JUDGMENT : The appellant is accused before the learned Sessions Judge, Yadgiri in S.C.No.3/2010. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in the said case on 28.09.2010, the appellant has called in question the said judgment before this Court. The Trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 307 and 302 of IPC sentencing him to under rigorous imprisonment for two and half years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. The Trial Court has also sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and also sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 2. The brief factual matrix that emanate from the records are that, the accused/appellant was a tenant under PW-2- the complainant by name Habeeb Patel S/o Maktum Patel. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused was willing to marry the daughter of the complainant/PW-2, but the complainant was not willing to give his daughter to the accused in marriage. It appears that, there were some differences between the accused and PW-2. It is also the case of the prosecution that, accused was tenant in the premises of PW-2 and because of the above said reason accused was evicted from the premises and sent away. Being enraged, the accused was waiting for opportunity to teach a lesson to PW-2 and his family members. In this background, it is alleged that 12.04.2002, PW-2 after attending his duties came back to his house at Kembhavi at 700 p.m. After dinner he slept in the house along with his wife, children and mother. At about 230 a.m. on 13.04.2002 somebody knocked the door and due to which PW-2 woke up and he asked actually who was knocking the door, the person told that he is by name Moinuddin and stated that the accused Syed Abdul Rahaman @ Munna Master came along with him and therefore requested PW-2 to open the door. At about 230 a.m. on 13.04.2002 somebody knocked the door and due to which PW-2 woke up and he asked actually who was knocking the door, the person told that he is by name Moinuddin and stated that the accused Syed Abdul Rahaman @ Munna Master came along with him and therefore requested PW-2 to open the door. Having suspected the said attitude of those persons, complainant went out from the house from the back door and requested his brother PW-7 to come to his house. Thereafter, it appears complainant opened the front door and immediately appellant/accused rushed into the house and asked for some water, after drinking the water, PW-2 told him to come on the next morning, if at all he has left any property in his house to take them. Abruptly, at that time it is alleged that the accused/appellant assaulted PW-2 with a knife on his left arm and also stabbed the wife of PW-2 Fatima Begum who came across to defend her husband. Accused also assaulted the brother of the PW-2 (PW-7 Hussain Patel) who came to rescue PW-2, assaulted him on left side of the stomach with the knife. Thereafter, he ran away from the spot. The injured persons were shifted to the hospital. PWs-2 and 7 have taken treatment to their injuries. However, the wife of the PW-2 succumbed to the injuries in the hospital on the next day. On the above said allegations, the police have charge sheeted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 307 and 302 of IPC. Though, originally in crime No.25/2002 a case was registered under Section 324 and 307 of IPC. 3. Record discloses that, the accused absconded himself and Trial Court could not able to secure him. However, another accused by name Moiuddin S/o Syed Hussain Tippanatgi was arrested in connection with this crime and he was tried and acquitted by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi by judgment dated 25.10.2005. 4. When the Trial Court was about to proceed under Section 299 of Cr.P.C., it came to know that the appellant/accused was arrested in some other case. Therefore, the learned committal Judge secured the presence of the accused by issuing body warrant and thereafter committed the case. The accused was arrested on 17.03.2009 in connection with this crime and produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Therefore, the learned committal Judge secured the presence of the accused by issuing body warrant and thereafter committed the case. The accused was arrested on 17.03.2009 in connection with this crime and produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate. After committal of the case, the learned Sessions Judge has secured the presence of the accused and framed charges against the accused and recorded the plea of the accused. As accused pleaded not guilty, the accused was tried by the Sessions Judge, and impugned judgment is passed. 5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses as Exs.P-1 to P-18 and marked 10 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-10. During the course of cross-examination of PWs-6 and 7 Exs.D1 to D7 were also marked. MOs-1 to 4 material objects were also got marked during the course of the Trial. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Trial Court has recorded the judgment of conviction and sentenced the appellant accordingly as noted above. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends before the Court that, the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and it has not taken into consideration that, PW-2 and 7 are interested eyewitnesses and no other witnesses are there to support the case of the prosecution with regard to the commission of the offences. The incriminating article like knife has not been recovered in this particular case. Learned counsel also contends that, there are material contradictions and omissions elicited during the course of evidence of PWs-2 and 7 which in fact go to the root of the prosecution case and those contradictions and omissions have not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court. Though the doctor examined before the Court, has stated that, the injuries sustained by PWs-2 and 7 were simple in nature, inspite of that, the trial Court without assigning any proper reason without properly appreciating the evidence of the doctor wrongly recorded the judgment of conviction under Section 307 of IPC. Over all nature of allegations made in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, even if they are taken as they are, it does not disclose any offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The Trial Court has not appreciated the entire evidence in proper prospective and wrongly recorded the judgment of conviction under Section 302 of IPC. Over all nature of allegations made in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, even if they are taken as they are, it does not disclose any offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The Trial Court has not appreciated the entire evidence in proper prospective and wrongly recorded the judgment of conviction under Section 302 of IPC. Hence, for these reasons the learned counsel submits that the judgment of conviction and sentence deserves to be set aside. 7. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor strenuously contends before this Court that, though there are contradictions and omissions elicited in the evidence of PWs-2 and 7 but they are only minor contradictions. Even they are accepted, they will not go to the root of the prosecution case. Over all reading of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it clearly discloses that PWs-2 and 7 are the injured eyewitnesses who have categorically stated about the presence of the accused and also assault on them and the deceased (wife of PW-2). Even considering the contradictions and omissions, the Trial Court has observed that core of the prosecution case is not disturbed. Therefore, there is no room for this Court to interfere with judgment of the Trial Court. Hence, he pleaded for dismissal of the appeal. 8. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for appellant and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, the point that would arise for the consideration of this Court is : “Whether the appellant has made out any reason or substantial ground to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court”? 9. In order to answer the above said point for consideration, it is just and necessary to have the brief cursory examination of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and thereafter to discuss the material witnesses necessary for the disposal of this appeal. 10. PW-1 is a doctor by name Basavaraj, he has stated about the treatment given by him to the PWs-2 and 7 as per Exs.P-1 and 2. PW-2 is injured eyewitness who lodged the complaint as per Ex.P3 and also identified MOs-1 and 2 pair of shoes, MO3 small stone and MO4 blood stained cement stone. PW-3 Mohammed Adam is witness to spot panchanama Ex.P4. PW-4 Jakirhussain is witness to inquest panchanama Ex.P5. PW5 is the daughter of PW-2, she is an eyewitness. PW-2 is injured eyewitness who lodged the complaint as per Ex.P3 and also identified MOs-1 and 2 pair of shoes, MO3 small stone and MO4 blood stained cement stone. PW-3 Mohammed Adam is witness to spot panchanama Ex.P4. PW-4 Jakirhussain is witness to inquest panchanama Ex.P5. PW5 is the daughter of PW-2, she is an eyewitness. PWs-6 is the elder brother of PW-2. PW-7 is the injured eyewitness. PW8 and 9 are neighbors of PW-2. PWs-10 and 11 are the persons, who were deputed to apprehend the accused. PW-12 is the person, who has given house registered extract pertaining to PW-2. PWs-13, 14 and 15 are also police personnel deputed for the purpose of apprehending the accused. PW-16 is the CPI who received house extract from PW-12, and PM report from the doctor. PW-17 is the doctor who conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Fatima Begum. PW-18 is the CPI, recorded the statement of the witnesses and completed the investigation and laid a charge sheet against the accused. 11. Out of the above said witnesses, the evidence of the injured eyewitnesses play a dominant role in this case. It is just and necessary to re-appreciate the evidence of these witnesses. 12. PW-2 has categorically sated as to how the incident happened on that particular day. It is suggested that on that day at 3-00 a.m. accused and another person Moinuddin came to his house. The accused told the complainant that, he has left his passport in the house of PW-2, then, this witness PW-2 asked the accused to come on the next day. At that time, accused started quarreling with PW-2 who was holding knife in his hand and assaulted on the left side shoulder of PW-2 and caused bleeding injury. At that time, deceased Fatima Begum came across in order to rescue PW-2, in that context it is alleged that the accused also stabbed her who sustained injury to her abdomen. The brother of the complainant by name Hussain Patel also came to rescue PW-2 and accused assaulted him on the left side of the stomach and ran away from the spot. It is also admitted by PW-2 that he gave a complaint as per Ex.P3. Police have also inspected the spot and drew up the spot mahazar as per Ex.P1. The brother of the complainant by name Hussain Patel also came to rescue PW-2 and accused assaulted him on the left side of the stomach and ran away from the spot. It is also admitted by PW-2 that he gave a complaint as per Ex.P3. Police have also inspected the spot and drew up the spot mahazar as per Ex.P1. He also identified MOs-1 to 4 which are material objects marked in this case i.e., shoes, cap, blood stained stone and blood stained cement. PW-7 also categorically supported the case of PW-2, he also reiterated the same facts and also stated that he also sustained injury to his left side portion of the stomach. Both of them have categorically stated about the assault on Fatima Begum by the accused on the abdomen and she sustained injury and died later. 13. During the course of cross-examination of these two witnesses nothing much has been elicited. It is the suggestion made to these witnesses that, PW-2 and his wife were quarreling with each other often and that day also they quarreled with each other. In this context, they themselves have assaulted each other with knife. Though, the learned counsel strenuously contended before the Court that no weapon has been seized from the custody of the accused, but the nature of suggestions made to these two witnesses clearly goes to show that (either PW-2 or accused whoever may be) using of the knife has been admitted by the accused. When such suggestion has been made it is also an admitted fact that by way of suggestion that PW-2 and 7 and the deceased have sustained injuries due to the assault by knife. Therefore, it clears out the doubt that the accused has assaulted the PWs-2 and 7 and deceased with knife. The doctor PW-1 has also stated that PWs-2 and 7 have sustained such injuries as stated by the witnesses i.e., on PW-2’s left shoulder and on PW-7’s left side of the stomach. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case. Injuries sustained by PWs-2 and 7 were due to the stab or assault by knife. The doctor PW-1 has also stated that PWs-2 and 7 have sustained such injuries as stated by the witnesses i.e., on PW-2’s left shoulder and on PW-7’s left side of the stomach. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case. Injuries sustained by PWs-2 and 7 were due to the stab or assault by knife. Even though there is no recovery at the instance of the accused, the accused cannot deny the using of the weapon knife during the course of incident, as other circumstances are established to the effect that, the presence of the accused at the spot and the presence of the eyewitnesses and the witnesses sustaining the injuries, the Court can safely draw the inference that those injuries are caused due to assault with the knife, when eyewitnesses have categorically stated (PWs-2, 7, 5 and 6) about the presence of the accused and assault by him. Though, during the course of cross-examination of these witnesses some contradictions and omissions are elicited only with regard to the time factor and also opening of the door and conversation taken place between the accused and witnesses here and there but those contradictions and omissions even if they are accepted as rightly argued by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, will not in any manner shake the core of the case of the prosecution. It is worth to note here a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1983 SC 753 between Bharwada Bhoginbai Hirjibai vs. State of Gujrat, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that : “Over importance cannot be given to minor discrepancies. Discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution. inter alia it was also observed that a witness, though wholly trustful, is liable to be overawed by the Court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination made by the counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequences of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment.” 14. inter alia it was also observed that a witness, though wholly trustful, is liable to be overawed by the Court atmosphere and the piercing cross-examination made by the counsel and out of nervousness mix up facts, get confused regarding sequences of events, or fill up details from imagination on the spur of the moment.” 14. The above said principle, if it is applied to the facts and circumstances of this case, though there are some discrepancies in respect of time and also conversation taken place between the accused and witnesses and opening of the back door etc., it will not in any manner in our opinion shake of the core of prosecution case i.e., the presence of the accused and the injured persons on that day, time and place. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no strong reason to disbelieve the version of the eyewitnesses. 15. As we have noted above, the deceased Fatima Begum was admitted to the hospital on next day i.e., 13.04.2002, she succumbed to the injuries. PW-17 doctor who conducted the post mortem examination has given the report as per Ex.P-9, Ex.P-9 discloses that the deceased died due to cardio respiratory arrest due to shock as a result of injuries to abdominal organs. The injury sustained also clearly disclose that she sustained injury to her abdomen. This also clears out the doubt that she died a homicidal death. Even the death of Fatima Begum sustaining injuries to her abdomen is not much disputed during the course of cross-examination of any of witnesses as we have narrated above. We may say that it is the case of the accused that, PWs-2, 7 and deceased quarreled with each other and stabbed with each other and therefore, they sustained those injuries. Therefore, sustaining of the injuries and death of Fatima Begum is not at all in dispute. 