Judgment :- Janarthanam, J. The accused, aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, has come forward with this appeal. 2. The brief facts are: (i) One Sherifa Bibi (since deceased), a Muslim, was a resident of Sepoy Street, Masapet Cuddalore O.T. There are electric lamp posts in the street emitting light during night hours. There is an electric lamp post situate 30 feet away from the house of the deceased. She had a chequered marital career. She married for the second time one Kaliyaperumal, a Hindu who died leaving behind him his son P.W.1, aged 17. Thereafter, she married the accused, a Harijan, for the third time. Out of this wedlock, two female offspring, P.W.2 aged 10 and one Zarina Bibi were born. The deceased was practising native medicine for the treatment of victims of snake and scorpion bite etc. She appeared to have got a decent income. The accused is a butcher specialised in removal of goat’s skin and was earning a meagre income. He was addicted to consume arrack. There were very often skirmishes and quarrels between the spouses. Many a time, the quarrel ensued as a result of suspicion of fidelity of the deceased. P.W.3 is a neighbour. P.W.4 resides in the vicinity of the house of the accused at a calling distance. (ii) On the day of occurrence, namely, 13.6.1983, P.W.1 had been to a cinema and returned home. The deceased and the accused were quarrelling with each other. After supper, they all went to sleep. As usual P.W.2 and his another sister took their bed in the house of one Vijayaraghavan situate adjacent to their house. At about 1 A.M., the accused cut the deceased on her neck with M.O.1 knife. P.W.1 came to the rescue of his mother and in that process, he also injured on his neck. Both P.W.1 and the deceased raised a hue and cry attracting the attention of the neighbours. P.Ws.3 and 4 saw the deceased and P.W.1 with cut injuries on their neck. They also noticed the accused holding M.O.2 in his hand. Both P.W.1 and the deceased ran some distance in the street and fell on the ground. The deceased died after a while. The accused also ran away from there carrying the weapon in his hand. P.Ws.3 and 4 saw the deceased and P.W.1 with cut injuries on their neck. They also noticed the accused holding M.O.2 in his hand. Both P.W.1 and the deceased ran some distance in the street and fell on the ground. The deceased died after a while. The accused also ran away from there carrying the weapon in his hand. (iii) P.W.2 went to Cuddalore O.T. Police Station and gave Ex.P1 complaint at 1.45 A.M., to P.W.13 Sub Inspector of Police, who in turn registered the case in Crime No.354 of 1983 under Secs.302, 307 and 326 I.P.C. He prepared express reports and sent the same to the concerned officials, Ex.P19 is the printed F.I.R., sent to Court. He immediately rushed to the scene of occurrence and sent the injured P.W.1 to the hospital for treatment. (iv) P.W.14, Inspector of Police, on receipt of the express F.I.R. at 3.30 A.M., took up further investigation in the case. XX XX XX [The discussion relating to facts is omitted-Ed.] (viii) P.W.10, the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Cuddalore, on receipt of the requisition from P.W.14, after administration of necessary warnings and observing the required formalities, recorded the confession Ex.P14 of the accused. (ix) P.W.14, after completion of the formalities of the investigation, laid a report under Sec.173, Crl.P.C., before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Cuddalore on 19th October, 1983 for offences under Secs.302 and 307, I.P.C., appeared to have been committed by the accused. 3. Upon committal, the learned Sessions Judge, South Arcot at Cuddalore framed charges under Secs.302 and 307, I.P.C., against the accused. The accused when questioned as respects the charges framed against him denied the same and claimed to be tried. 4. Theprosecution, in proof of the charges framed against the accused examined P.Ws.1 to 14, filed Exhibits P1 to P21 and marked M.Os.1 to 6. 5. The accused, when examined under Sec.313, Crl.P.C., as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing evidence in against him, would candidly admit his having made a judicial confession, though he would deny the rest of the pieces of the evidence. He did not choose to examine any witness on his side. 6. 5. The accused, when examined under Sec.313, Crl.P.C., as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing evidence in against him, would candidly admit his having made a judicial confession, though he would deny the rest of the pieces of the evidence. He did not choose to examine any witness on his side. 6. The learned Sessions Judge, on perusal of the materials placed before him and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the defence and the learned Public Prosecutor found the accused guilty of the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C., convicted him thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for life. He also found the accused guilty under Sec.307, I.P.C., convicted him thereunder and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a direction that the sentences are to run concurrently. Hence, the appeal. 