JUDGMENT : A. SELVAM, J. The conviction and sentence dated 18.01.2017 passed in S.C. No. 230 of 2014 by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Dharmapuri are being challenged in the present Criminal Appeal. 2. The nubble of the case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant by name, Prabavathy is the wife of the deceased, viz. Ramachandran and one Prabhu is the brother of the de facto complainant. The accused has advanced a sum of Rs.500/- to the said Prabhu for the purpose of ploughing his land and due to that, a tussle has been in existence between them. On 14.08.2013, at about 6.00 p.m., the deceased has gone to the house of the accused and attacked him. The accused has in turn attacked the deceased by using a cudgel and due to that, he sustained fatal injuries and subsequently, he has been admitted in various hospitals and passed away. The de facto complainant has given a complaint and the same has been marked as Ex.P1. 3. On receipt of Ex.P1, the Sub Inspector of Police [P.W.9] has registered the same in Crime No. 548/2013. After knowing the demise of the deceased, the Inspector of Police, viz. P.W.12 has taken up investigation and examined the connected witnesses. He made arrangements for conducting autopsy on the body of the deceased. Accordingly, the Doctor by name, Gokula Ramanan [P.W.8] has conducted autopsy. He found the following external and internal injuries on the person of the deceased. External Examination : Injuries : 1. Reddish brown abrasion over top of left shoulder M-1x0.5cms. 2. Below left clavicle M-1x0.3cms. No other external injuries seen anywhere on the body. Internal Examination : O/D Head : Scalp contusion over left side lower aspect of occipital region M-6x5x0.5cms. Cranial vault-intact. Dura membrane-intact. Brain-sub arachnoid haemorrhage seen on the cerebellum and back of occipital lobes. Base of skull-intact. O/D Neck : Fracture of C2 and C3 cervical vertebral junction with surrounding soft tissue contused. Other neck structures normal. Hyoid bone-intact. O/D Thorax : No ribs fracture. Heart-normal in size. Chambers contained fluid blood. Valves and coronaries-normal. Both lungs oedematous and C/S congested. O/D Abdomen : Stomach contains 150 gms of partly digested cooked food particles with no specific odour. Mucosa C/S congested. Liver, spleen, both kidneys, C/S congested. Bladder-empty. Pelvis-intact.” The postmortem certificate has been marked as Ex.P8. After completing investigation, the Investigating Officer, viz. Heart-normal in size. Chambers contained fluid blood. Valves and coronaries-normal. Both lungs oedematous and C/S congested. O/D Abdomen : Stomach contains 150 gms of partly digested cooked food particles with no specific odour. Mucosa C/S congested. Liver, spleen, both kidneys, C/S congested. Bladder-empty. Pelvis-intact.” The postmortem certificate has been marked as Ex.P8. After completing investigation, the Investigating Officer, viz. P.W.12 has filed a final report on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Harur and the same has been taken on file in PRC.No.8/2014. 4. The Judicial Magistrate, Harur, after considering the fact that the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused is triable by the Sessions Court, has committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Dharmapuri division and the same has been taken on file in Sessions Case No. 230/2014. 5. The trial Court, after hearing arguments of both sides and upon perusing the relevant records, has framed a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused and the same has been read over and explained to him. The accused has denied the charge and claimed to be tried. 6. On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws 1 to 12 have been examined and Exs.P1 to P13 and M.O.1 have been marked. 7. When the accused has been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as respects the incriminating materials available in evidence against him, he denied his complicity in the crime. On the side of the accused, Ex.D1 has been marked. 8. The trial Court, after hearing arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material evidence available on record, has found the accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and imposed a fine of Rs.1000/- with usual default clause. Against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the present criminal appeal has been preferred, at the instance of the accused, as appellant. 9. The consistent case put forth on the side of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant is the wife of the deceased, viz. Ramachandran and one Prabhu is her brother. Due to ploughing of land of the accused, a tussle has been in existence between him and family members of the de facto complainant. 9. The consistent case put forth on the side of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant is the wife of the deceased, viz. Ramachandran and one Prabhu is her brother. Due to ploughing of land of the accused, a tussle has been in existence between him and family members of the de facto complainant. During the course of occurrence and in order to deter him, the accused has attacked him by using a cudgel and due to his overtact, the deceased has sustained fatal injuries and immediately, he has been referred to Government Hospital, Harur and subsequently referred to Government Hospital, Dharmapuri and finally referred to Government Hospital, Salem, where he succumbed to injuries. 10. As adverted to earlier, the trial Court has found the accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and imposed sentence as mentioned supra. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused has raised the following points so as to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant/accused: [i] In the instant case, except the evidence of the de facto complainant [P.W.1], nobody has been examined as eyewitness and therefore, the sole testimony of the de facto complainant [P.W.1] cannot be a basis for inviting conviction and sentence against the appellant/accused. [ii] The specific case of the prosecution is that in the place of occurrence, the deceased has tried to attack the accused and only for the purpose of saving himself, the accused has attacked him by using a cudgel and at the said circumstances, the act of the accused would not come within the contour of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the trial Court has erroneously found him guilty under the said Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the trial Court has erroneously found him guilty under the said section and therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court are liable to be modified. 