JUDGMENT : R. PONGIAPPAN, J. Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment dated 31.01.2011 passed in S.C. No. 214 of 2009 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. I), Chengalpattu. 1. The present appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence dated 31.01.2011, passed in S.C. No. 214 of 2009, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. 1), Chengalpattu. 2. The appellant herein is the sole accused. He stood charged for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 324 and 302 of IPC. The accused denied the charges as false and opted for trial. After full-fledged trial, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. I), Chengalpattu, found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 324 and 302 of IPC. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months. He was further convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. I), Chengalpattu, acquitted the appellant under Section 341 of I.P.C. 3. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused is before this Court, by way of filing the present Criminal Appeal. 4. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: (i) PW-1 Vani and her husband-Kuppan had stayed in Chengalpattu Railway Station and were doing the job of collection of wastages for their livelihood. The accused used to do the same job along with them. Prior to the occurrence, there had been enmity between the accused and the deceased. On 05.05.2009 around 02.00 p.m. when PW-1 and her husband Kuppan were collecting the wastages at Chengalpattu New Bus Stand, the accused and his wife came there and asked Kuppan to give the wastages. When Kuppan told him that he would not give the wastages, the accused immediately took the knife from the Tricycle and cut Kuppan in his left chest. Therefore, the said Kuppan fell down. When Kuppan told him that he would not give the wastages, the accused immediately took the knife from the Tricycle and cut Kuppan in his left chest. Therefore, the said Kuppan fell down. When the accused and his wife started running, PW-1 caught-hold of the hand of the wife of the accused and during that time, the accused cut PW-1 in her left hand with the same knife. After seeing the same, PW-1 ran to Chengalpattu Town Police Station, wherein she was informed that the Police Station had been shifted to the place opposite to the Government Hospital. (ii) In the meanwhile, when PW-3 Moorthi, Police Constable attached to Chengalpattu Town Police Station and the Head Constable-Paranthaman had been on Patrol duty, received a Message through Phone from the Police Station that a person had been lying with cut injuries at new Bus Stand. When they went to the place of occurrence, they saw the deceased with cut injuries in his chest. They sent a Message over phone for Ambulance, which came there and took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Chengalpattu. In the meantime, while PW-1 returned to the place of occurrence, she was informed that her husband was dead and that the dead body had been taken to the Government Hospital by an Ambulance. When she went to the Mortuary of the Hospital, she found her husband dead. She was admitted in the hospital for treatment. (iii) When PW-7 Dr. Senthamarai Kannan had been on duty in the causality unit, the dead body was brought there. PW-7 found lacerated injury measuring 6 x 4 x 3 cm in the left chest of the dead body. In this regard, he issued the Accident Register Copy under Ex.P.5. He also examined PW-1 and found the following injuries: (1) Lacerated injury measuring 12 x 5 x 4 cm on the left fore arm. (2) Lacerated injury measuring 4 x 3 x 1 cm on the left palm. Apart from that, PW-6 Dr. Chitra examined PW-1 and found the following injuries: (1) An incised wound measuring 12 x 5 x 4 cm on the left fore arm (2) An incised wound measuring 4 x 3 x 1 cm on the left palm. After noting out the said injuries, she gave treatment to PW-1 and issued Accident Register under Ex.P.6. Chitra examined PW-1 and found the following injuries: (1) An incised wound measuring 12 x 5 x 4 cm on the left fore arm (2) An incised wound measuring 4 x 3 x 1 cm on the left palm. After noting out the said injuries, she gave treatment to PW-1 and issued Accident Register under Ex.P.6. Thereafter, PW-1 left the hospital voluntarily and therefore, the information in respect of nature of injury could not be furnished by PW-6 Dr. Chitra, who treated PW-1. (iv) PW-11 R. Ravichandran, the then Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Chengalpattu, on receipt of intimation from the Government Hospital, went there and obtained Ex.P.1 Complaint from PW-1. He proceeded to the Police Station and registered a case in Crime No. 258 of 2009, for the offences under Sections 341, 324 and 302 I.P.C. against the accused. The printed F.I.R. has been marked as