16. The other important aspect that has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel is that, the charges framed by the Trial Court is not proper. Of course, we also find some discrepancies in framing the charges, the charges are in ominous in nature. Ingredients of Sections 324, 307 and 302 of IPC have not been specifically stated in the charges. Of course, we also find some discrepancies in framing the charges, the charges are in ominous in nature. Ingredients of Sections 324, 307 and 302 of IPC have not been specifically stated in the charges. Directly the Sessions Judge had proceeded to say that the accused has committed the murder of Fatima Begum and committed offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Even the common intention of the accused persons have not been stated in the charge so as to invoke Section 34 of IPC. Though, we find some discrepancies in the charge, but wrong or irregular framing of the charge itself did not in any manner prejudice the accused. Therefore, on that ground the judgment and sentence passed by the Trial Court cannot be set aside. 17. Looking to the above said evidence of PWs-2, 7, 5 and 6, we are of the opinion that the Trial Court has not committed any mistake in drawing inference against the accused and convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. However, we differ from the opinion expressed by the Trial Court so far it relates to conviction and sentence under Sections 307 and 302 of IPC are concerned. 18. On perusal of the evidence of doctor PW-1 he has categorically stated that he examined PW-7 on that particular date and found some injuries i.e., a stab injury over the left side of abdominal region measuring around 6 x 2 x 3 cm with smelling. Patient was referred to General Hospital, Kalaburagi for further treatment. Even after that, the doctor find that no fractures or any other serious injuries, he admitted that he has given the wound certificate as per Ex.P1 mentioning that the stab injury was simple in nature. Likewise, he also states that he examined one Habeeb Patel (PW-2) on the same day and found one stab injury over the left side of the arm, measuring around 6 x 2 x 3 cm with smelling and tenderness. However, the doctor did not find any fracture, he also stated that the said injury was also simple in nature. On careful perusal of the evidence of the doctor it is not elicited by the prosecution that these injuries are sufficient to cause the death of a person in ordinary course if they are not treated immediately. However, the doctor did not find any fracture, he also stated that the said injury was also simple in nature. On careful perusal of the evidence of the doctor it is not elicited by the prosecution that these injuries are sufficient to cause the death of a person in ordinary course if they are not treated immediately. In order to attract Section 307 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the accused has with such intention or knowledge, under such circumstances, caused such bodily injury, which are sufficient to cause the death of a person in the ordinary course if the injured is not immediately treated then he would be guilty of murder then only it can be said that he had committed the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Therefore, it should be elicited from the witnesses or from the doctor if the act of the accused is sufficient to cause the death of a person, if no such treatment are given immediately and those injuries are sufficient to cause a death of a person in ordinary course. Not even a suggestion has been made to the doctor to elicit this particular aspect with reference to the opinion given by a doctor that those injuries are simple in nature. The Trial Court has also not in detail considered the nature of injuries and the place of injures caused on the body of PWs-2 and 7. Admittedly, PW-2 has sustained injury to arm and PW-7 has sustained injury to the left portion of his stomach, they are not actually the vital parts of the body. Therefore, under the above said circumstances, in the absence of elucidation of such facts with regard to the nature of injuries sustained they are serious in nature, the Court cannot draw any inference that, the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. To that extent we are of the opinion that, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court is required to be set aside. However, we are of the opinion that when the weapon has been used and simple injuries have been caused the said offence falls under Section 324 of IPC. The Trial Court is not right in convicting the accused under Section 307 of IPC. 19. However, we are of the opinion that when the weapon has been used and simple injuries have been caused the said offence falls under Section 324 of IPC. The Trial Court is not right in convicting the accused under Section 307 of IPC. 19. Now coming to the offence under Section 302 of IPC is concerned, in order to establish this offence under Section 302 of IPC, the prosecution has to make out a case to establish that, the accused has actually intended to commit murder of Fatima Begum. Under Section 302 of IPC it is the culpable homicide amounting to murder is punishable. Section 300 of IPC defines, culpable homicide amounting to murder. The accused must have done an act with an intention of causing death or with an intention of causing such bodily injury; likely to cause the death or with knowledge that those injuries would cause death, then it can be said that he commits culpable homicide. Therefore, the intention and knowledge of the accused play a dominant role. In the absence of intention to cause the death or intention or knowledge of causing such bodily injury likely to cause the death, then such act would not fall under Section 302 of IPC. As the factual aspects visualized by us, it clearly discloses that the accused has assaulted the deceased Fatima Begum but under what circumstance, in what manner such injury was caused play a dominant role in order to draw the inference of guilt for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. It is evident from the evidence of PWs-2, 7, 5 and 6 they have categorically stated that firstly, the accused has assaulted on PW-2’s right arm, secondly, he assaulted PW-7 on the left side of the stomach who came to rescue PW-2, likewise, the wife of PW-2 also came across when accused and PW-2 were quarreling with each other and the accused had stabbed PW-2 in that context, when she came across, the accused might had stabbed on her abdomen. So there is no elucidation of facts that the accused was having knowledge that, the said lady would intercept and come across and with an intention or knowledge he has caused such bodily injury and same is sufficient to cause death of said lady. Therefore, the intention cannot be imparted to the accused that, he really intended to kill Fatima Begum. Therefore, the intention cannot be imparted to the accused that, he really intended to kill Fatima Begum. Even otherwise, the main grievance of the accused was against PW-2, if at all he intended to kill somebody in the house of PW-2, he would have concentrated only on PW-2, but he only assaulted on the shoulder of PW-2, therefore, it cannot be at any stretch of imagination inferred that, he has any intention to kill Fatima Begum with knowledge and with such intention he stabbed Fatima Begum. Therefore, we are of the opinion that, the intention of causing the death of Fathima Begum or with intention or knowledge of causing such bodily injury which is sufficient in the ordinary course to cause the death are all absent in this particular case. 20. Having arrived at such conclusion, it is also just and necessary as to ascertain what actually the offence committed by the accused, our answer is the accused though, did not committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC but he definitely, has committed the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. When there is no intention or such knowledge to cause the injury in turn sufficient to cause the death of a person, if the accused had only knowledge that it is likely to cause death of a person but without any intention to cause death or bodily injury, then he commits an offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. 21. Under the above said facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that, the learned Sessions Judge has erroneously convicted the accused and sentenced him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. The offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC is also punishable which may extend to ten years or with fine or with both. Therefore, we must also take it into consideration the imprisonment already undergone by the accused, while sentencing the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. The offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC is also punishable which may extend to ten years or with fine or with both. Therefore, we must also take it into consideration the imprisonment already undergone by the accused, while sentencing the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. As could be seen from the records, the accused though absconded from the date of the offence and the police could not able to secure him to face the trial before the Trial Court, however, he was caught in some other case, he was lying in judicial custody, when the case was split up against him and the jurisdictional Magistrate was about the record the evidence under Section 299 of Cr.P.C. at that time, the jurisdictional police have taken out the body warrant and produced him before the JMFC, Court on 17.03.2009. Since the said date, the accused has been in prison for more than 8 years in connection with this case also. 22. We are of the opinion that when there is no previous bad antecedents alleged against the accused or he was convicted in some other cases, we are of the opinion that, the period already undergone by the accused i.e., more than 8 years is concerned is treated as sufficient sentence upon him and it would meet the ends of justice. Hence, the said operative portion of the judgment of the Trial Court also requires to be modified. In view of our above said findings and observations, the judgment and sentence passed by the Trial Court requires to be modified and set aside to some extent. Hence, we answer the point formulated by us partly in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following : ORDER Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 302 of IPC are hereby set aside. However, the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment of 8 years and period already undergone by the accused (8 years, 5 months and 20 days) to be treated as sentence imposed upon him. By exercising the powers under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., we direct that, the accused shall pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to PW-2. By exercising the powers under Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C., we direct that, the accused shall pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to PW-2. If that amount is deposited, the same has to be paid to PW-2, if not paid the concerned Court can recover the said amount in accordance with law. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC is not disturbed. Registry is hereby directed to send the operative portion of the judgment to the concerned jail Superintendent, for release of accused if he is not required in any other case.