ORDER

1. This is a case of peculiar angularities. The deceased Ramniklal was a middle-aged school Headmaster working at a village known as Akala. In order to go to his place of work he was waiting on the day of occurrence at bus-stand Lathi whereat the appellant herein, Devku Bhikha, a young man, came. They engaged in talks. Apparently, there was a topic and background to the talk. The appellant was unemployed for long and the Headmaster had a job up sleeve which he could give to the appellant. The deceased enquired of the appellant whether he would be able to send his wife to the formers house at night. On that suggestion the accused was taken aback. Then the deceased charged the appellant for being impotent. This further enraged the appellant. The deceased then told the appellant that his wife had sent the former a letter inviting him and that that letter he carried in his handbag. The accused in a rage snatched the bag and frantically searched for the letter, but to no avail. He then took out a knife found in the bag and with that he inflicted five/six blows on the deceased in quick succession in the presence of some witnesses, whereafter he went away. The deceased in an injured condition was removed by those people to the dispensary whereat firstly, the police questioned him about the occurrence. The deceased named the appellant as his culprit, but did not tell the reason for the assault even though asked. He then said that he would tell about the case of the dispute afterwards. Sometime later, in the hospital the deceased was questioned by an Executive Magistrate before whom he reiterated that the appellant was the culprit of the crime committed on him because he had taken interest in reprimanding the appellant for maltreating his wife and likewise his family members. This, in a nutshell, is the story interwoven between the versions of the prosecution and that of the defence.

2. But for the aforementioned two dying declarations, there is no other stock with the prosecution. All the eyewitnesses and other material witnesses examined by the prosecution turned hostile. They only said that they had seen the deceased lying injured at the bus-stand Lathi. The two dying declarations being the only pieces of prosecution evidence were thus put to the appellant during trial. In his statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant owned inflicting injuries to the deceased but gave a counter-version the weave and fabric of which we have set out earlier. He stepped into the witness box and owned having caused the injuries to the deceased, but explained the cause as grave and sudden provocation which led him to it. The trial court rejecting the plea convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The High Court on appeal confirmed the conviction and sentence. In appeal to this Court, a remand was effected, for it was thought that a serious case like the present one had not been dealt with properly by the High Court. On remand then, an application was made by the defence for summoning the wife of appellant as a court witness. The prayer was granted and so Y. Triveni was examined as a court witness. Besides supporting the case of the appellant, she also stated that the deceased had made amorous suggestions to her repeatedly for two or three times prior to the occurrence suggesting to her to live with him as his mistress or concubine.

3. It is settled law that the confession of the accused has to be taken as a whole and the exculpatory part cannot be thrown aside. As said before, the case of the prosecution lies solely on the two dying declarations of the deceased. The appellant instead of projecting a plain denial has on the other hand strengthened those dying declarations by his statement in admitting that he was responsible for the death of the deceased. Yet, his owning the commission of the crime does not lead to the conclusion that he was guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC