Judgment :- Swamikkannu, J.- This is an appeal by the accused Thangavelu against the judgment dated 13th August, 1979 in S.C. No.49 of 1979 on the file of the Court of the Learned Sessions Judge, North Arcot at Vellore finding him guilty under section 302, Indian Penal Code, convicting him there under and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The case against the accused before the trial Court is that on or about the 12th day of December, 1978 at about 5.00 p.m. in Iyer’s rice mill at Arcot, the accused, caused the death of his wife Anna booshanam by stabbing her with a pen knife on her chest, abdonmen and other places of her body and thus caused her fatal injuries and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302, Indian Penal Code. 3. When this charge was read over to the accused and explained in Tamil, he pleaded not guilty. 4. The prosecution had let in oral evidence through P.Ws.1 to 18, documentary evidence Exhibits P.1 to p.32 and also produced M.Os. 1 to 9 to substantiate the case put forward by it against the accused in the trial Court. 5. The prosecution case is simple. The deceased Annabooshanam who was aged about 35 years at the time of the occurrence had married the accused Thangavelu who is aged about 45 years, about 17 years prior to the Occurrence. Both the accused as well as his wife together with their children were living in a house situate in Harijan Colony known as Azhagappar Colony in the town of Arcot. The accused at the time of the occurrence was working as a monthly salaried Labourer in the pipe imbeding department of Arcot Municipality. His wife the deceased Annabooshanam was a cooly at the time of the occurrence in the same part of town. P.W. 3 Sambangi, who is related to the deceased as her elder brother is living with his family in a separate house. P.W. 4 Chittibabu who is aged about 23 years, is living in Thasipuram village which is -at a distance of about two miles away from Arcot town. The accused and his wife the deceased Annabooshanam were thus living in a house situate in Azhagappar Colony during the time of the occurrence. One Manoharan, who is employed as a beedi rolling cooly is also living near the house of the accused. The accused and his wife the deceased Annabooshanam were thus living in a house situate in Azhagappar Colony during the time of the occurrence. One Manoharan, who is employed as a beedi rolling cooly is also living near the house of the accused. For the past two years, P.W. 4 Chittibabu had been coming and helping as a beedi rolling labourer under the said Manoharan. It was during that time both the deceased Annabooshanam and P.W. 4 became friends, that is, they used to engage themselves in conversation as and when both of them met. But there was no illicit intimacy between them. But the accused Thangavelu had entertained a feeling in his mind that there could have been illicit intimacy between P.W. 4 Chittibabu and his wife the deceased Annabooshanam. On the basis of the entertainment of a feeling of doubt in his mind, the accused had been quarrelling with the deceased frequently. That apart, about few days prior to the occurrence, on one or two occasions, the accused bad also questioned P.W.4 about the said illicit intimacy. During those occasions, P.W. 4 Chittibabu had stoutly denied any such illicit relationship existing between himself and the deceased Annabooshanam, the wife of the accused. 6. In the North Arcot District, Ranipet is situated adjacent to Arcot town. It is only the river Palar that separate both these towns. There is a rice mill situated within Arcot Municipal limits adjacent to the road on the east which leads to Ranipet from Arcot town. The said mill, is owned by P.W. 9 Vijayaraghavan. About sometimes prior to the Occurrence, in the said rice mill, P.W. 1 Mariya, P.W. 2, Thayarammal the deceased Annabooshanam and yet another woman by name Padma were eking their livelihood by engaging themselves as labourers. The other three women who were working as labourers in the said mill also belonged to the town of Arcot. During the relevant time in the said town of Arcot. P.W. 10 Kuppuswami, who is the resident of the said town had been conducting an auction chit. In the said chit, the deceased Annabooshanam also had become a member. For every month, she had to pay Rs. 25 and as such for twenty four months she had to pay the chit amount. On 5th December, 1978, auction was held in the said chit conducted by P.W. 10. In the said chit, the deceased Annabooshanam also had become a member. For every month, she had to pay Rs. 25 and as such for twenty four months she had to pay the chit amount. On 5th December, 1978, auction was held in the said chit conducted by P.W. 10. The deceased bid in the said auction for Rs. 380/-and the said bid, had been confirmed as a successful bid. On the same date, the deceased was said Rs. 380 by P.W. 10. 7. On the date of the occurrence, that is on 12th December, 1978, the day of ‘Karthi-kai Deepam’ the mill was declared holiday. On that day, though it was a holiday for the mill yet, cleaning process of the cattle shed situated inside the mill was alone carried on. For the said purpose, that evening, along with the deceased, three other women got engaged in the work of cleaning the said Premises. In the said mill in the middle portion, there is a cement plastered place where the materials are kept for the purpose of drying them. Adjacent to the same, on the west, there is a portion in which the machineries are installed. On the southern portion of the said machineries, the office of the mill is situated. Just at a small distance at the south-western portion of the machineries installed in the mill, the main gate of the mill is situated. On all the four sides of the said mill, there are compound walls to the height of six feet. On the south-western side of the said rice mill the well is situated. On the said day, namely, on 12th December, 1978 at about 5-00 p.m., the aforementioned four women were engaged in the process of cleaning the premises inside the mill and it was at that time, the accused came inside the mill and was talking with his wife the deceased Annabhushanam. At the time, the accused demanded her to hand over the chit, amount. The chit amount referred to above is the amount that the deceased received from P.W.10 on 5th December, 1978. At that time, the deceased told the accused that she would come to the house and give him the amount. At the time, the accused demanded her to hand over the chit, amount. The chit amount referred to above is the amount that the deceased received from P.W.10 on 5th December, 1978. At that time, the deceased told the accused that she would come to the house and give him the amount. At that time the accused asked the deceased whether she was going to give the money to her paramour in preference to her husband and whether she was not going to give him the money at all. The conversation thus took place between the accused and the deceased was noticed by P.W.1 Maria and P.W.2 Thayarammal. One Padma also saw both the accused and the deceased, engaged in conversation during that time. Thereafter, all the four women got engaged by continuing their work. P.W.2 Thayarammal and one Padma were dumping the rubbish that was collected in the process of cleaning in the pit that was situated inside the million its western portion. At that time, the deceased Annabhushanam and P.W.1 Maria were proceeding to the well situated on the north in order to clean their hands and legs passing, through the ‘Kalam’ plastered with cement. It was at that time, the accused herein wiped out M.O.4 knife from his waist, pounced on the deceased and stabbed on her chest, back and flank indiscriminately. This occurrence was witnessed by P.W. 1 who was present there throughout. Soon after stabbing the deceased, the accused had climbed up the northern compound wall of the mill, jumped down on the other-side and ran away. The above occurrence took place at about 5.00 p.m. P.W.1. as, well as P.W. 2 Thayaramal who came running to the place of occurrence on hearing the distress cries raised by the deceased as well as Padma saw the accused climbing up the compound wall on the Northern side of the mill and jumping down and running away, P.W. 1 Maria thereafter led the injured by allowing to lean on her with care with the idea of taking her home. At that time, even while passing through the threshold of the mill within the premises of the main gate, the deceased got giddy. Therefore she was kept in that place itself. At once P.W.1 rushed towards the Alagappar colony and reached there and informed about the occurrence to P.W.3 