Ex.P.12. (v) After registering the F.I.R., he took up the case for investigation. He went to the place of occurrence and drew the Rough Sketch under Ex.P.13. He caused for taking photographs of the place of occurrence. He prepared the Observation Mahazar under Ex.P.2 in the presence of K. Mahesh (PW-5) and another witness M. Sunenth and also seized the blood stained earth and sample earth under Ex.P.3 Seizure Mahazar in the presence of the above said witnesses. (vi) In continuation of investigation, PW-11 proceeded to the Government Hospital, Chengalpattu and held inquest on the dead body of Kuppan in the presence of Panchayathars and witnesses and prepared inquest report under Ex.P.14. He sent the dead body with a requisition letter through Head Constable No. 129 to the Medical Officer for postmortem. PW-8 Dr. Parasakthi on receipt of requisition given by PW-11 conducted postmortem on the dead body of Kuppan and found the following antemortem injuries: (1) An oblique cut injury with clear cut margin and acute ends on upper part of left side front of chest measuring 12 cm x 3 cm lung deep. The above said injury had been extended over the upper lobe of left lung measuring 5 x 2 x 1 cm. (2) An oblique cut injury on upper part of right arm (shoulder) measuring 8 cm x 1 cm muscle deep with clear cut margin and acute ends. She preserved the visceral particles for chemical examination and for blood grouping. The above said injury had been extended over the upper lobe of left lung measuring 5 x 2 x 1 cm. (2) An oblique cut injury on upper part of right arm (shoulder) measuring 8 cm x 1 cm muscle deep with clear cut margin and acute ends. She preserved the visceral particles for chemical examination and for blood grouping. PW-8 expressed her opinion in the postmortem certificate Ex.P.7 stating that the death would have occurred 25 to 27 hours prior to postmortem. After receipt of chemical analysis report, she gave the opinion under Ex.P.8 stating that there was no poisonous substance in the visceral particles and that the deceased would appear to have died of cut injury to the region of the chest. (vii) PW-11 examined the witnesses viz. Vani, Sekar, Munusamy, Vedagiri, Gunasekaran and Ramesh and recorded their statements. On 05.05.2009 around 01.00 p.m. he arrested the accused. The confession statement voluntarily given by him was recorded by PW-11 in the presence of PW-10 Vedagiri, Village Administrative Officer and another witness Krishnan. In pursuance of the admissible portion found in the confession statement [Ex.P.15] the accused took the above said witnesses, and on the same day around 01.30 p.m. identify his tricycle, which had been parked behind Ambedkar Statue and he took the Knife [M.O.1] and blood stained half slack [M.O.4] which were seized by PW-11 under the Seizure Mahazar [Ex.P.11] in the presence of the above said witnesses. After recovery as above, the accused was sent to the Judicial Magistrate Court No. I, Chengalpattu. (viii) On 06.05.2009, PW-11 examined PW-1 and recorded her further statement. On the same day, he sent the blood stained Lungi, Shirt worn by the deceased and half slack seized from the accused to the said Court along with Form - 95 and requisition letter for sending the Material Objects to the Forensic Science Laboratory, for analysis. He submitted an application to the Judicial Magistrate Court No. I, Chengalpattu, for recording the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirukazhukundram, recorded 164 Cr.P.C. statement from PW-2. (ix) Since PW-11 got transfer order, he handed over the case records to PW-12, who took up the case for further investigation on 10.07.2009. He submitted an application to the Judicial Magistrate Court No. I, Chengalpattu, for recording the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirukazhukundram, recorded 164 Cr.P.C. statement from PW-2. (ix) Since PW-11 got transfer order, he handed over the case records to PW-12, who took up the case for further investigation on 10.07.2009. He examined the Head Constable Sekar, driver of the Ambulance, Head Clerk Valarmathi, PW-6 to PW-8 Doctors and recorded their statements and has also examined Kasthuribai, Scientific Assistant Grade-I, Forensic Science Laboratory, Chennai and obtained the Biology report under Ex.P.16. He has also obtained Serology reports and the same have been marked as Exs.P.17 and P.18. On 15.07.2009, he had completed the investigation and came to the positive conclusion that the accused has committed the offences under Sections 341, 324 and 302 of I.P.C. and accordingly, he filed the report. 