered into the house and asked P.W.2 as to why he was not showing any interest in taking her back along with the child to his house. This resulted in a wordy quarrel. There were exchange of abusive words between P.W.2 and the deceased. P.W.2 even manhandled the accused and attacked her. Enraged over the same, it is alleged that the accused took out a knife meant for cutting vegetables, which was lying there and stabbed P.W.2 on his right chest. He raised alarm. His mother Mrs. Alamelu/ deceased rushed into the house and shouted at the accused. The accused stabbed her also on her stomach. The deceased fell down in a pool of blood and died instantaneously. P.W.2 was immediately taken to Mangalampettai Government Hospital. After first aid treatment, he was referred to Government hospital at Ulundurpet. The Doctor at Ulundurpettai also again referred him to Jipmer hospital, Pondichery, where he underwent treatment for one week and thereafter, he was discharged. After the occurrence was over, P.W.1 went to Mangalampettai Police Station and made a complaint at 6.30 p.m., on 29.09.2010. 3. P.W.10, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of the said complaint, registered a case in Crime No.215 of 2010 for offence under Sections 307 and 302 I.P.C., against the accused. Ex.P.1 is the complaint. Ex.P.10 is the F.I.R. She forwarded both the documents to the Court, which were received by the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate at 8.00 a.m. on 30.09.2010. 4. The case was taken up for investigation by P.W.11. He proceeded to the place of occurrence at 6.30 p.m on 29.09.2010 and prepared an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch in the place of occurrence. He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same for Post mortem. He examined P.Ws.3, 4 and 5 and few more witnesses and recorded their statements. 5. P.W.7 - Dr. Kumaravel, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 30.09.2010 at 1.00 p.m., and found the following injuries:- Nose-free. Ears-free. Tongue within the mouth. Teeth intact. External injuries: 1) Stab injury on size 6 x 2 x 1 cm on left side chest 6th inter cordial space Internal examination abdomen in the periodontal cavity intact. Ribs-intact. Heart pale empty. Cut injury 2 x = cm on the apex of heart. 15 ml of blood present in pericordial space. Ears-free. Tongue within the mouth. Teeth intact. External injuries: 1) Stab injury on size 6 x 2 x 1 cm on left side chest 6th inter cordial space Internal examination abdomen in the periodontal cavity intact. Ribs-intact. Heart pale empty. Cut injury 2 x = cm on the apex of heart. 15 ml of blood present in pericordial space. 50 ml of blood present in the left thorax space. Lungs-intact, pale. Hyoid bone-intact. Stomach 250 ml of semi digested food liver intact pale. Spleen-intact pale. Kidneys- intact pale. Intestine -distended with gas. Bladder intact. Uterus-intact and empty. Head -intact. Skull-intact. Membranes intact. Ex.P.6 is the Post Mortem Certificate. P.W.7 gave opinion that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to injuries sustained to vital organ namely, heart. 6. P.W.8 - Dr.Karthiyekan, treated P.W.2 at Government Hospital at Ulundurpet. Ex.P.7 is the Accident Register. He gave opinion that a single stab injury measuring 2 x 0.5 cm found on the right anterior lower chest of P.W.2, would have been caused by a weapon like knife (M.O.1). The said injury is grievous in nature. 7. P.W.11 during the course of investigation, arrested the accused at 9.00 a.m., on 30.09.2010, in the presence of P.W.4 and another witness. On such arrest, she gave a voluntary confession, in which, she disclosed the place where she had hidden the knife (M.O.1). In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, she took the Police and witness to the place of hide out and produced the knife (M.O.1). P.W.11 recovered the same under a mahazar. On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand and also handed over the Material Object to the Court. He recovered the blood stained clothes from the body of the deceased and also forwarded the same to the Court. Since, he was transferred, the investigation was taken up by his successor P.W.12. 8. P.W.12, the then Inspector of Police examined few more witnesses and also collected the medical records. At his request, the Material Objects were sent for chemical examination. The report revealed that there were blood stains in all the Material Objects, except the knife (M.O.1) recovered from the accused. On completing investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused. 9. 8. P.W.12, the then Inspector of Police examined few more witnesses and also collected the medical records. At his request, the Material Objects were sent for chemical examination. The report revealed that there were blood stains in all the Material Objects, except the knife (M.O.1) recovered from the accused. On completing investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused. 9. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment against the accused. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 12 witnesses were examined and 13 documents were exhibited, besides 6 Material Objects were marked. 10. Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 are the eye-witnesses. P.W.2 is the injured eye-witness. P.W.6 though claims to be sustained injury in the same occurrence, there is no medical records to prove the same. These two witnesses have vividly spoken about the entire occurrence. They have stated that there was a quarrel between the accused and P.W.2 and in that quarrel, P.W.2 assaulted the accused and enraged over the same, she took a knife and caused a single stab injury on the chest of P.W.2 and then on the abdomen of the deceased. P.W.3 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar and rough sketch and the recovery of the material objects at the place of occurrence. P.W.4 has spoken about the arrest of the accused and the consequential recovery of M.O.1 knife. P.W.5 has spoken only on hearsay information and she has not stated anything incriminating against the accused. P.W.6, who is the daughter of the deceased, has spoken about the earlier instances, which resulted in the occurrence. P.W.7 has spoken about the post mortem conducted and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.8 has spoken about the treatment given by him to P.W.2. P.W.9 has spoken about the chemical analysis conducted by him on M.O.1. The report revealed that there was no blood stains on the knife. P.W.10 has spoken about the registration of the case. P.W.11 has spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed in this case. 11. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., she denied the same as false. The report revealed that there was no blood stains on the knife. P.W.10 has spoken about the registration of the case. P.W.11 has spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed in this case. 11. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., she denied the same as false. However, she did not choose to examine any witnesses nor did she mark any documents on her side. The defence was a total denial. 12. Having considered all the above materials, the trial Court convicted the appellant/accused as stated in the first paragraph of this judgment. Challenging the same, the appellant/accused is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully. 14. In this case, the prosecution mainly relies on the eye-witness account of P.Ws.1,2 and 6. P.W.2 is the injured eye-witness. He sustained grievous injury in the occurrence. The nature of the injury has been spoken by P.W.8. The presence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 cannot be doubted as they are the family members of the deceased. The occurrence had taken place inside the house of the deceased. These 3 witnesses had no axe to grind against the accused. Though, these witnesses have been cross examined at length, the learned counsel for the appellant was not able to point out any material on record so as to doubt the credentials of these witnesses. 15. In our considered view, the evidence of these three witnesses are cogent and convincing and hence, reliance can be safely made. P.W.7, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased has opined that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to the injury to heart. From the evidences of the said witnesses, the prosecution has clearly established that the death of the deceased was caused by the accused and the injury on P.W.2 was also caused only by this accused. 16. Now, the next question is, “What is the act committed by the accused?”. As we have already narrated, there was no motive for the accused to cause the death of either P.W.2 or the deceased. She was aggrieved that P.W.2 had not taken her back along with the child, after the birth of the child. 16. Now, the next question is, “What is the act committed by the accused?”. As we have already narrated, there was no motive for the accused to cause the death of either P.W.2 or the deceased. She was aggrieved that P.W.2 had not taken her back along with the child, after the birth of the child. She came all the way to the village to the house of P.W.2, only to persuade him to take her back and to sort out the issues. This resulted in a quarrel between the accused and P.W.2. But, not stopping with the verbal quarrel, P.W.2 had manhandled her and attacked her. It is the fact that the accused was not armed with any weapon. The knife, which was used for the occurrence is after all meant for cutting vegetables which was lying in the house. Suddenly, driven by the above provocation, the accused had taken the knife and caused a single stab on P.W.2. When the deceased intervened, the accused caused a single stab on her also under the same mental condition. The accused had caused one single stab on the deceased also. Thus, the act of the accused in causing injury on the deceased would squarely fall within the ambit of fourth limb of Section 300 I.P.C. Since, the act of the accused would again fall within the fourth limb of Section 300 I.P.C., in causing the death of the deceased, the appellant/accused is liable to be punished for the offence under Section 304(2) IPC. 17. Now, turning to the offence committed against P.W.2, in our considered view, the attempt made by the appellant/accused was not to commit murder. As we have already pointed out, had death of P.W.2 been caused on account of the stab injury caused by the accused, the act of the accused would have fallen under the fourth exception to Section 300 I.P.C. Since, the act of the accused was only an attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder, she is liable to be punished only for an offence under Section 308 IPC. 18. Now, turning to the quantum of punishment, the accused is an young woman having a child. There was no premeditation. The occurrence was out of a quarrel proceeded by a fight. In the heat of passion, the accused has committed these two crimes. 18. Now, turning to the quantum of punishment, the accused is an young woman having a child. There was no premeditation. The occurrence was out of a quarrel proceeded by a fight. In the heat of passion, the accused has committed these two crimes. She has no bad antecedent and there are lot of chances for reformation. Having regard to the totality of these mitigating as well as aggravating circumstances, we are of the view that sentencing the accused to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 304 part 2 I.P.C., and sentencing her to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years for the offence under Section 308 IPC, would meet the ends of justice. 19. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed in the following terms:- (i) The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused for offence under Section 302 I.P.C., is set aside and instead, she is convicted for offence under Section 304(ii) I.P.C., and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four weeks; (ii) The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused for offence under Section 307 I.P.C., is set aside and instead, she is convicted for offence under Section 308 I.P.C., and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. (iii) The above sentences shall run concurrently. The period of sentence already undergone by the appellant is directed to be set off as provided under Section 428 Cr.P.C.