who is the brother of the injured. At that time, even while passing through the threshold of the mill within the premises of the main gate, the deceased got giddy. Therefore she was kept in that place itself. At once P.W.1 rushed towards the Alagappar colony and reached there and informed about the occurrence to P.W.3 who is the brother of the injured. The said Alagappar colony is situated at a distance of about a furlong from the rice mill. Soon after receiving the information relating to the occurrence, P.W. 3 accompanied by P.W. 1 came to the mill premises. In the mean while, P.W.9 the proprietor of the mill also came there. A car which was proceeding in that direction was stopped and the injured as well as P.W. 3 were sent in that car to the police station at Arcot Town by the proprietor of the rice mill. 8. At about 5-30 p.m., the injured who was thus taken in a car as well as her elder brother P.W. 3 had reached Arcot Town Police Station which is situated at a distance of about one kilometer from the place of occurrence. As the injured was not able to talk and was in a state of giddiness, her elder brother P.W. 3 gave a complaint orally which was reduced to writting by P.W. 15, Head Constable of the police station as per Ex.P. 1. After Ex.P. 1 was reduced to writing, as per the narration of P.W. 3, the signature of P.W.3 was obtained in it. Thereafter, the injured was sent to the Government Hospital situated at that place with a memo Ex. P. 2. Then the Head Constable registered Ex.P.1. as Cr. No. 1262 of 1978 under section 324, Indian Penal Code, and thus a case had been registered against the accused-appellant herein in that station. The first information report regarding the same is Ex.P.28. As there was no other constable available in the police station at that time, P.W.15 could not leave the station at once and start out to attend on the further steps that had to be taken in relation to Ex.P.1 complaint. 9. P.W.5, Dr. Lalitha, the Medical Officer attached to Government Dispensary at Arcot examined the injured Annabhushnam brought by P.C. 1224 of Arcot Police Station at 5.55 p.m. on 12th December, 1978. The injured was brought with a memo, Ex.P-2. P.W.5 found on her the following five injuries: 1. 9. P.W.5, Dr. Lalitha, the Medical Officer attached to Government Dispensary at Arcot examined the injured Annabhushnam brought by P.C. 1224 of Arcot Police Station at 5.55 p.m. on 12th December, 1978. The injured was brought with a memo, Ex.P-2. P.W.5 found on her the following five injuries: 1. An incised wound about 2 x ½ x ½cm. over the left side of the chest over the left clavicle. 2. Incised wound 2 x½ x ½ cm. over the left side of the chest over the 11th intercostal space. 3. A superficial abrasion about 8 cm. over the left side of the chest below injury No. 2. 4. An incised wound about 2 x ½ x ½ cm. over the right side of the abdomen about 2 cm. lateral to the umblicus. 5. An incised wound about 2 x ½ x. ½ cm. over the right side of the back below the right scapula. The wound was dressed. According to P.W.5, all these injuries could have been caused at the time alleged due to stab with M.O.4. The injured, according to P.W. 5 was fully conscious at the time of her examination. P.W.5 referred the injured to Government Hospital, Vellore, for further treatment. Ex.P.3 is the accident register. 10. On the same night, the injured was admitted in the Government Hospital at Vellore At once from the said hospital Ex.P.6 information was sent to the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate at Vellore. The said information as per Ex.P.6 was banded over to P.V.6, the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate at Vellore on 12th December, 1978 at about 8.30 p.m. At once he went to the Government Hospital at Vellore and from the injured Annabhu-shanam who was treated in the said Hospital, he recorded Ex.P.7 statement from 9.05 p.m. to 9-15 p.m. During the time of recording of Ex. P.6 by P.W.6, the injured was having good conscience. In other words, the injured was concious at the time, when Ex.P.7 was recorded by P.W.6. The Medical Officer P.W.7 who was present there at that time, incorporated her certificate Ex.P-8 in the said statement stating therein that the injured was conscious at the time when the contents of Ex.P-7 were recorded by P.W.6 from the injured Annabhooshanam. Even at this stage, it will not be out of place if it is mentioned that Ex.P-7. The Medical Officer P.W.7 who was present there at that time, incorporated her certificate Ex.P-8 in the said statement stating therein that the injured was conscious at the time when the contents of Ex.P-7 were recorded by P.W.6 from the injured Annabhooshanam. Even at this stage, it will not be out of place if it is mentioned that Ex.P-7. inter alia contained the allegation of the deceased that she was suspected regarding her fidelity by her husband in that her husband was entertaining a feeling that she was in illicit intimacy with another person and as such in the mill in which she was working on the same day at about 5.00 p.m. she was stabbed by her husband, the accused herein. 11. On 12th December, 1978, after attending to the Bandobust duty at Ratnagiri temple where there was a festival in connection with ‘Karthigai Deepam’, P.W.1 7, the Sub-Inspector returned to his Arcot Police Station at about 9.15 p.m. that night. The details regarding the occurrence in this case were given to P.W. 17. At once, P.W.17 started and reached the rice mill and inspected the said place. On that night at about 10.15 p.m. P.W. 17 prepared Ex.P-10 observation maha-zar relating to the place of occurrence. On that night at about 10.45 p.m. P.W. 17 took M.O.5 blood stained hay from near the main gate of the rice mill under Ex.P-11 mahazar. It is also relevant in this connection to note that according to the prosecution it was at that place, the deceased had become giddy and was lying dawn there. On that night at about 11-00 p.m. from the cement plastered thrashing floor, M.O. 6 blodstained cement slabs and M.O. 7 broken pieces of glass Bangles of the injured were recovered under Ex. P-12 mahazar by P.W.17, Sub-Inspector of Police. In Ex.P.10 to P.12 mahazars prepared on those occasions, P.W.9, the proprietor of the said rice mill as well as one Lathief have attested. P.W.17 also prepared Ex. P-31 rough sketch of the place or occurrence. On the same day, P.W.17 examined one Padma and other witnesses. The accused was not available there. On 13th December, 1978 at about 8.30 p.m. the bloodstained clothes of the injured, namely, M.O.1 saree, M.O.2, jacket, M.O.3 shift were entrusted at the Arcot Police Station by P.W.3 the brother of the injured. P-31 rough sketch of the place or occurrence. On the same day, P.W.17 examined one Padma and other witnesses. The accused was not available there. On 13th December, 1978 at about 8.30 p.m. the bloodstained clothes of the injured, namely, M.O.1 saree, M.O.2, jacket, M.O.3 shift were entrusted at the Arcot Police Station by P.W.3 the brother of the injured. P.W. 17 recovered them under Ex.P-29 that is, under Form 95. P.W.3 had attested Ex.P-29. On the same day, P.W.17 went to the Government Hospital at Veliore and examined both P.Ws.1 and 2 who were available there. During that time, he found the injured not in a position to talk. In other words, the injured was unable to talk at that time. Thereafter, P.W.17 returned to Arcot Town and examined some more witnesses. On 15th December, 1978 P.W.17 proceeded to Vellore Government Hospital and examined the injured. 12. The injured Annabhushanam who was admitted in the Government Hospital at Vellore died at about 6.30 p.m. on 15th December, 1978. With regard to the same Exs. P. 9 death, intimation was sent by P.W. 8 to the police. The said death intimation was entrusted with the police station at Arcot Town at about 11.00 p.m. during the night. At once, the said case was taken into one of murder case by P.W.17 and express first in formation reports were prepared by him and despatched to the concerned higher authorities. The first information report which was thus pre-pared in this case is Exhibit. P.30. On 16th December, 1978 at about 12.15 noon, the said copy of the first information report had reached the office of P.W. 18 Inspector of Police who was then available at Ranipet Town. At once P.W.18 started for Vellore and reached Vellore. From 7.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. on 16th December, 1978, P.W.18 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and during inquest, he examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and some others. The inquest report prepared by him is Exhibit. p. 32. Thereafter P.W.I 8 entrusted the dead body of the deceased to P.W. 16 constable and caused the death body to be handed over to P.W. 12 doctor with a requisition Ex.P-17 or autopsy. Thereafter, P.W. 18 proceeded to the place of occurrence and had an inspection of the said place. On the same day P.W.18 examined P.Ws. 9 and 10 and some others. 13. Thereafter, P.W. 18 proceeded to the place of occurrence and had an inspection of the said place. On the same day P.W.18 examined P.Ws. 9 and 10 and some others. 13. On16th December, 1978 at about 12 noon P.W. 12, Dr. Premavathi, Medical Officer attached to G.P. Hospital, Vellore conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Annabhushanam. She found the dead body as that of a woman of 35 years. The dead body was in charge of P.W.6. P.W.12 found the following external injuries: 1. A sutured wound about I “from the media land of the left clavicle extending downwards. 2. A sutured wound about 1” x 1“½ in the mid clavicular line on the left side 6th inter-costal space. 3. A sutured wound about 6-7” on the right side abdomen. 4. A linear abrasion with the sense of healing scar over it with black colour was present about 5“in the length. 5. A small sutured wound over the lower and of the right capula. 6. A drinage tube wound about 5” in the mid axillary line in the 8th intercostal space. 7. Two IV open method wound found in both the legs near the ankle. 14. On examination of the internal organs by opening the concerned parts of the dead body, P.W.12 found the following internal injuries: 1. External injury No.2 was probed. This wound passes through the left 6th intercostal space, through the muscles and lesser omentun of the stomach. The wound in the omentun was found sutured. 2. External injury No. 3 was probed. Gall badder was found sutured. There was a laceration in the inferior lower border of the liver. Haematoma on the transverse mesocolon on right side was found and it was black in colour. 3. External injury No.5 was probed. This wound passes through the 7th intercostal space piercising both parietal and visceral pleurae, entering the lung tissues to a depth of 1 cm. in right lung on the back of the lower lobe of right lung at the same level. The edges of all the wounds were inverted and signs of healing were present. There was no fracture. 15. Internal injury No. 1 corresponds to external injury No.2. Internal injury No. 2 corresponds to external injury No.3. Internal injury No. 3 corresponds to external injury No.5. External injuries 6 and 7 had been caused during the period of treatment. The edges of all the wounds were inverted and signs of healing were present. There was no fracture. 15. Internal injury No. 1 corresponds to external injury No.2. Internal injury No. 2 corresponds to external injury No.3. Internal injury No. 3 corresponds to external injury No.5. External injuries 6 and 7 had been caused during the period of treatment. External injuries 1 to 5 could have been caused at 5.00 p.m. on 12th December, 1978 due to stabbing with M.O.4 knife. The deceased would appear to have died of external injuries 2, 3 and 5 with their corresponding internal injuries which had resulted in haemorrhage and shock. According to P.W.12, the death would have occurred within 18 to 24 hours prior to autopsy. External injury No. 2 was likely to cause death. External injury No.5 by itself was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Injuries 1 and 4 were simple in nature. Ex.P.18 is the post mortem certificate issued by P.W.12 with respect to the autopsy conducted by her over the dead body of the deceased Annabhu-shanam. 16. Even at this stage itself, it will not be out of place to mention a faint attempt that has been made by the accused in order to get the benefits under section 100, Indian Penal Code, is that during the time of the occurrence his testicles were squeezed and that had made him to resort to violence on the deceased. This case put forward on behalf of the accused had been turned into one of suggestion and actually put to P.W.12, when she was in the box and in her cross-examination P.W. 12 has stated that those injuries that were found on the deceased could have been caused with any sharp weapon. She has further deposed the squeezing of a testicle will endanger the life of a man. P.W.12 has also stated in her cross-examination that the injury to the vital organs had caused shock and haemorrhage resulting in death. When she was further re-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, P.W.12 has stated that if the testicle was squeezed to the extent of endangering the life, it could have suffered swelling and there would have been haema-toma. The swelling and haematoma will depend upon the force used. When she was further re-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, P.W.12 has stated that if the testicle was squeezed to the extent of endangering the life, it could have suffered swelling and there would have been haema-toma. The swelling and haematoma will depend upon the force used. We shall be dealing with this defence that had been put forward by way of suggestion to P.W.12 at the appropriate stage and pace in this judgment. 17. P.W.18 conducted his further investigation in this case and examined P.Ws.15 and 16 on 17th December, 19 78. On information at about 3 p.m. on 18th December, 1978, P.W.18 and his party proceeded to water storage depot near the bank of Palar river in Arcot town and arrested the accused there. At that time, the accused gave a voluntary confessional statement to P.W.18 which was reduced by him into writing. The admissible portion of the said statement given by the accused is Ex. P. 13 and Ex. P. 14. P.W. 11, a rice dealer in Arcot as well as one Kandan attested the said confessional statement. Thereafter, the accused took P.W.18 and his party to the house of one Ummar Bai at Arcot town. From inside the bush near the said house of Ummar Bai, the accused took out M.O.5 knife and produced the same to P.W.18. This is of course in pursuance of Ex.P. 13 and Ex.P. 14 the admissible portions of the confessional statement given by the accused to P.W. 18. P.W.18 seized M.O.4 from the accused at about 4.30 p.m. under Ex.P.15 mahazar attested by the same persons namely P.W.11 and another. Thereafter, the accused took P.W.18 and his party to the lake bund within the municipal limits of Ranipet and further took them to the house of his sister situated there. The accused took from inside the house of his sister M.O.8 bloodstained Khaki shirt and M.O.9 dhothi. They were seized by P.W.18 at about 5.30 p.m. under Ex.P.16 mahazar attested by the same witnesses namely P.W.11 and another person by name Kandan. As the accused was having injuries on his person P.W.18 sent him for medical examination and treatment under his requisition Ex.P.4. 18. On 18th December, 1978 at about 7-00 p.m. P.W.5 Dr. Lalitha examined the accused sent by the police under memo. As the accused was having injuries on his person P.W.18 sent him for medical examination and treatment under his requisition Ex.P.4. 18. On 18th December, 1978 at about 7-00 p.m. P.W.5 Dr. Lalitha examined the accused sent by the police under memo. Ex.P. 4 for injuries said to have been caused on 12th December, 1979 at about 5.00 p.m. in a stabbing incident. She found on him the following injuries: “A septic foul smelling wound looking like an incised wound with clean margins over the left thumb about 2 cm X ½ cm. Depth could not be made out due to granulation tissue below the first crease and the wound starting on the posterior aspect of the finger and ending on the anterior aspect of the half of the crease.” According to P.W.5. that the injury found on the accused was simple in nature and could have been caused at the time alleged while the accused wielded. M.O.4 to stab another. Ex.P.5 is the accident register. 19. P.W. 18 examined the Medical Officer in this case. P.W. 4 Chittibabu was hiding himself on hearing about the occurrence since he was afraid that the accused might stab him also. P.W.18 searched for P.W.4 and found him on 22nd December, 1978 and examined him. 20. In pursuance of Ex. P.19 requisition given by P.W. 18 to P.W.13, Judicial Second Class Magistrate at Arkonam, the accused was produced before the Court of the learned Magistrate on 27th December, 1978 at about 3-00 p.m. The leaned Magistrate had observed all the formalities required to be observed as per the Provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code during the Occasion and also administered the necessary warnings as contemplated by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. In particular, it was informed by P.W.13 to the accused that the accused was not bound to give any statement and that if he has given one, the same would be used against him in evidence. Then necessary and adequate time was also given to the accused for reflection by the directions having emanated from P.W.13 to the effect that the accused-appellant herein had to be kept in a separate cell inside the jail. Again, the accused was produced before P.W.13 in his Court at about 3.00 P.M. on 28th December, 1978. Then necessary and adequate time was also given to the accused for reflection by the directions having emanated from P.W.13 to the effect that the accused-appellant herein had to be kept in a separate cell inside the jail. Again, the accused was produced before P.W.13 in his Court at about 3.00 P.M. on 28th December, 1978. Again the learned Magistrate P.W. 13 had observed the necessary formalities and administered the warning to the accused as required under law. It was only after satisfying himself that the accused was willing to give a voluntary confessional statement to him, P.W.13 proceeded to record the same from the accused. After having recorded the confessional statement the learned Magistrate P.W. 13 had read Over the contents of the same and after the accused acknowledged the contends to be correct, obtained his signature in it. The proceedings that were taken by P.W.13 on the first day is Ex.P.20. Ex.P.21 contains the details of the proceedings that were adopted by P.W.13 in recording the confessional statement of the accused herein. Ex.P.22 is the confessional statement that was recorded by P.W.13 from the accused. Ex.P. 23 is the certificate appended to the same by the learned Magistrate. It is inter alia stated in that statement that the deceased Annabhushanam had developed illicit intimacy with P.W.4 Chittibabu and that inspite of warnings that had emanated from the accused, the deceased did not cease her connection with P.W.4, that on the date of the Occurrence at about 5.00 p.m., the accused had gone to the said rice mill and demanded the deceased Anna-bhushanam Rs. 10 that at that time, the deceased refused to pay the said money to the accused; but within a short time the deceased gave Rs. 10 to P.W.4 Chittibabu who came there at that time; that again the accused went and asked the deceased to give him Rs. 10 that at that time also, the deceased refused to give him any money that on that account, the accused slaped on the cheek of the deceased and that at once the deceased Anna-bhushanam began to squeeze the testicles of the accused and that due to unbearable pain felt by the accused, he took the blade kept there fore cutting the bags and stabbed the deceased. 21. 21. As per Ex.P.24 requisition given by P.W.18 to the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Wallajahpet, P.W.14 who is employed as a Head Clerk in the said Court sent M.O.1 to M.O.6, M.O.8 and M.O.9 for chemical analysis. Ex.P.25 is the office copy of the letter written by the learned Magistrate in that regard to the Chemical Examiner and the serologist respectively. As per contents of the same, M.Os.1 to 3, M.O.5, M.O.6, M.O.8 and M.O. 9 contained stains of human blood. It is also borne out by the report of the Serologist that M.Os. 1 to 3, 5, 6, and 8 contained stains of human blood of ‘B’ group. In other words, from the above reports, it is seen that the bloodstained clothes of the accused, the bloodstained earth recovered from inside the mill where the Occurrence took place as well as shirt recovered from the accused, contained stains of human blood of the same group. After completing investigation in this case P.W. 18 filed the charge-sheet on 13th March, 1979 before Court against the accused-appellant herein. 22. When questioned under section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, relating to incriminating circumstances available on the evidence let in by the prosecution, the accused-appellant had stated inter alia that there was illicit intimacy between his wife, the deceased Annabhushanam and P.W.4 Chittibabu and that he did not quarrel on that account with the deceased, yet, he had advised her to lead a life of chastity. The accused has also stated in this section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, statement that on behalf, of the deceased, he had been paying the chit amount to P.W.10. He has also stated that the occurrence took place in the manner he had described in his confessional statement before P.W.13, the learned Magistrate. The accused has denied the prosecution evidence as false relating to his arrest as well as regarding the seizure of bloodstained clothes and the knife which according to the prosecution, were taken by him in pursuance of the statement given by him to the police, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P.13. No witness was examined on behalf of the accused. 23. No witness was examined on behalf of the accused. 23. On the point whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused, the trial Court has held on the evidence available on record, both oral and documentary, that the prosecution has established its case that it was the accused who had stabbed his wife with a knife with the intention to do away with her and that it has also held that the offence committed by the accused is punishable under section 302, Indian penal Code, while finding the accused guilty under section 302, Indian Penal Code and convicting him there under, the trial Court had imposed a sentence of imprisonment for life on the accused/appellant herein under section 302, Indian Penal Code. 24. Aggrieved by the above decision of the trial Court, the accused had come forward with this appeal from jail inter alia stating therein that he never suspected his wife and that P.Ws. 1 and 2 are deposing falsely. Even in his memorandum of grounds of appeal, the accused has stated that he demanded money from the deceased for his expenses; but she refused, that at once be gave a blow on her cheek and that she at once caught hold the genital region of his body and squeezed, that he could not bare the pair that he took out the tin blade piece kept there for cutting jute coir etc., and stabbed her with it. In other words, the defence that is put forward at this stage on behalf of the accused is that the occurrence had taken place due to grave and sudden provocation at the instance of the deceased by herself refusing to give money to the accused when the accused bad demanded from her only a sum of Rs.10 but instead, the deceased had given Rs.10 to her paramour P.W.4 soon after his demand for the same. 25. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that it was the accused who had stabbed his wife, the deceased Annabhushanam at 5.00 p.m. on 12th December, 1978, a trice mill when she was engaged in her cooly work and caused her injuries, as a result of which the deceased died at the Government Hospital at Vellore at about 6.30 p.m. on 15th December. 1978. 26. 1978. 26. The evidence on record, as unfurled through P.W. 3 who is related to the de-ceased as her brother shows that the marriage between the deceased Annabhushanam and her husband Thangavelu, the accused herein took place about 17 years prior to the occurrence. Both of them were living together with their children at Azragap-par Colony, a Harijan Locality in Arcot Town. They were leading a happy married life. In the same colony, P.W. 3 had been living in a separate house. P.W.I Maria was also living in the same colony during the relevant time. From the evidence of P.W.1 it is seen that the deceased had children and that her eldest daughter has been married and that she was also living in the same colony in a separate house with her husband. From the evidence of P.W.3 it is also clear that the deceased had been working as a municipal employee in the Arcot Municipality engaged in pipe embed-ing work. From the evidence of P.Ws.1, and 2 and 9; it is seen that about some years prior to the occurrence, the deceased had been engaging herself as a worker in the rice mill belonging to P.W.9 and situate in the same town. The above mentioned facts are not under dispute. 27. P.W.4 states in his evidence that he had been engaging himself in windering beedi in a house which is situated near the house of the deceased for a period of a bout two years prior to the occurrence and that at that time, P.W.4 was living in an adjacent village. P.W.4 further states that as and when the deceased used to see him, she wed to talk with him. But according to P.W.4, there was no illicit intimacy between himself and the deceased Annabhushanam. He says so emphatically. It is relevant in this connection to note that P.W. 3 states in his evidence that suspecting illicit intimacy between his wife and P.W. 4, the accused used to quarrel frequently with his wife. It is also relevant in this connection to note that though the accused had denied the same, vet, under section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, he had admitted that there was illicit intimacy between the deceased and P.W.4. It is also relevant in this connection to note that though the accused had denied the same, vet, under section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, he had admitted that there was illicit intimacy between the deceased and P.W.4. It is further to be noted that the accused in his confessional statement Ex.P. 22 recorded under section 164 Code of Criminal Procedure, by the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Arkonam has stated about the illicit intimacy of P.W.4 with the deceased. We are not here concerned very much a bout the allegation that there was illicit intimacy between P.W.4 and the deceased. But the real question that confront us is whether there was suspicion entertained by the accused that there was illicit intimacy between the deceased and P.W. 4 or not. P.W.4 has stated in his evidence, that about few days prior to the occurrence, twice, the accused ha d asked him a bout the illicit intimacy. Therefore, from the evidence available on record, in this case, it is clear that the accused had been firmly believing that there was illicit intimacy between his wife and the deceased herein and P.W.4. This has motivated him to resort to violence. Yet, another factor which, has to be taken into consideration for having come to the above conclusion is regarding the plea that had been put forward by the accused at belated, stage, namely that his testicles were squeezed and that had made him to resort to violence in order to have his life saved. In other words, the theory that is put forward on behalf of the accused is that out of necessity the deceased had been dealt with violently by the accused. 28. The right of private defence must be distinguished from the dectrine of necessity. Though the right of self-defence arises out of the necessity for self-preservation, still the latter is wider, and there cannot be a right of self-defence in all cases of necessity. In the instant case, there is absolutely no evidence on record to uphold the case of the accused that he was manhandled, in that, his testicles were squeezed by the deceased. This imagination that had emanated from the accused at a belated stage deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected. In the instant case, there is absolutely no evidence on record to uphold the case of the accused that he was manhandled, in that, his testicles were squeezed by the deceased. This imagination that had emanated from the accused at a belated stage deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected. But yet, in order to appreciate the defence that had been put forward by the accused-appellant herein, this Court is duty bound to observe the above principle regarding the necessity and self-defence as could be gathered from the ratio decidendi of the decisions so far rendered by the Supreme Court of India. 29. The proverb “necessity has no law” does not find a place in modern jurisprudence. Motive of self preservation is inherent in every man but in order to achieve that end when it militates against the right of another person it is considered as criminal unless such act is declared to be justified by law. Society places a check on the struggle for existence where the motive of self-preservation would dictate a definite aggression on an innocent person. Lord Becon in his maxims necessitas inducit privelegium quoad jura privata says that necessity induces or gives a privilege as to private rights. The privileges given to one acting in the exercise of private rights are said to arise out of the necessity for self preservation; for obedience; and the necessity resulting from the act of God. Of the necessity for self-preservation, justifiable homicide, or the killing of another in self-defence, or in defence of master of servant, parent or child, husband or wife, is an example; and this applies to property as well as to the person; as to defend the person or property against thieves. (Vide Wharaton’s Legal Maxims 49). And in this connection he asserts that a man who sheals to satisfy his hunger is not guilty of larceny, and if two shipwrecked persons get on the same plank but finding it not able to save them both, one of them pushes him down from it whereby he is drowned, this is described by Lord Bacon and other to be justified, but such is not the law of England Vide Wharton Law Lexicon 492,4th Edn.) 30. This was the subject-matter dealt with in the famous English case Reg. This was the subject-matter dealt with in the famous English case Reg. v. Dudley1 and the Judges who decided the case denied that the former illustration was good law, and said that although there were many conceivable state of things in which the latter may possibly be true, it could not support the broad proposition, that a man could save his own life by killing an innocent person and an unoffending neighbour. The facts of the case were those: the prisoners D and S seamen, and the deceased, a boy between 17 and 18, were cast away in a storm on the High seas, and compelled to put into an open boat; that the boat was drifting on the ocean, and was probably more than 1,000 miles from land; that on the 18th day, when they had been 17 days without food and 5 days without water, D proposed to S that lots should be cast as to who should be put to death to save the rest, and they afterwards thought that it would be better to kill the boy that their lives should be saved; that on 20th day, D, with the assent of S killed the boy and both D and S fed on his flesh for four days; that at the time of the act there was no sail in sight nor any reasonable prospect of relief; that under these circumstances there appeared to the prisoners every probability that unless they then or very soon fed upon the boy, or one of themselves, they would die of starvation. That if the men had not fed upon the body of the boy, they would probably not have survived to be picked up and rescued but would within the four days have died of famine. That the boy, being in a much weaker condition was likely to have died before him. Upon these facts, the jury found a special verdict and the Court found the offence to be technically murder. 31. That the boy, being in a much weaker condition was likely to have died before him. Upon these facts, the jury found a special verdict and the Court found the offence to be technically murder. 31. The only instance in which the right is declared to exist against unoffending persons is given in section 106 of the Indian Penal Code which reads as follows: “Right or private defence against a deadly assault when there is risk of harm to innocent person: If, in the exercise of the right of private defence against an assault which reasonably causes the apprehension of death, the defender be so situated that he cannot effectually exercise that right without risk of harm to an innocent person, his right of private defence extends to the running of that risk.” 32. In the instant case, there was no extreme necessity at all arising under the circumstances which can be said as justifying the action of the accused. We have already seen that there was no injury or swelling in the testicles of the accused due to the alleged squeezing of the testicles by the deceased. Under these circumstances, the plea of self defence put forth by him cannot be upheld in view of total absence of evidence to support the said contention. Let us once again come back to the plea that had been put forward regarding the alleged illicit intimacy said to have been developed in between P.W.4 Chittibabu and the deceased Annabhushanam. It is on that alleged relationship, it is averred that the accused had flung out many advices to the deceased and that inspire of the same, she did not turn a new leaf in her life and that is the reason why the occurrence had taken place. Another occurrence said to have taken place is on that evening at about 5 p.m. when the accused bad been to the mill and demanded Rs. 10 from the deceased and that at that time, the deceased refused to give the said amount that is required by the accused. But, within a short time when P.W.4 Chittibabu came there and asked her she obliged him by giving immediately the said Rs. 10 from the deceased and that at that time, the deceased refused to give the said amount that is required by the accused. But, within a short time when P.W.4 Chittibabu came there and asked her she obliged him by giving immediately the said Rs. 10 and therefore this had provoked the accused to give a violent slap on the cheek of the deceased and as such this in turn can be considered as a circumstance which would give the benefit under Exception 1 to section 300, Indian Penal Code. In other words, it is submitted that the above occurrence had been responsible for grave and sudden provocation sparking out at the instance of the deceased in the accused acting in a violent manner. Even with respect to these aspects of the case, we have to observe that there is no material available on record by way of evidence to uphold this contention so as to confer the benefits of Exception 1 to section 300, Indian Penal Code, on the accused. There is no provocation at all emanating from the deceased so as to make the accused to lose his self control and much less resort to violence on the person of the deceased to the extent of taking away her life by inflicting fatal injuries with a sharp edged M.O. 1 knife, even if it is to be admitted that M.O.1 was at his reach and that it came handi for him to use the same as a weapon of offence. 33. Exception 1 to section 300, Indian Penal Code, reads that culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, while deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation and causes death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. This exception is subject to the following provisions: 1. that the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person. 2. That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant. 3. That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence. 2. That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant. 3. That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence. Section 300, Indian Penal Code, reads that whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact. 34. It is relevant in this connection to note that the evidence on record discloses that P.W. 10 had been conducting an auction chit in which the deceased had been paying chit amount and that the auction amount of Rs. 380 which was due and payably to the deceased had been paid by P.W.10 on 5th October, 1978. The said evidence is not controverted by any evidence available on record. On the other hand, the accused has stated that for the said chit, he himself had been paying the amount. On the date of the occurrence there was no business transacted on the mill due to “Karthigai Deepam”. But the said mill was being cleaned and the four persons mentioned above were employed in cleaning the premises of the mill. To that effect P.W.9 the proprietor of the mill had given evidence. P.W.9 also states the names of the four persons as P.W.1 Maria, the deceased Annabhushanam, P.W.2 Thayarammal and yet another Padma. On the date of the occurrence, during evening according to P.Ws.1, 2 and 9, all the four persons mentioned above had been to the mill and were engaged in cleaning work. When they were thus engaged in the cleaning work, the accused came there and demanded money. The evidence on record shows that at that time, the deceased informed the accused that she would pay the amount when she goes over to her house. Both the women P.Ws. 1 and 2, who were cleaning at that time, in their evidence say, that at that time, the accused declared that the deceased would not give money to her husband but would willingly give to her paramour. Within a short time, they dumped the dust collect-ed in the pit and thereafter they had gone to the northern side of the mill in order to fetch water from the well to wash their hands. Within a short time, they dumped the dust collect-ed in the pit and thereafter they had gone to the northern side of the mill in order to fetch water from the well to wash their hands. P.W. 1 states that herself and the deceased had gone near the well at that time. It was during that time, P.W.2 and Padma were engaged in cleaning the southern side of the portion of the mill adjacent to the office situated inside the mill. To that effect P.W.2 has given her evidence, according to P.W.2, the said place is not visible from the place of occurrence. In other words what P.W.2 states is that from the place where they were thus cleaning their hands, they cannot be in a position to see the place of occurrence. P.W.1 states in her evidence that when P.W.1 and the deceased were thus proceeding to the thrashing floor ‘Kalam’-the accused Thangavelu suddenly pounced over the deceased and by taking out the knife from his waist, stabbed the deceased on her chest, back, flank and other parts of the body. After thus inflicting the stab wound on the deceased, the accused ran towards the compound wall situated on the northern side of the mill, climbed the same and ran away from that place. To this effect, the evidence had emanated from P.W.1. On hearing the alaramraised by the deceased, P W.2. who was present there also turned towards that side and found the accused climbing the compound wall and jumping down out of the mill premises and running away. But it is relevant in this connection to note that P.W. 2 has not stated specifically in her evidence that she was an eye witness for the occurrence. It is not her evidence that she actually saw the deceased being stabbed by the accused. But as it is, we have the evidence of P.W.1 alone a record, with respect to the act of actual infliction of the stab injuries on the deceased at the hands of the accused. 35. It is not her evidence that she actually saw the deceased being stabbed by the accused. But as it is, we have the evidence of P.W.1 alone a record, with respect to the act of actual infliction of the stab injuries on the deceased at the hands of the accused. 35. It is relevant in this connection to note that the evidence of a single eyewitness can not be rejected as unreliable especially when it has got corroboration of evidence emanating from the medical officer who had conduct-ed autopsy in this case as well as from the evidence that had emanated from the person who had actually come to the place of occurrence soon after, the infliction, of stab injuries on the deceased. 36. In this regard the decision in Ananda Tangla v. State1, is worth mentioning. In that decision, it was held that when a case is dependent on the testimony of a single witness proving by circumstantial evidence, it is very much necessary to scan and scrutinise the testimony. But in the instant case, it is the eye witness account, namely, that of P.W. 1 regarding the actual occurrence of stabbing that is being tested at the touch stone. Although it is not the principle of law that a conviction cannot be sustained on the testimony of a single witness, yet it is a well known principle of criminal jurisprudence that, before convicting a person on the sole testimony of a witness, the Court must have implicit faith and reliance on its testimony. Where the single witness who was not an eye witness was interested, hostile to the accused, unreliable, not firm and discrepant, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused and he should be acquitted. But in the instant case before us, we have got a very clear picture of the actual occurrence, described in a succinct and clear manner by the eye witness P.W.1. Nothing has been elicited to suspect of discredit the evidence of the eye witness. Who were all the persons at the time of the occurrence cannot also be disputed. The evidence of the witnesses to the occurrence who actually present at the time of the occurrence which is available in record also discloses that the occurrence aught to have taken place in the manner described by P.W. 1. Who were all the persons at the time of the occurrence cannot also be disputed. The evidence of the witnesses to the occurrence who actually present at the time of the occurrence which is available in record also discloses that the occurrence aught to have taken place in the manner described by P.W. 1. In this regard, two other decisions may also be usefully referred to; Sipura Papadi v. State of Maharashtra2, as well as the decision in poorchand v. State of Rajasthan3. These decisions as well as the other decisions of the point, namely, the reliability or otherwise of a single witness who spoke about the main event in an occurrence, can be usefully be summarised as follows: Even if the case against the accused bangs on the evidence of a single eye witness, it may be enough to sustain the conviction given sterling testimony of a. competent honest man, although as a rule of prudence Court call for corroboration. It is a platitude to say that witnesses have to be weighed and not counted since quality matters more than quantity in human affairs. 37. Whenever a case against an accused person hinges to a very large extent on the testimony of a single witness, the question arises whether his evidence can be considered as wholly unacceptable as the trial Court denounced it, or was it so flawless that it can be safely accepted as the last word as to the identity and connection of the appellant with the commission of the murder in question. We are of the opinion that the evidence of a single witness can neither be considered as wholly unacceptable nor wholly impeachable; but has to be considered in the light of certain features in that particular case which should put the Court in its guard not to rely on his bare word, without some assurance from independent sources and then come to a conclusion whether the testimony of the single eye witness can be accepted or rejected. If there are some features noticed in the evidence available on record, both oral and documentary which project their shadow on a part of the evidence unfurled through a single witness, it is not prudent to accept his bare word mouth, without independent confirmation as to the identity and connection of the accused with the crime in question. 38. If there are some features noticed in the evidence available on record, both oral and documentary which project their shadow on a part of the evidence unfurled through a single witness, it is not prudent to accept his bare word mouth, without independent confirmation as to the identity and connection of the accused with the crime in question. 38. In the instant case before us, though the only eye witness that speaks after the occurrence is it is seen that when his evidence is viewed with the above principles of law, we have to find that the evidence of P.W. 1 is acceptable especially in the light of the presence of other witnesses to corroborate her testimony and who were also actually present immediately after the occurrence that had taken place. Above all, as already stated, the medical evidence available in the case is certainly a corroborative factor which contributes much for upholding the credence of the evidence of P.W. 1. P.W. 1 has stated in her evidence that she had led the deceased soon after she sustained injury and brought her near the main gate of the rice mill and at that place, the injured got influenced by giddiness and she had laid down. P.W. 1 further states that she had run to P.W. 3, the brother of the deceased and brought him there, after informing him about the occurrence. P.W. 3 substantially corroborates this portion of the version spoken to by P.W.1. P.W. 3 further states that P.W. 9, the proprietor of the mill who came there at that time sent both himself as well as the injured in a car to the police station, P.W. 1 further states in her evidence that the occurrence took place at about 5-00 p.m. on that day. P.W.1 further states in her evidence that she had informed P.W.3 at that time that it was the accused who had stabbed the deceased. It is also relevant in this connection to note that the first information given by P.W.3 had reached the police station without any delay whatsoever, and, in that, it has specifically stated that it was the accused who had inflicted the stab injuries on the deceased. It is also relevant in this connection to note that the first information given by P.W.3 had reached the police station without any delay whatsoever, and, in that, it has specifically stated that it was the accused who had inflicted the stab injuries on the deceased. P.W.6, the learned Judicial Second Glass Magistrate states that he had recorded the dying declaration of the deceased Anna-booshanamin the Vellore Government Hospital between 9.05 p.m. to 9.15 p.m. that night, P.W. 6 further states that at the time of recording of the dying declaration, the injured was conscious. P.W.7, the Medical Officer who was present there at the time of recording of the dying declaration has also certified to the effect that the deceased was conscious at the time when the dying declaration was recorded by P.W.6. The said dying declaration is Exhibit P-7. In that dying declaration P.W.7 has appended her certificate to the effect that the injured was conscious at the time the dying declaration was recorded from her by P.W.6. The said certificate appended by P.W.7 in Ex.P.7 is Exhibit.P.8. In the said dying declaration it is Written as the version given by the deceased that it was the accused who had stabbed her on the ground that the accused had suspected her fidelity towards him and also had entertained a feeling in his mind that she was having illicit intimacy with some other person. The deceased had also stated in her judicial dying declaration that in the quarrel that had ensured on the said basis between herself and the accused, the accused had resorted to violence and stabbed her. 39. We have carefully gone through the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and applied our mind regarding the question whether there was any necessity for P.Ws.1 to 3 to depose, against the accused and falsely implicate him in the case that took in a case wherein he has been charged with an offence which can be dealt with by imposition of capital sentence, if once be is found guilty. It is also, we find that there is absolutely no necessity for P.Ws. 1 to 3 to depose falsely against the accused. There is also equally no necessity for the deceased to give a dying declaration falsely implicating the accused. It is also, we find that there is absolutely no necessity for P.Ws. 1 to 3 to depose falsely against the accused. There is also equally no necessity for the deceased to give a dying declaration falsely implicating the accused. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution had established beyond all reasonble doubt that it was the accused and the accused alone who had stabbed his wife within the mill premises during the time of the occurrence. It is amply borne out by the cogent, convincing and trustworthy evidence that it was only due to the accused having committed the violence on the deceased by inflicting the stab injuries with a knife and as some of the injuries thus inflicted by him were necessarily fatal as seen from the evidence emanated from the Medical Officer in this case, we are convinced that there is ample evidence on record available to point at the guilt of the accused. It is also relevant in this connection to note that in pursuance of the arrest of the accused, M.O.4, had been taken from inside a bush and produced by the accused to the investigating officer. It was only from the house of the sister of the accused, the blood stained clothes of the accused M.Os.8 and 9 were taken out and produced by the accused him-self before P.W. 18. P.W. 11 corroborates the said seizure of the clothes of the accused by himself producing the same. Therefore, we have no hesitation to accept the evidence relating to the recovery of the weapon also in this case in pursuance of the admissible portion of the confessional statement given by the accused at the time of his arrest. P.W.3 also states that M.Os.1 to 3 are the bloodstained clothes of the deceased and that they were entrusted by him in the police station. They were seized by P.W. 17 and kept for the purpose of investigation in this case. P.Ws.9 and 17 depose that from inside the rice mill, M.Os. 5 and 6, namely, bloodstained hay and articles were seized. We have also no ground for rejecting their evidence. Therefore, we accept their testimony relating to the seizure of M.Os. 5 and 6 also. P.Ws.9 and 17 depose that from inside the rice mill, M.Os. 5 and 6, namely, bloodstained hay and articles were seized. We have also no ground for rejecting their evidence. Therefore, we accept their testimony relating to the seizure of M.Os. 5 and 6 also. From the contents of the report of the chemical Examiner as well as that of the serologist, it is seen that the stains of human blood that were found on M.Os.1 to 3 the bloodstained clothes of the deceased, in M.Os.5 and 6 the bloodstained hay and mud and in M.O. 8 shirt of the accused, the same group of human blood was detected. Therefore, in our opinion, the above pieces of evidence available on record clearly establish the case of the prosecution that it was the accused who had stabbed the deceased with M.O.4 knife with the intention to kill her and has also successfully implemented his wish at a convenient hour. 40. Of course, there are certain discrepancies and infirmities brought out in evidence relating to the seizure of M.O.4 and its utilisation for the commission of the offence in the case by the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that it was M.O.4 that had been used as a weapon of offence by the accused. P.W.1 has stated even in her chief examination that M.O.4 knife was not used by the accused in inflicting the injuries on the deceased, but a pen knife was used. On that ground alone we are unable to reject the prosecution case that it was the accused who had stabbed the deceased and caused fatal injuries on her. It is quite probable that in an occurrence where a murder had taken place in a spur of moment, P.W.1 could not have noticed the actual weapon that has been utilised by the accused who inflicted the injuries on the deceased. We have already accepted the evidence relating to section 27 recovery of M.O. 4 in this case. Therefore, merely on the ground that P.W. 1 was not in a position to identify M.O. 4, we are unable to reject here evidence relating to the actual occurrence of infliction of injuries on the deceased by the accused. 41. We have already accepted the evidence relating to section 27 recovery of M.O. 4 in this case. Therefore, merely on the ground that P.W. 1 was not in a position to identify M.O. 4, we are unable to reject here evidence relating to the actual occurrence of infliction of injuries on the deceased by the accused. 41. It is also relevant in this connection to note that, as already discussed and pointed out the accused had admitted that he was present at the place of occurrence during the time of the occurrence. What is more, he has also accepted the case of the prosecution that it was he who had stabbed his wife, the deceased herein. The accused would also state that the occurrence had taken place in the manner described by him in his confessional statement before the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate. In other words, the case of the accused as put forward by him in his judicial confessional statement is that he demanded money from his wife and that she refused to give money; but she had given within a short time on that day itself money to her paramour, P.W. 4, and that as the accused was enraged due to the same, had slaped on the cheek of the deceased at that time and that the deceased caught hold of his testicles and squeezed and as he was not able to bear the pain, he took a blade available then handier, and with the same, stabbed the deceased. It is relevant in this connection to note that P.W. 4 has specifically denied the allegation that he had gone to the deceased and received money from her at the place of occurrence on that day. P.W. 1 has also denied the case of the accused as false in that the occurrence had not taken place in the manner alleged by the accused in his Judicial confessional statement. As already stated, there is absolutely no necessity for P.W. 1 to depose falsely against the accused and implicate him in this case. The investigating officer had taken all precautions, in that, he had even sent the accused for treatment and report relating to the injury that was found at the person of the accused at the time of arrest. As already stated, there is absolutely no necessity for P.W. 1 to depose falsely against the accused and implicate him in this case. The investigating officer had taken all precautions, in that, he had even sent the accused for treatment and report relating to the injury that was found at the person of the accused at the time of arrest. The medical certificate relating to wounds that were present on the person of the accused was also obtained by the investigating officer in this regard. It is also in the medical evidence that when the assailant used a knife for stabling another and did stab, it is quite possible that injuries as found in the hands of the accused could have been sustained by the assailant during the time of the occurrence. P.W. 5 has stated in his cross-examination that it is quite possible that the injury on the person of the accused could have been caused with a glass piece. The accused had inflicted more than one stab wound on the deceased. So, it is quite possible that the deceased might have raised her hands in order to protest herself from the wounds that were being inflicted on her at the hands of her assailant and it is quite possible that during the time of the scuffle that might have taken place just prior to the infliction of the successful fatal wounds on the deceased by the accused that the glass bangles worn by the deceased got broken in that transaction and that the said glass pieces of bangles could have been responsible for causing the injuries on the person of the accused. It is not also possible for us to uphold the case of the accused merely on the ground of the presence of the injuries on the accused. We are unable to uphold the case put forward by the accused regarding the occurrence. We have absolutely no hesitation to hold that the case put forward by the accused as, a defence cannot be upheld so as to deny him either the benefits of right of self defence or the benefits of Exception 1 to section 300, Indian Penal Code. If the occurrence had taken place in the manner described by the accused, there was absolutely no necessity for the accused absconding himself. If the occurrence had taken place in the manner described by the accused, there was absolutely no necessity for the accused absconding himself. He could have as well surrendered soon after the occurrence and made a clean breast of the occurrence as he was the author and architect of the occurrence. The accused had not done so. The occurrence, had taken place at about 5-00 p.m. on 12th December, 1978. The accused had given the confessional statement before the learned Judicial Second Class Magistrate on 28th December, 1978. It is only in the said confessional statement that was given 15 days subsequent to the date of occurrence, the accused has come out with a case that his testicles were squeezed by the deceased and that due to unbearable nature of pain that had resulted due to the same, he had resorted to violence in order to save himself. We have already stream lined the principles of self-defence and its applicability especially when the same is coupled with the doctrine of necessity. If really the testicles of the deceased were squeezed, of course, there is the possibility of the accused entertaining a feeling that there was imminent danger for his life. We have no diagonally opposite view to express that if that was the situation, the accused had every right to exercise the right of self-defence or protecting his life, by stabbing the person who had thus resorted to squeeze his testicles. There is absolutely no evidence available on record to uphold the contention of the accused that the deceased had squeezed his testicles. We are unable to believe the, version of the accused regarding the same at a belated stage. P.W. 1 has specifically stated in her evidence that the deceased did not squeeze the testicles of the accused. Therefore, the occurrence in this case had taken place only in the manner described by P.W. 1 in this case. The occurrence did not take place in the manner suggested by the accused. We have no hesitation to hold that the offence committed by the accused is murder and murder alone, punishable under section 302, Indian Penal Code. Therefore, we confirm the conviction of the accused under section 302, Indian Penal Code, while holding that he was responsible for the infliction of the fatal injuries on the deceased with M.O. 4 knife. We have no hesitation to hold that the offence committed by the accused is murder and murder alone, punishable under section 302, Indian Penal Code. Therefore, we confirm the conviction of the accused under section 302, Indian Penal Code, while holding that he was responsible for the infliction of the fatal injuries on the deceased with M.O. 4 knife. We also confirm the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed on the accused-appellant herein under section 302, Indian Penal Code, by the trial Court. There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. 42. Before parting with this case, we like to place on record, the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. T. Munirathina Naidu the Counsel appearing for the appellant who had not failed to spare his services in taking us through the entire evidence, in this case, both oral and documentary and also in adducing interesting arguments on behalf of the accused-appellant herein, which we have adequately incorporated in our judgment discussed supra. Conviction and sentence affirmed; Appeal dismissed.