5. From the above materials, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge [Fast Track Court No. I], Chengalpattu, framed charges against the accused for the offences under Sections 341, 324 and 302 of I.P.C. The accused denied the same as false and opted for trial. Hence, in order to prove their case, on the side of the prosecution, 12 witnesses have been examined as PW-1 to PW-12 and 18 documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.18, besides 5 material objects [M.O.1 to M.O.5]: (i) Out of the said witnesses, PW-1 Vani is the wife of the deceased. She speaks about the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution. (ii) PW-2 Gunasekaran is an auto driver by profession. He speaks about the occurrence as on 05.05.2009 around 02.00 p.m. when he was about to proceed I.T.I. one person cried himself, came there and requested to go to hospital. In the meantime, the Police Personnel came there and took the injured to the hospital. (iii) PW-3 Moorthi is the then Inspector of Police, Chengalpattu Town Police Station. He speaks about the occurrence as on 05.05.2009, while he was on patrol duty near to Chengalpattu new bus stand, he found the deceased with chest injury. Thereafter, he made arrangements for shifting the injured from the bus stand to hospital. (iv) PW-4 Sekar is the brother of the deceased Kuppan. According to him, he heard the news and came to the occurrence place. (v) PW-5 Mahesh is also an auto driver by profession. Thereafter, he made arrangements for shifting the injured from the bus stand to hospital. (iv) PW-4 Sekar is the brother of the deceased Kuppan. According to him, he heard the news and came to the occurrence place. (v) PW-5 Mahesh is also an auto driver by profession. According to him, during the relevant point of time, PW-11 visited the scene of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch. He has also stated that from the occurrence place, PW-11 seized the blood stained soil and sample soil. (vi) PW-6 Dr. Chitra was working as Doctor in Chengalpattu Government Medical College Hospital. She speaks about the details of treatment given to PW-1. (vii) PW-7 Dr. Senthamarai Kannan is also a doctor attached to the same hospital. He speaks about the treatment given to the deceased while the deceased was admitted in the hospital. (viii) PW-8 Dr. Parasakthi is also a doctor from the same hospital. She gave evidence in respect of antemortem injuries found on the body of the deceased Kuppan and about the cause of death. (ix) PW-9 S.Devanathan, the then District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirukazhukundram, speaks about the details of statement given by PW-2 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (x) PW-10 Vedagiri, the then Village Administrative Officer of Ekkur Village, before the trial Court, deposed as on 05.05.2009 around 01.00 p.m. near Athoor Village, PW-11 arrested the accused. He speaks that during enquiry, the accused gave a statement that he is willing to identify the tricycle which was used at the time of committing the offence and thereafter, he brought the entire team near to Ambedkar Statue and identified the tricycle and one blood stained weapon. PW-11 recovered the said material objects in their presence. (xi) PW-11 Ravichandran, the then Inspector of Police, Chengalpattu Town Police Station speaks about the registration of the case, details of investigation. (xii) PW-12 Albert Wilson, the then Inspector of Police, Chengalpattu Town Police Station, conducted further investigation in this case after the transfer of PW-11 and examined the witnesses and filed the report. 6. 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 nor mark any documents on his side. 7. 6. 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 nor mark any documents on his side. 7. Having considered all the above, the learned Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu, found the accused guilty for the offences under Sections 324 and 302 of I.P.C. and convicted him as stated in Paragraph 2 of this judgment. However, the learned Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu, acquitted the accused under Section 341 of I.P.C. 8. Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentence, the accused is before this Court. 9. We have heard Mr. R. Karunakaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also perused the materials available on record. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the evidence given by PW-1 and PW-2 in respect of the alleged occurrence is having lot of contradictions. PW-1, being the wife of the deceased Kuppan, the evidence given by her cannot be accepted in entirety. He has further submitted that before the trial Court, except PW-1, no other witnesses have been examined as eye witness to the occurrence and therefore, it cannot be held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and prayed for allowing this appeal. 11. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that the evidence given by PW-1 was corroborated with the evidence given by the doctor, who conducted postmortem and therefore, the interference of this Court with regard to the findings arrived at by the trial Court does not require and prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Appeal. 12. On considering the said submissions with relevant records, it is seen that before the trial Court, PW-1 alone has been examined as witness to the occurrence. PW-1 is not only to the occurrence witness, she is also sustained injury in the occurrence. Furthermore, she is the wife of the deceased Kuppan. In this regard, being the wife of the deceased, it is natural on her part to support the case of the prosecution. Therefore, it is necessary to test the evidence given by PW-1 with care and caution. Furthermore, she is the wife of the deceased Kuppan. In this regard, being the wife of the deceased, it is natural on her part to support the case of the prosecution. Therefore, it is necessary to test the evidence given by PW-1 with care and caution. Before the trial Court, the complaint pertaining to this case said to have been given by PW-1, was marked as Ex.P.1. In the complaint, she has narrated the occurrence as during the relevant point of time, she has collected the wastages along with her husband at Chengalpattu new bus stand. At that time, the accused and his wife came there for collecting wastages and after seeing the deceased, the accused asked to give the wastages. Since the deceased Kuppan refused to give the wastages, the accused immediately took the knife from the tricycle and attacked the deceased on his left chest. Thereafter, when the wife of the deceased attempted to caught hold the accused, by using the same knife, the accused assaulted her in the left hand. In order to corroborate the said averments before the trial Court, she had been examined as PW-1. While at the time of giving evidence as PW-1, she has stated the occurrence by reiterating the averments found in the F.I.R. Further, as regards the availability of light in the occurrence place, she has clearly stated that during the time of occurrence, moon light was there. Since the accused and his wife were previously known to PW-1, the availability of moon light is sufficient to identify the accused. In this way, the evidence given by PW-1 is fully in support of the averments found in Ex.P.1-Complaint. 13. Further, in the trial Court, the doctor, who seen the dead body initially, was examined as PW-7. He gave evidence as while at the time of seeing the deceased, he found a lacerated injury measuring about 6 x 4 x 3 cm in the left chest of the dead body. The said evidence given by PW-7 was corroborated with the evidence given by PW-8 Dr. Parasakthi, who conducted the postmortem. According to PW-8 Dr. Parasakthi, the injury sustained by the deceased in his left chest extended upto to the depth of lungs. Hence, the said evidence given by the medical officer certainly in support of the evidence given by PW-1. The said evidence given by PW-7 was corroborated with the evidence given by PW-8 Dr. Parasakthi, who conducted the postmortem. According to PW-8 Dr. Parasakthi, the injury sustained by the deceased in his left chest extended upto to the depth of lungs. Hence, the said evidence given by the medical officer certainly in support of the evidence given by PW-1. Therefore, we affirm that the story put forth by the prosecution in respect of the injury sustained by the deceased as narrated by PW-1, appears to be cogent and inspires the confidence of this Court. The only lacuna in this area is that while at the time of enquiry made by the doctors, PW-1 stated before them as two persons had attacked her husband. Now, considering the said contradictions with the other factors while at the time of attack along with the accused, his wife was also present. Therefore, being an illiterate lady, it is for her to state the occurrence as two persons had attacked her husband. More than that, in respect of the injury sustained by her, the evidence given by the doctor, who treated PW-1, is also in support of the prosecution. 14. In general, in case of illiterate and ignorant women eye-witnesses, their evidence cannot be rejected for minor contradiction. In similar situation, in the case of Boya Ganganna and Another vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1976 SC 1541 , our Hon’ble Apex Court has held as follows: “5......No doubt, some minor contradictions here and there have been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused Nos. 2 and 3, but such minor contradictions are bound to appear when ignorant and illiterate women are giving evidence. Even in case of trained and educated persons, memory sometimes plays false and this would be much more so in case of ignorant and rustic women. It must also be remembered that the evidence given by a witness would very much depend upon his power of observation and it is possible that some aspects of an incident may be observed by one witness while they may not be witnessed by another though both are present at the scene of offence. It must also be remembered that the evidence given by a witness would very much depend upon his power of observation and it is possible that some aspects of an incident may be observed by one witness while they may not be witnessed by another though both are present at the scene of offence. It would not, therefore, be right to reject the testimony of witnesses like PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 merely on the basis of minor contradictions.....” Therefore, herein also we are of the opinion that in case of rustic ladies, minor discrepancies are to be ignored. 15. In respect of number of persons attacked that too the same stated before the doctor is not at all a material and also the same is not upto the level of affecting the root of the prosecution case. Before convicting the accused, the trial Court has also considered the same in perspective manner and overlooked the said contradiction. In respect of single ocular evidence, it is well settled that the testimony of single witness though uncorroborated, unless the corroboration is insisted upon by statute, the Court should not insist upon corroboration except in cases where the nature of testimony of a single witness itself requires the same as a rule of prudence. The necessity of corroboration must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Once the evidence given by the ocular witness found to be wholly reliable, the conviction awarded based upon the testimony of solitary evidence, is legal. 16. In the case of Jose vs. State of Kerala, 1973 Cri. L.J. 687, our Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “5......There is no impediment in law in a conviction being based upon the testimony of a single witness provided the Courts come to the conclusion that his evidence is honest and trustworthy.....” 17. Applying the ratio laid down in the above referred judgments herein also, we are of the opinion that the testimony of PW-1 is sufficient to accept the case of prosecution with entirety. 18. Yet another thing which is necessary to decide in this appeal is that in the Serology Report exhibited on the side of prosecution, it has been stated that in blood grouping, the group of blood found in the material object is not deducted. 18. Yet another thing which is necessary to decide in this appeal is that in the Serology Report exhibited on the side of prosecution, it has been stated that in blood grouping, the group of blood found in the material object is not deducted. In this regard, the trial Court has relied upon the decision of our Hon’ble Apex Court in Kansa Behra vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1987 SC 1507 and came to the conclusion that non-identification of blood group alone is not sufficient to discard the entire case of prosecution. We also approve the said conclusion arrived at by the trial Court. 19. In other words, the whole history projected by the prosecution reveals the fact that during the time of occurrence, the accused is not having any motive to kill the deceased. Further, the evidence on record also does not establish that the injuries caused on the body of the deceased must in all probability cause his death or likely to cause his death. Only in order to collect the wastages, which have already been collected by the deceased, the accused caused injuries on the body of the deceased, which resulted in the death of the deceased. Therefore, the ingredients of the murder as defined in Section 300 of I.P.C. have not been established against the accused. Therefore, considering the fact that the accused had no intention either to cause death of the deceased or cause such bodily injuries, which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased, it is necessary to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. Accordingly, we come to the conclusion that the accused committed the offences under Sections 304 (1) and 324 of I.P.C. 20. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge [Fast Track Court No. I], Chengalpattu, in S.C. No. 214 of 2009, date 31.01.2011, is modified and the accused is convicted under Sections 304(1) and 324 of I.P.C. For the offence under Section 304(1) of I.P.C. the accused is hereby sentenced to undergo ten years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- in default, to undergo two weeks Simple Imprisonment. 100/- in default, to undergo two weeks Simple Imprisonment. With regard to other offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge [Fast Track Court No. I], Chengalpattu, is confirmed. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. It is also directed that the period of sentence already undergone by the accused shall be given set off, as required under Section 428 Cr.P.C.