7. The learnedcounsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the intrinsic and built materials available in the case of the prosecution itself would point out that the act of the accused would fall squarely under Exception 1 to Secs.300 and 308, I.P.C., and that therefore the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the Court below are liable to be set aside. 8. Theessential pieces of evidence in proof of the case of the prosecution are: (i) The direct testimony of P.W.1; (ii) The res jestae evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 seeing the deceased and P.W.1 with cut injuries on their neck and the accused standing there with M.O.1 knife in his hand; (iii) The arrest, confession and consequent recovery of the weapon of offence; and (iv) The judicial confession Ex.P14 made by the accused before the Magistrate, P.W.10. 9. The interesting facet of this case is that the judicial confession and other pieces of evidence do not go together in one direction pointing out the definite case of the prosecution. The other pieces of evidence, if considered in isolation, without taking into account the judicial confession, assuming the same to be proved, would point out that the acts of the accused would amount to pure and simple murder in causing the death of the deceased, besides amounting to an offence of attempt to commit murder, of P.W.1. 10. A cursory perusal of the admitted judicial confession of the accused would make it abundantly clear that he caused the death of the deceased as a result of grave and sudden provocation. 10. A cursory perusal of the admitted judicial confession of the accused would make it abundantly clear that he caused the death of the deceased as a result of grave and sudden provocation. The confession, if at all, can be acted as a whole or rejected as a whole. It is not legally permissible to reject such portions of the confession as is favourable to the accused and accept the rest of the portion for fastening or mulcting criminal liability upon the accused. The learned Sessions Judge, oblivious of this settled legal position, acted upon part of the confession and other pieces of evidence available on record relatable to that of the accused cutting the deceased on her neck, ignoring the igniting or impelling circumstances, which made the accused to resort to cut the deceased on her neck and fasten criminal liability upon the accused, which on the face of it, is not sustainable in law. The learned Sessions Judge could have adopted either of these two courses, that is, to accept the judicial confession of the accused in toto or to accept the other pieces of evidence for fastening criminal liability upon the accused. The moot question that stares on us is as to which of the two courses is to be adopted in the circumstances of the case. Let us proceed to analyse now the materials available on record to arrive at just and proper conclusion. 11. P.W.2 having turned hostile wholesale, the only eye witness available is P.W.1. P.Ws.3 and 4 have seen the accused with M.O.1 and the victim deceased and P.W.1 with cut injuries on their persons and nothing more. The genesis and origin of the occurrence could not be expected to be divulged by P.Ws.3 and 4, in such circumstances. If at all, P.W.1 alone could be a competent witness in this regard. The evidence of P.W.1 did not throw any light at all as to what transpired between the accused and the deceased immediately prior to the occurrence. What P.W.1 would simply say is that he saw the accused cutting the neck of the deceased. He would further say that there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased prior to going to bed. The quarrel between them was not something unusual on that day. What P.W.1 would simply say is that he saw the accused cutting the neck of the deceased. He would further say that there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased prior to going to bed. The quarrel between them was not something unusual on that day. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that there were frequent quarrels between them as a result of the accused suspecting the fidelity of his wife, the deceased. If really the accused wanted to sniff the life of the deceased on account of her swerving away from the path of rectitude, he would have achieved such a feat long before. He having not done so, could not have resorted to hurl violence on the deceased at dead of night at 1 A.M. unless something grave and sudden happened igniting his passion to rise in revolt against the deceased. The judicial confession of this accused provides necessary clue for this. What he would say therein is that when he returned to the house very late in the night at 2 A.M. he saw his beloved wife in the company of a stranger. The stranger perceiving his presence attempted to run away from there. He tried to catch hold of him; but he, however made good his escape. When the deceased was questioned about the stranger before she adjusted her clothes, she proclaimed Thereafter, he lost his power of self-control and cut her neck with a knife. Her son P.W.1 caught hold of him from behind. He pushed him down holding the knife in his hand and in that process, he (P.W.1) sustained injuries. The confession would however reveal that thereafter, he went and concealed the knife in the heap of granite jellies stored near Ayindhu Kniatru Amman Kovil and slept in the temple that night. The next day he went to the police station on his own accord and gave the confession Ex.P7 to P.W.14, took out and produced the knife kept concealed in the heap of stones. On the fact of the judicial confession, arrest of the accused as deposed to by P.W.14 is not free from suspicion. 12. The suspicion gets further strengthened if we turn our attention to the evidence of P.W.6. P.W.6 did not state anything as to the arrest of the accused by P.W.14. On the fact of the judicial confession, arrest of the accused as deposed to by P.W.14 is not free from suspicion. 12. The suspicion gets further strengthened if we turn our attention to the evidence of P.W.6. P.W.6 did not state anything as to the arrest of the accused by P.W.14. What he would state is that exactly at the juncture when the accused was being questioned by P.W.14 who recorded his statement, he would arrive there and attest the confession statement, Ex.P7. On a threadbare consideration of the totality of the essential pieces of evidence available on record, the cumulative effect produced on our mind is that the judicial confession Ex.P14 reveals the genesis and origin of the occurrence impelling the accused to resort to cut the deceased on her neck, in a grave and sudden provocation, resulting in her death, besides causing injury to P.W.1 in the process of his being pushed aside by holding the knife in his hand. In such circumstances, the act of the accused in inflicting the cut on the neck of the deceased with M.O.1 would squarely fall under Exception 1 to Sec.300, I.P.C., punishable under Sec.304, I.P.C. 13. The further question that would arise is whether his act would fall under Clause I or II of Sec.304, I.P.C. If the act by which death is caused is done with the intention of causing the death of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, it would fall under Clause I. If the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, it would fall under Clause II. Since the accused had inflicted a severe cut on the neck of the deceased, a vulnerable portion of human anatomy, with a lethal weapon like M.O.1, it cannot be stated that his act is not one not done with the intention of causing the death of the deceased. As such, his act would squarely fall under Sec.304, Part I, Indian Indian Indian Penal Code. 14. Likewise, the act of the accused in causing an injury to P.W.1 cannot be stated to be one coming within the purview of Sec.307, Indian Indian Indian Penal Code, but can only attract Sec.308, Indian Indian Indian Penal Code. As such, his act would squarely fall under Sec.304, Part I, Indian Indian Indian Penal Code. 14. Likewise, the act of the accused in causing an injury to P.W.1 cannot be stated to be one coming within the purview of Sec.307, Indian Indian Indian Penal Code, but can only attract Sec.308, Indian Indian Indian Penal Code. By the act of the accused in pushing P.W.1 holding the knife M.O.1 in his hand and causing an injury, it can be stated that if he by that act had caused his death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and therefore, his attempt to cause culpable homicide not amounting to murder of P.W.1 would be an act punishable under Sec.308, Indian Indian Indian Penal Code, therefore, the contention and sentence of the Court below are not sustainable in law. 15. In the result, the accused is found guilty under Sec.304, Part I, Indian Indian Indian Penal Code instead of Sec.302, Indian Indian Indian Penal Code, for causing the death of the deceased, convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for seven years. Consequently, sentence of imprisonment for life is set aside. The accused is also found guilty under Sec.308, Indian Indian Indian Penal Code instead of Sec.307, Indian Indian Indian Penal Code convicted thereunder and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years. The sentences will run concurrently. 16. Subject to the above modification, the appeal shall stand dismissed.