Judgment :- Bellie, J. Of the two accused in the case the first accused Jayapal is the appellant. He has been convicted under Secs.302 and 307, I.P.C. and has been respectively sentenced to imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for three years which have been directed to run concurrently. The second accused who was charged under Sec.302 read with Secs. 109 and 307 read with 109, I.P.C. has been acquitted. 2. The prosecution case is that P.W.1 Natarajan was having a lathe machine at Pappanaickenpalayam. His brother Murugesan’s daughter Sundari and the second accused Nagarajan fell in love with each and they both on 14. 1984 fled from the village. Murugesan gave a complaint to police. The Inspector enquired into the matter and there was a Panchayat and in the presence of police the marriage was celebrated under the supervision of the first accused Jayapal. After the marriage the second accused did not go for work and was wandering, and he went to Murugesan often and pestered him for money. On 16. 1984 at 7.45 P.M. while P.W.1 Natarajan was in his lathe workshop and his elder brother Murugesan and younger brother Gajendran (P.W.2) were talking outside, the two accused came there. The first accused shouted in filthy language demand to pay what they should Hearing this P.W.1 Natarajan came out. Murugesan and P.W.2 Gajendran went near P.W.1 Natarajan. Second accused shouted “Kill them” P.W.1 saying that there is no need to speak with them told his brothers that they would go. At that time the first accused took out a knife M.O.1 from his pant pocket and aimed to stab in P. W.1’s left shoulder. But since P.W.1 then turned the tip of the knife fell on his right chest. First accused again raised the knife to stab P.W.1. Murugesan stopped to prevent him. First accused stabbed him in his left shoulder. Murugesan fell down. Again first accused raised the knife. At that time P.W.2 Gajendran took out a bamboo stick from the thatched roof and beat with it at the left hand of the first accused. Then the first accused ran away with M.O.I knife towards south. Second accused also ran after. P.W.3 Sakthivel was there witnessing the occurrence. The P.W.1 sent Murugesan with his elder brother Chinnasamy’s son Ulaganathan to hospital in an auto-rickshaw. Then the first accused ran away with M.O.I knife towards south. Second accused also ran after. P.W.3 Sakthivel was there witnessing the occurrence. The P.W.1 sent Murugesan with his elder brother Chinnasamy’s son Ulaganathan to hospital in an auto-rickshaw. P.W.1 and his son Ramkumar informed about the occurrence at Murugesan’s house and they also went to the hospital. In the hospital at 8.10 P.M., P.W.4 Doctor Perumal on examination of Murugesan found him dead. He saw an injury in his left shoulder of 2 cm. x 1/4 cm., cavity deep. He then sent a death memo to the police station. P.W.5 Dr.Adal Arasu at 8.55 P.M. examined P.W.1 Natarajan and found on him and incised wound over left scapula and an incised wound below right nipple. Then he also sent intimation to the police station. On receipt of the two intimations Exs.P3 and P5 from the hospital at 9.00 P.M., P.W.13 Kuppannan Head Constable of the Police outpost at the Hospital went to the hospital and recorded a statement Ex.P1 from P.W.1. He sent Exs.Pl, P3 and P5 to B4 Police Station There P.W.14 Nizamuddin, Sub Inspector, registered a case under Secs.302 and 324, I.P.C. He sent Ex.P18 F.I.R. to the Court and its copy to his higher authorities. At 10.30 P.M.P.W.15, Rajasekaran Inspector, B4 Police Station, on receipt of the copy of F.I.R. took up investigation of the case. At 11.15 P.M. he recovered M.O.2 bamboo stick produced by P.W.2. At 11.20 P.M. he prepared an observation mahazar Ex.P.20 and also a plan Ex.P21. At early morning, at 1.00 A.M. on 16. 1984 he recovered from the place of occurrence M.O.9 blood-stained earth under a mahazar. From 2.30 A.M. to 8.00 AM. he held inquest. At 15. A.M. he recovered from P.W.1 his shirt M.O.3 and his Baniyan M.O.4 He sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. P. W.7 Dr.Poovathal conduct post-mortem examination on the dead body at the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital at 10.00 A.M. on 14. 84 and found the following injury: “An incised wound of 3 cm. x 1 cm. x cavity”. She is of the opinion that due to hemorrhage, as a result of stab injury to the aorta the death would have been caused. She is of the further opinion that the injury is fatal. On 16. 1984 at 11.30 A.M. near Nehru Park P.W.15 Inspector arrested the first accused. x 1 cm. x cavity”. She is of the opinion that due to hemorrhage, as a result of stab injury to the aorta the death would have been caused. She is of the further opinion that the injury is fatal. On 16. 1984 at 11.30 A.M. near Nehru Park P.W.15 Inspector arrested the first accused. He gave a confession statement in pursuance of which at 1.00 P.M., M.O.I knife was recovered under a mahazar attested by witnesses. As injuries were found on the accused he was sent to hospital. In the Hospital P.W.8 Dr.Bhavani found on the accused the following injuries: 1. Multiple small superficial injuries on the right middle, ring & little fingers on the dorsum. A little deeper injury of about 1 cm.x 1/2 cm. on the dorsum of right ring finger at the proximan phalngeal end exposing sub-cutaneous tissue. 2. A. small acerated injury of about 1/2 cm. diameter (superficial) middle of anterior aspect of right leg: 3. Mild tenderness over the right foot; 4. An abrasion of 1 cm. length transversely x 1/2 cm. breadth just 1 cm. below and lateral to left eye. On 16. 1984 at 8.30 A.M. at Avanashi Road, opposite to Lakshmi Mills, the Inspector arrested the second accused. After further investigation the Inspector filed charge sheet against the two accused. 3. The accused when examined by the Court as regards the circumstances appearing in the evidence denied that the occurrence happened as stated by the prosecution. The first accused stated that on 16. 1984 at 7.00 P.M. When he got down from a bus the deceased Murugesan abused him that only because of him his daughter’s life is spoiled and P.W.1 Natarajan joined Murugesan in abusing him. Then Murugesan, stating that he would finish him, brought an iron rod from Natarajan’s workshop and aimed a blow at his head. As he stepped aside it fell near his left eye. Again Murugesan hit him with the rod and when he attempted to prevent it, it fell on his right little finger causing an injury. Then P.W.1 took up the iron rod and beat twice in his leg. Then both of them pressed him to the wall and hit him at his face. At that time he took up a knife which was there on the table and stabbed at Murugesan’s shoulder. Then he inflicted a stab on P.W.1 also. Then P.W.1 took up the iron rod and beat twice in his leg. Then both of them pressed him to the wall and hit him at his face. At that time he took up a knife which was there on the table and stabbed at Murugesan’s shoulder. Then he inflicted a stab on P.W.1 also. The second accused in his statement stated that he did not know anything about the occurrence and he was in his house. On the side of the accused D.W.I Dr.Duraikkannan was examined who has deposed that on 16. 1984 the first accused was brought to the jail and as he found injury on him he sent to the Government hospital. 4. On consideration of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found the first accused guilty of the charges and he convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid, and as regards the second accused though the learned Sessions Judge believed that he was also present at the spot, stating that there is no evidence that he knew that the first accused was having knife and there is no reliable evidence that he abetted, he found him not guilty of the charges and therefore he acquitted him. 5. Mr.B.Sriramulu, learned counsel for the first accused/appeal argues that a careful reading of the evidence would disclose that the occurrence did not happen as alleged by the prosecution and as pleaded by the first accused he should have inflicted injuries on the deceased and P.W.1 in the self-defence and therefore his conviction is bad. On a through consideration of the evidence we are not able to agree with the learned counsel. 6. The occurrence has happened at 7.45 P.M. on 16. 1984. Three witnesses have been examined as eye witnesses. They are P.W.1 Natarajan, P.W.2 Gajendran and P.W.3 Sakthivel. P.Ws.1 and 2 are brothers of the deceased Murugesan. P.W.3 is not in any way related to him and he appears to be quite an independent witness, and he has been examined at the inquest. According to P.W.1 soon after the occurrence he sent the injured Murugesan to the hospital along with his elder brother’s son Ulaganathan and then he went to the house of Murugesan and after informing there about the incident he too went to the hospital. In the hospital P.W.4 Dr. Perumal examined Murugesan at 8.10 P.M. and found him dead. According to P.W.1 soon after the occurrence he sent the injured Murugesan to the hospital along with his elder brother’s son Ulaganathan and then he went to the house of Murugesan and after informing there about the incident he too went to the hospital. In the hospital P.W.4 Dr. Perumal examined Murugesan at 8.10 P.M. and found him dead. At 8.55 P.M., P.W.5 Dr.Adal Arasu examined P.W.1 and found on him injuries. The death intimation Ex.P3 issued by P.W.4 and P.W.5 intimation issued by P. W.5 were sent to the outpost police station. They were received at the outpost police station at 9.00 P.M. by P.W.13 Kuppannan, Head Constable. Then P.W.13 went to the hospital and there he took a statement Ex.P.1 from P.W.1. At 10.00 P.M. P.W.14 Sub Inspector on receipt of Exs.P.1, P.3 and P.5 registered a case. Ex.P.18 First Information Report has been received by the Magistrate at 11.30 P.M. From these facts it is very clear, as rightly stated by the trial Court, that without any delay whatsoever the case has been reported. Therefore there was absolutely no time for any deliberation or consultation. As pointed out by the trial Court the occurrence has happened right in front of the lathe work shop of P.W.1, This would indicate that the two accused had gone there, and not P.W.1 and his brothers were waiting for first accused to get down from the bus there as the defence would have it believed. P.W.3 who is an independent, witness, as stated above, has clearly stated as to how the incident happened and his evidence corroborates the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to suspect or disbelieve his evidence. It is the prosecution case that the first accused was arrested on 16. 1984 at 11.30 A.M. near Nehru Park. The first accused in his statement would appear to say that he was arrested at the spot itself soon after the incident. But from the evidence discussed above it would appear that the Inspector arrived at the scene of occurrence at 10.45 P.M., nearly three hours after the occurrence. It is unbelievable that the first accused would have been there upto this time especially when the place is the front of the workshop of P.W.1. In his statement he has stated he was sitting there for ten minutes. It is unbelievable that the first accused would have been there upto this time especially when the place is the front of the workshop of P.W.1. In his statement he has stated he was sitting there for ten minutes. This itself would show that he is not telling the truth. Therefore it must be true, as staled by the Inspector, that first accused was arrested on 16. 1984. If really the occurrence had happened as stated by the first accused that he inflicted the injuries in self-defence, in the natural course, he would have gone to the police station which is just two furlongs away and made a report. Nor has he gone to the hospital. This conduct of the 1st accused is also suggestive that the occurrence did not happen in the manner stated by him. According to the prosecution when the first accused stabbed Murugesan’s brother Gajendran took out a bamboo stick from the thatched roof and hit the first accused which fell on his left hand finger. Thus the injury in the left hand finger of the first accused is explained by the prosecution. It is argued that there are three other injuries. But as regards these injuries P.W.8 Dr.Bhavani who examined the first accused has stated that these injuries could have been caused due to fall on the ground. Thus there is no merit in the argument that the prosecution has not explained the injuries on the first accused. It is then argued that it is in the records that P.W.13 Kuppannan, He has recorded a signed statement from Ulaganathan who took the deceased to hospital and there is nothing to show as to why this statement was recorded and this gives rise to grave suspicion in the prosecution case. It is true that there is such a statement recorded from Ulaganathan, and this was recorded at 9.30 P.M. i.e., half an hour after Ex.P1 from P.W.1 was recorded. As regards this no question whatsoever has been put to the Head Constable P.W.13. May be because Ulaganathan brought the deceased to the hospital the Head Constable thought that for whatever it is worth a statement from him also should be recorded. We do not see that in any way this statement recorded from Ulaganathan affects the prosecution case. As regards this no question whatsoever has been put to the Head Constable P.W.13. May be because Ulaganathan brought the deceased to the hospital the Head Constable thought that for whatever it is worth a statement from him also should be recorded. We do not see that in any way this statement recorded from Ulaganathan affects the prosecution case. It is then argued that around the scene of occurrence there were a number of shops and stalls but no other witness has been examined. But the question is whether the evidence on record is sufficient to believe the prosecution case or not. May be no other person has witnesses the occurrence though there were shops and stalls at the place of occurrence as stated. It is the quality of the evidence that courts and not the quantity. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution it appears to us very clear that the prosecution has proved the case against the first accused beyond any reasonable doubt. 7. However it is argued that only a single stab injury has been inflicted, and even if the prosecution case in true the offence committed will come under Section 304 only and not under Sec.302, I.P.C. In the connection the learned counsel for the appellant first accused relied on a decision in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1988) 1 S.C.C. 690 . But we find the facts in that case are quite different from the facts in our case. In that case it was observed that the manner in which the incident took place has not been clearly established by the prosecution; and it is possible that the incident could have occurred in the manner contended by the defence, and the injuries received by the accused has not been clearly explained by the prosecution and that there were other accused also and they have also received injuries. Considering all these circumstances it was observed that the accused must have held to have inflicted the injuries on the deceased not with the intention to cause death but with the knowledge that the same may cause death. Considering all these circumstances it was observed that the accused must have held to have inflicted the injuries on the deceased not with the intention to cause death but with the knowledge that the same may cause death. But in our case, as we have held above, it is quite clear that the occurrence look place as alleged by the prosecution and the injuries on the accused have been explained, and there is only the appellant-accused who was injured and no other accused as in the above case cited. Further the accused had already caused injuries on P.W.1 and then he inflicted injuries on the deceased who had intervened. The injury on the deceased has been caused with a knife, and as per the evidence of the Doctor P.W.7 it is of the measurements of 3 cm. x 1 cm. x cavity, and in the opinion of the Doctor the injury is a fatal one. There is no doubt that the injury has been inflicted with considerable force. All these only show that the accused intended to in flict his particular injury and there is nothing to show that the accused aimed at something else but due to some unexpected turn this injury happened to be caused. It is in evidence that already there was enmity between the accused and the family of the deceased and the occurrence occurred just in front of the lathe workshop of the deceased’s brother P.W.1 where the two accused had gone. Considering all these we do not think that the offence committed comes under any of the exceptions under Sec.300, I.P.C. As such the offence committed is one of murder coming under Sec.302 and not culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In this view of ours we dismiss the appeal and confirm the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.