JUDGMENT Anna Chandy, J. 1. The accused in Sessions Case No. 37 of 1959 of the Quilon Sessions Court is the appellant. He was convicted under S.302, IPC, for the murder of his father and was sentenced to death subject to confirmation by this court. 2. The prosecution case is as follows :- The accused is the fourth son of the deceased Mathen Type. Though aged 32 and married for the past eleven years, the accused had not settled down in life and had to depend on his father for subsistence. This was a source of constant friction between the father and the son. The accused after roaming about the country for some years, returned with his wife (P. W. 8) and children to his father's house about one and a half months before the incident. He demanded that his share of the family properties be given to him. Accordingly, the properties were divided and 20 cents of land was allotted to the accused. Even after this, the accused who had no money to build a house in his property, continued to live in his father's house. The accused's wife on her part had a grievance against her father-in-law in that he had not returned her dowry Rs. 200/- which was paid to him at her marriage. At 10 A. M. on the day of the incident, she asked P. W. 4, the brother of the accused for the money. He replied that he would talk to his father about it. When the deceased returned home, P. W. 4 told him about the demand made by P. W. 8. The deceased went near his daughter-in-law who was preparing some vegetables for cooking and told her that she had no right to demand her dowry back as her husband had squandered much of his (the deceased's) money. To this, she replied in an impertinent way, that she would not leave the house till her money was paid back. This upset the deceased and he pushed her out of the house into the courtyard. P. W. 8 immediately sent her son to report the matter to the accused. She then shut herself up in a room. A little later, her son returned saying that he could not find his father. At 5 P. M. the accused returned to the house. P. W. 8 immediately sent her son to report the matter to the accused. She then shut herself up in a room. A little later, her son returned saying that he could not find his father. At 5 P. M. the accused returned to the house. He went into his wife's room and came out a little later in an angry mood. The deceased was then sitting in the verandah talking to a relation of his one Yohannan (P. W. 9). The accused approached his father and asked him in a defiant tone "I say What is your idea". The deceased replied by asking the accused what his idea was. The accused then caught hold of his father. Seeing this, the inmates of the house raised a hue and cry. P. W. 1 who was working in the compound outside, ran into the verandah and tried to extricate his father from the accused's grip. Just then the accused's wife rushed up with a kitchen knife. She was about to cut P. W. 1 when he turned on her and tried to wrest the knife from her. The accused also joined in the struggle for the knife, during which he cut his hand by the knife. In the end P. W. 1 managed to get hold of the knife and he threw it out into the courtyard. The accused turned on his father and holding him by thefolds of his dhoty pulled him out of the verandah into the courtyard. Then drawing out a knife, he stabbed the deceased twice. The first stab fell on the deceased's cheek and the second on his shoulder. The deceased picked up a cane lying near by and tried to beat off the accused. Then the accused with a shout "I am going to kill you" stabbed his father on the chest. The accused then ran away from the place. The deceased ran a short distance and fell down by the side of the road. He was removed to the Punaloor Police Station where his statement Ext. P. 13 was recorded. He was then taken to the Quilon District Hospital but died soon after reaching the place. The accused was arrested the next day at the village of Anchal and M.O.1, Malappuram knife was recovered from him. After due investigation, the charge was laid before the Sub-Magistrate of Punaloor. 3. P. 13 was recorded. He was then taken to the Quilon District Hospital but died soon after reaching the place. The accused was arrested the next day at the village of Anchal and M.O.1, Malappuram knife was recovered from him. After due investigation, the charge was laid before the Sub-Magistrate of Punaloor. 3. The accused's version of the incident as given in his statement before the trial court is that on the date in question he quarrelled with his brother P. W. 1. Their father intervened in an attempt to separate them. Then his wife (P. W. 8) ran up with a kitchen knife and caught hold of P. W. 1. Just then his father took out a knife and stabbed him. He jumped out into the courtyard and ran away from the place. When he returned home later in the night he heard that his father had been removed to the hospital with injuries. 4. The fact that Mathen Iype died on 12-5-1959 as a result of the injuries he had received earlier in the day is not disputed. Ext. P. 4 is the post mortem certificate. Three incised injuries are described in it; one on the neck another on the left shoulder and the third on the right side of the chest. The last injury had penetrated into the lung cavity causing internal injuries. This injury according to P. W. 15 who conducted the autopsy was necessarily fatal and had in fact resulted in the death. P. W. 15 gave his opinion that the injuries could have been caused with a weapon like M. O. 1, knife. 5. There are seven eyewitnesses to the incident. P. W. 1 Thomas is a younger brother of the accused. He swears that hearing the commotion in his house, he rushed up to the verandah and saw his father being held in a firm grip by the accused. He intervened and tried to release his father from the accused's grip. Just then P. W. 8 ran up with a kitchen knife. She was aiming a cut at him when he turned towards her and grappled for the knife. The accused also joined in the struggle for the knife during which he sustained a small injury to one of his fingers. The witness managed to wrest the knife and he flung it away into the courtyard. She was aiming a cut at him when he turned towards her and grappled for the knife. The accused also joined in the struggle for the knife during which he sustained a small injury to one of his fingers. The witness managed to wrest the knife and he flung it away into the courtyard. The accused then caught hold of his father and pulled him out into the courtyard. Then he drew out the knife from his waist and stabbed his father twice in quick succession. The first stab fell on the deceased's cheek and the second on the shoulder. The deceased picked up a cane and tried ineffectually to beat the accused. Then shouting out his intention to kill, the accused stabbed his father on the chest. Immediately afterwards the accused ran away from the place. The deceased followed him for a few yards but dropped down by the road side. P. W. 2 Sosamma aged 16 is a sister of the accused. She swears that when the accused returned home in the evening, he went straight to the room to which his wife had retired. After a short time, he came out into the verandah and in an angry and defiant tone asked his father "I say ! What is your idea". The father replied "I have no idea. What is yours". The accused then caught hold of his father. Seeing this, the witness cried out and her brother P.W. 1 who was working in the compound came running. The witness goes on to give the same version of the subsequent events as that given by P. W. 1. P. W. 3 Mariamma aged 13 is another sister of the accused. She had also witnessed the incident in its entirety. Her evidence is in terms identical to those of her sister, P. W. 2. As already noted, P. W. 1 is the younger brother of the accused and P. Ws. 2 and 3 his younger sisters. They are not shown to have been on inimical terms with the accused. It is highly improbable that these whitnesses least of all, the two young girls would swear to a false version in a case of murder against their brother. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly accepted their evidence. 6. P. W. 9 is a relation of the deceased. They are not shown to have been on inimical terms with the accused. It is highly improbable that these whitnesses least of all, the two young girls would swear to a false version in a case of murder against their brother. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly accepted their evidence. 6. P. W. 9 is a relation of the deceased. He swears that in the evening of the date of the incident, he came to pay a courtesy call on the deceased. The deceased was then lying on a cot in the verandah. The witness sat on the same cot and was talking to the deceased when the accused came out to the verandah and demanded to know what his father's idea was. The witness goes on to swear in detail about the quarrel and the stabbing which followed. His version of the incident agrees fully with those given by the other eyewitnesses. The presence of this witness is admitted by all the witnesses including the accused's wife. Nothing has been brought out in cross examination to show that he has the slightest motive to perjure against the accused. P. W. 10, Ponnappan Pillai and P. W. 11 Varghese are the next set of eyewitnesses. Both of them are unrelated to the accused or his father. At the relevant time P. W. 10 was walking along the road in front of the deceased's house and P. W. 11 was standing in the compound on the eastern side of the deceased's property. They both swear that they were attracted by the commotion in the deceased's house. Then they saw the accused pulling his father by the folds of his dhoty out into the courtyard. Each of them goes on to give a complete picture of the stabbing that followed. Their evidence agrees fully with that of the other eyewitnesses. These are independent witnesses having no interest either in the deceased or in the accused. The defence has not been successful in bringing out any circumstance which casts doubts on the veracity of these witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge has accepted their evidence and we can find no ground to disagree with him. 7. P. W. 8 the accused's wife is also an eyewitness. Her version of the incident is different from that sworn to by the other witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge has accepted their evidence and we can find no ground to disagree with him. 7. P. W. 8 the accused's wife is also an eyewitness. Her version of the incident is different from that sworn to by the other witnesses. According to P. W. 8 when the accused asked his father what his idea was, the deceased slapped the accused three or four times on the cheek. The accused then ran into a room but was followed by the deceased who pulled him out. Just then P. W. 1 also ran up and caught hold of the accused. The deceased picked up a cane and beat the accused with it. The witness saw a kitchen knife lying nearby which she picked up and threw into the courtyard. She adds that frightened at the scene, she shut herself up in a room. The witness is the accused's wife and naturally interested in him. Her evidence finds no support from the testimonies of the other eyewitnesses, nor does her version agree with the accused's. He does not say anything of being slapped by the deceased or being pulled out by him. The differences in the version given by P. W. 8 and that sworn to by the other witnesses can only be due to a conscious attempt on her part to give evidence in a way that will help her husband. Her evidence has been rightly discarded by the learned Sessions Judge. 8. When the accused was arrested, certain injuries were noticed on his body. He was therefore sent for medical examination. Ext. P. 11 is the wound certificate issued by P. W. 14, the Medical Officer who examined the accused. Ext. P. 11 noticed the following injuries: "1. An abrasion 3/4" x 1/2" on the right side forehead on the outer end of the supraorbital ridge. 2. An abrasion 1/2" x 1/2" on the back of the left forearm 2" below the elbow joint. 3. An oblique incised wound 11/4" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the volar aspect of the base of the right index finger." According to the prosecution, the abrasions were caused by the accused's head coming into contact with the wall of the verandah when he caught hold of. 3. An oblique incised wound 11/4" x 1/4" x 1/4" on the volar aspect of the base of the right index finger." According to the prosecution, the abrasions were caused by the accused's head coming into contact with the wall of the verandah when he caught hold of. his father and the cut on the finger when the accused, his wife and P. W. 1 were struggling for the possession of the kitchen knife. The medical officer gave his opinion that the injuries could have been caused as alleged by the prosecution. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the version of the incident as given by the deceased in Ext. P. 13 statement differs in some respects from the version sworn to by the eyewitnesses. The deceased had stated that he was stabbed in the verandah and that the stab on the chest was the first one whereas the eyewitnesses swear that the stabbing took place in the courtyard and that the stab on the chest was the last one to be inflicted. We agree with the learned Sessions Judge that these discrepancies are not of great significance. The statement was given by the deceased less than two hours before he died and these mistakes signify nothing more than the perplexed state of mind of a man suffering great pain and very near death. 10. There is thus ample evidence to hold that the prosecution has proved its case beyond doubt. We therefore agree with the learned Sessions Judge's finding that it was the accused who inflicted the injuries on the deceased and that under the circumstances sworn to by the prosecution witnesses. 11. We shall now consider the defence contention that the offence proved against the accused does not amount to murder under Section 302 I. P. C. but only to culpable homicide coming under either Exception I or Exception IV to Section 300, IPC. This contention was raised in the trial court and was negatived by the learned Sessions Judge. We are also of the view that the offence is one that should rightly come under Section 302. To bring the offence under Exception I to Section 300, it should be shown that the accused acted while deprived of self control, due to grave and sudden provocation. We are also of the view that the offence is one that should rightly come under Section 302. To bring the offence under Exception I to Section 300, it should be shown that the accused acted while deprived of self control, due to grave and sudden provocation. It is in evidence that in the morning the deceased quarrelled with the accused's wife during which he kicked away the vegetables she was preparing for cooking and pushed her out of the house. True, this was highly provocative and it is possible that when P. W. 8 reported the matter to her husband in the evening, she might have given an exaggerated version of the incident. However, it is clear that the deceased's act was not of such a grave nature as would provoke a mature man to stab his father to death. Similarly, to claim the benefit under Exception IV to Section 300, it must be shown that the accused committed the offence without premeditation in a sudden fight and without taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel manner. True there seems to have been no premeditation. It is also true that the quarrel arose all on a sudden. However the accused clearly took undue advantage of his adversary who was unarmed and had acted in a cruel manner in stabbing him thrice. 12. Though the circumstances do not justify bringing the offence either under Exception I or Exception IV to Section 300, they may be taken into consideration in awarding the punishment, under Section 302. Patricide is a particularly heinous type of murder, but the lack of premeditation, the existence of provocation and the suddenness of the quarrel provide adequate grounds to reduce the sentence from one of death to rigorous imprisonment for life. 13. In the result, while confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 302, IPC, we set aside the sentence of death imposed on him and sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for life The appeal and the reference are disposed off as indicated above