12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended to the effect that in the instant case, even in Ex.P1, viz. complaint, motive for occurrence has been explicitly stated and for the purpose of corroborating the alleged motive, both the de facto complainant and her brother viz. 12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended to the effect that in the instant case, even in Ex.P1, viz. complaint, motive for occurrence has been explicitly stated and for the purpose of corroborating the alleged motive, both the de facto complainant and her brother viz. Prabhu have examined as P.Ws1 and 2 and both of them have clinchingly stated in their evidence about the motive and also the overtacts alleged to have been committed by the accused on the person of the deceased and further, their evidence has been corroborated by medical evidence and the trial Court, after considering the plenty of evidence available on the side of the prosecution, has rightly found the accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court do not warrant interference. 13. On the basis of the divergent submissions made on either side, the Court has to meticulously analyse as to whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused/appellant punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code even without a speck of doubt ? 14. It is an admitted fact that the de facto complainant is the wife of the deceased, viz., Ramachandran and she has been examined as P.W.1. The prosecution has set the law in motion only on the basis of Ex.P1, viz. complaint, wherein, it has been clearly stated to the effect that a motive has been in existence with regard to ploughing of land between the accused and brother of P.W.1 and also deceased. Further, in Ex.P1, it has been clearly stated about the overtacts alleged to have been committed on the person of the deceased by the accused. 15. The author of Ex.P1 has been examined as PW1 and she has clearly stated about the motive and also the overtacts committed by the accused on the person of the deceased. The brother of P.W.1, viz. Prabhu has been examined as P.W.2 and he has also given clear evidence with regard to motive. Therefore, both P.Ws 1 and 2 have given a picturesque evidence with regard to motive and also attack made on the person of the deceased by the accused. The Doctor who conducted autopsy clearly opined that the death has occurred due to injuries sustained by the deceased. 16. It is true that PW1 is the wife of the deceased. Therefore, both P.Ws 1 and 2 have given a picturesque evidence with regard to motive and also attack made on the person of the deceased by the accused. The Doctor who conducted autopsy clearly opined that the death has occurred due to injuries sustained by the deceased. 16. It is true that PW1 is the wife of the deceased. Except PW1, with regard to occurrence, no other independent witness is available. Under the said circumstances, the Court has to analyse as to whether the evidence of PW1 can be believed in for the purpose of inviting conviction and sentence against the appellant/accused. As stated earlier, PW1 has given a clinching evidence to the effect that in the place of occurrence, the accused has attacked her husband by using a cudgel and due to that, he has been sustained fatal injuries. Even though P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased, since she has given clear evidence with regard to above factual aspects, the Court can very well rely upon her evidence. Further, it is a settled principle of law that on the basis of a sole testimony of a single witness, conviction and sentence can be invited. In the instant case as mentioned in many places, the entire case of the prosecution revolves upon the sole testimony of PW1. Even though PW1 is the wife of the deceased, since she has given trustworthy evidence, the Court cannot belittle her evidence and therefore, the first contention put forth on the side of the appellant/accused sans merit. 17. The second contention urged on the side of the appellant/accused is that in the place of occurrence, the deceased has tried to attack the accused and only for the purpose of saving himself, the accused has attacked him by using a cudgel and therefore, he cannot be mulcted with a liability under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 18. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has fairly conceded to the effect that the entire occurrence has been taken place in front of the house of the accused and further, the deceased has tried to attack him and only for the purpose of deterring him, the accused has attacked him by using a cudgel. 19. 18. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has fairly conceded to the effect that the entire occurrence has been taken place in front of the house of the accused and further, the deceased has tried to attack him and only for the purpose of deterring him, the accused has attacked him by using a cudgel. 19. Considering the genesis of occurrence and also considering the manner of attack alleged to have been made by the accused on the person of the deceased, this Court is of the view that the act of the accused would not come within the purview of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and at the most, the accused/appellant can be mulcted with liability under Section 304[ii] of the Indian Penal Code. 20. The trial Court without considering the genesis of the case of the prosecution and also the act of the deceased, has erroneously found the accused guilty under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. In view of the observation made earlier, it is made clear that the second contention put forth on the side of the appellant/accused is really having merit and due to that, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court are liable to be modified as mentioned infra. In fine, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. The conviction and sentence passed in S.C. No. 230/2014 by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Dharmapuri are modified as follows: The appellant/accused is found guilty under Section 304[ii] of the Indian Penal Code instead of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment and there is no modification in fine amount. Connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed.