Judgment :- Janarthanam, J. The appellant/accused has been convicted for the offence under Sec.302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. The brief facts are: The scene village Veppalampatti is situate 14 Kilometres south of Bargur Police Station. The accused Kannan alias Pullan alias Perumal is a native of Panamutlu. The deceased Muniappan also hails from the same village. He (deceased) owns about 75 cents of land in his native place. The marriage between him and P.W.1 took place some twenty years prior to the occurrence which happened on 26/24. 1983. They were blessed with two children and the said two children are eking their livelihood by doing cooly work at Bangalore. Ever since the marriage of the deceased he started living at Velampatti along with his wife P.W.1 very often used to go to his native village for the purpose of cultivating the little bit of land he was possessing. While doing so the purpose used to stay there for some time. During such time it so happened that P.W.1 took a fancy for the accused and developed clandestine relationship with him not within the immediate knowledge of her husband-deceased. Some one year prior to the occurrence the deceased disposed of the land in his native village. Consequently, the deceased and his wife had no chance to make visits to the native village as had been done by them frequently on earlier occasions when he was cultivating the land. The accused unable to bear the separation of the company of P.W.1 very often went in search of P.W.1. More or less he was wandering or roaming in all places where P.W.1 used to go for doing cooly work. A few days prior to the occurrence P.W.2 came and met P.W.1 in order to take her for doing cooly work in the land of one Chinnathambi Gounder for digging a well. On that day about 10.00 A.M., the accused met P.W.1 near the house of one Pelammal and requested her to accompany him obviously to quench his thirst for sex. P.W.1 flatly refused to the irritation of the accused. The accused in turn caused a threat to the life of P.W.1 by means of a battle-axe (Mazhur) of vettukathi which was prevented by P.W.2. P.W.1 flatly refused to the irritation of the accused. The accused in turn caused a threat to the life of P.W.1 by means of a battle-axe (Mazhur) of vettukathi which was prevented by P.W.2. When P.W.1 was returning after the incident, without going for work, she was again chased by the accused armed with a battle-axe to cause her harm for her refusing to give him rendezvous pleasure he used to get from her earlier. At that time the deceased who was grazing cattle, accidentally came that way, and P.W.3 who was then available in his field also happened to witness the chasing of P.W.1 by the accused with a battleaxe in his hand. The deceased challenged the accused as to how he could chase his wife with a view to her harm in his very presence. He even attempted to beat the accused by means of a stick which he was having in his hand. P.W.3 prevented any untoward incident having happened and mediated them. Thereafter, they went away from there. Some six months prior to the occurrence, a quarrel ensued between the deceased and P.W.1. Consequently, she parted company with her husband-the deceased and went to her brother’s house at Rayakkottai. In the meantime, the deceased reflecting his wrath over the conduct of his wife, got married for a second time to one Madhammal. On hearing this P.W.1 returned and asked the propriety of the deceased marrying for the second time during her life time. The deceased somehow or other pacified her by stating that all the three can live together, work together and have their living. P.W.1 agreed to such a course. Somehow or other Madhammal the second wife was unable to get on with the deceased and as a consequence of the quarrel that ensued between her and the deceased some fifteen days prior to the occurrence she also parted company. On the day of occurrence, the deceased and P.W.1 were in their house. The house is having a front verandah. In front of the house there is an electric lamp post. The bulb in the electric lamp post used to burn emitting light. On the fateful night, P.W.1 and her husband the deceased took their bed in the front verandah of the house. The house is having a front verandah. In front of the house there is an electric lamp post. The bulb in the electric lamp post used to burn emitting light. On the fateful night, P.W.1 and her husband the deceased took their bed in the front verandah of the house. At about 1.30 A.M. on some unusual noise emerging P.W.1 woke up and saw to her dismay, the accused wielding a weapon like M.O.1, Vettukathi in his hand and inflicting a cut on the neck of her husband the deceased. Immediately, thereafter the accused ran away from there with the weapon in his hand. She raised a hue and cry and took her husband the victim in her lap and started crying loudly stating that the accused ran away after cutting her husband. The neighbours Lakshmanan and Muniappan, on hearing the hue and cry came there. The news spread like a wild fire and the village vettiyan by name Sellan went to Pillaikutta to contact P.W.4 Village Administrative Officer. Pillaikutta is about five miles from the scene village. He reached Pillaikutta at 8.00 A.M. and informed P.W.4 as to the occurrence. P.W.4 reached the scene at 9.30 AM., and after seeing the body of the deceased he enquired the weeping P.W.1 as to how the incident had happened. She in turn narrated the sequence of events that had happened which were duly recorded by P.W.4 as narrated by her and after reading the same he took her thumb impression in it. Ex.P-1 is the statement given by her. He also prepared his printed report Ex.P-2 at 11.00 AM. He sent a report to the Magistrate court also. Thereafter, he went to Bargur Police Station and personally handed over Exs.P-1 and P-2 to P.W.6 Head Constable who in turn on receipt of the same registered a case in Crime No. 118 of 1983 under Sec.302, I.P.C. Ex.P-7 is the printed First Information Report. He despatched Exs.P-1, P-2 and P-7 to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Krishnagiri. He prepared express reports and sent the same to the concerned officials. P.W.1 Inspector of Police got the copy of Ex.P-7 at 2.00 P.M., and took up investigation. He went to the scene at 3.00P.M. After inspecting the spot he prepared Ex.P-3 observation mahazar. He also drew a rough sketch Ex.P-18 of the scene. He prepared express reports and sent the same to the concerned officials. P.W.1 Inspector of Police got the copy of Ex.P-7 at 2.00 P.M., and took up investigation. He went to the scene at 3.00P.M. After inspecting the spot he prepared Ex.P-3 observation mahazar. He also drew a rough sketch Ex.P-18 of the scene. He held inquest over the body of the deceased between 3.00 and 6.00 P.M. Ex.P-19 is the inquest report. During inquest he examined P.W.1 and others. At 4.00 P.M. he seized M.Os.4 to 9 under Ex.P-4 mahazar. At 4.30 P.M. he seized from P.W.1, M.Os.1 and M.Os.2 under Ex.P-5. Exs.P-3 to 9 were attested by P.W.4. He sent the body of the deceased through P.W.7 constable along with Ex.P-8 requisition for conducting autopsy. P.W.8 Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital Krishnagiri, on receipt of Ex.P-8 requisition conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased on 24. 1983 at 10.05 A.M. Ex.P-9 is the post-mortem certificate he issued. After the autopsy P.W.7constable seized M.Os.3,16 and 17 and handed over them at the Police Station. On 5. 1983 the Inspector sent Ex.P-11 to Court to send the seized M.Os., for chemical examination. On 5. 1983 P.W.9 Head Constable arrested the accused at 3.00 P.M. at Pandmutlu village in front of a toddy shop in the presence of P.W.5 and another. He seized from the accused M.Os. 10 to 15 under Ex.P-6 attested by P.W.5. He produced the accused before P.W. 11 Inspector along with the M.Os. seized with a special report Ex.P-10, P.W.11 examined the accused and sent him to remand on 5. 1983. On 15. 1983 he examined P.W.1 again. On 15. 1983 he sent Ex.P-15 requisition to Court for sending M.Os. seized from the accused for chemical examination. P.W. 10, Assistant Judicial Second Class Magistrate Court, Krishnagiri, despatched M.Os. land 2 4 to 9 to the Chemical Examiner as requested for P.W.11 under a requisition Ex.P-12 office copy of the letter. Exs.P-13 and P-14 are respectively the chemical examiners and serologists reports. On 15. 1983 pursuant to Ex.P-15 requisition he also despatched M.Os.11 to 15 to the Chemical Examiner. Exs.P-16 and P-17 are the reports of the Chemical Examiner and Serologist respectively. P.W.11 after completing the formalities of investigation laid the report under Sec.173, Cr.P.C, before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Krishnagiri, on 6. On 15. 1983 pursuant to Ex.P-15 requisition he also despatched M.Os.11 to 15 to the Chemical Examiner. Exs.P-16 and P-17 are the reports of the Chemical Examiner and Serologist respectively. P.W.11 after completing the formalities of investigation laid the report under Sec.173, Cr.P.C, before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Krishnagiri, on 6. 1983 for the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C., alleged to have been committed by the accused. 3. Upon committal the learned Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri framed a charge against the accused under Sec.302, I.P.C. The accused when questioned as respects the charge so framed, denied the same and claimed to be tried. 4. During trial the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 filed Exs.P-1 to P-19 and marked M.Os.1 to 17. The accused when questioned as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against him flatly denied the same. He did not choose to examine any witness on his side. 5. The learned Sessions Judge on considering the entire materials placed before him and on hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the defence came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond any shadow of doubt and thereby found the accused guilty under Sec.302, I.P.C, and sentenced him as stated above. The appeal is against the said conviction and sentence. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant accused strenuously urged the following points for consideration. i. The foundation of the prosecution case having been solely built upon the lone testimony of P.W.1 which is so unnatural and artificial, besides being contradictory, cannot at all be safely relied upon for fastening criminal liability on the accused unless her evidence is corroborated in material particulars. ii. The occurrence admittedly having been during the dark hours of night, there could have been insurmountable difficulties for P.W.1, even assuming for argument sake that she had been present at the time of occurrence, to have correctly fixed upon the accused as the assailant in the absence of visible factor emerging to the surface at the time of occurrence. iii. The medical evidence on record cannot be stated to be in accord with the version as projected by P.W.1 and therefore the same cannot be stated to be not contradictory. iv. There is no proper and adequacy of motive for the accused to rise in revolt against the deceased and resort to cut him to death. iii. The medical evidence on record cannot be stated to be in accord with the version as projected by P.W.1 and therefore the same cannot be stated to be not contradictory. iv. There is no proper and adequacy of motive for the accused to rise in revolt against the deceased and resort to cut him to death. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would repel all these submissions. 7. In the light of the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, let us embark on the arena of discussion on the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. No doubt true it is, the case of the prosecution is solely built on the edifice of the foundation of the evidence of P.W.1 who is none else that the wife of the deceased. She would say, at the dead of night on hearing a peculiar sound, she woke up and saw the accused with M.O.1 Vettukathi in his hand and his giving a lethal cut on the neck of the deceased-husband with whom she was sleeping then in the verandah of the house. On raising a hue and cry the accused ran away with M.O.1 in his hand. The sort of a simple occurrence is spoken to by P.W.1 in a picturesque fashion bringing before our minds the incident, thereby inspiring confidence in her evidence. Her presence at the scene cannot at all be doubted. She being the wife cannot be expected to sleep elsewhere leaving the company of her beloved husband-the deceased. The fact that she took her bed with her husband-the deceased, is further assured by fact that the clothes worn by her at that time were found to contain human blood as disclosed by the report of the serologist. Admittedly she had seen only one cut inflicted by the accused on the neck of the deceased. The other cut she would state was not seen by her. The reason is so obvious. It is not as if the occurrence had happened during day time when everybody was awake. She woke up only after hearing the peculiar sound, obviously emerging from the first cut given by the accused on the neck of the deceased and the weapon of offence severing his neck, viz., Thadar as stated by P.W.1. The reason is so obvious. It is not as if the occurrence had happened during day time when everybody was awake. She woke up only after hearing the peculiar sound, obviously emerging from the first cut given by the accused on the neck of the deceased and the weapon of offence severing his neck, viz., Thadar as stated by P.W.1. The version as projected by her regarding the occurrence as well as the motive part of the case of the prosecution had been vividly pointed in report Ex.P-1 without any contradiction whatever on material particulars. That gives a lending assurance to her testimony. 9. No doubt, the learned counsel would make a scathing attack on the conduct of P.W.1 in not reporting the matter to the Village Administrative Officer or to the Police immediately after the occurrence. Admittedly, Ex.P-1 as stated earlier, had been recorded by P.W.4 Village Administrative Officer on his coming to the scene at about 9.30 A.M. The passivity of P.W.1 in keeping herself confined within the house on and from 1.30 A.M. till about 9.30 A.M. i.e. upto the arrival of P.W.4 Village Administrative Officer is sought to be commented as a lethal delay. The answer is very simple. When the ghastly occurrence of her husband having been murdered at about the dead of night took place there was none in the house. The grief stricken P.W.1 was lamenting and weeping over the body of the deceased, not knowing what to do. We can also visualise the pitiable plight and predicament that was entertaining in her mind in leaving the body, and going to make a report to either the Village Administrative Officer or the Police Officials. The accused had already left with a vettukathi like M.O.1 in his hand. The lurking fear in her mind that she would also be done away with by the accused if she makes a report either to Village Administrative Officer or to the Police authority, cannot at all be ruled out, apart from the agonising situation of there being nobody in the house to take care of the body. As such the conduct of P.W.1 in remaining in the house without getting stirred out cannot at all be commented. As such the conduct of P.W.1 in remaining in the house without getting stirred out cannot at all be commented. In such circumstances we are firmly of the view that the delay is of no consequence and it is also consistent with the natural conduct of any woman inclusive of P.W.1. The report also had been submitted by P.W.4 to the Police Station at the earliest point of time, besides the same reaching the precincts of the Court on the same day at 5.30 P.M. which factor will serve to enhance the credibility of the case of the prosecution in the sense of there being no feasibility or possibility of the hand of concoction to work at any length. 10. We will now delve into of the visible factor which enabled P.W.1 to have glimpse of the occurrence and enabled her to correctly fix the accused, as the assailant in the case. Admittedly the fateful night in question was a full moon day. The occurrence, as already adverted to above, had happened in the verandah or vasal of the house of the deceased. In such a situation it goes without saying that there could have been flood of moon light for P.W.1 to have been the accused committing the dastardly act of murder of her husband. This apart it is her consistent evidence that there was an electric lamp post situate in front of her verandah throwing flood of light illuminating the particular place. On the aspect of electrical illumination available in the scene, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that this matter had not at all been spoken to by P.W.1 during the course of investigation. This sort of omission had been duly probed by putting relevant questions and eliciting answers not only from her but also from the investigating officer. If the questions and answers elicited and the sequence of questions put in the cross examination are considered in the proper perspective, we will be in a position to understand the effect of the so-called admission stated to have been elicited from P.W.1 during the course of her cross-examination as respects the visible factor. A little bit of scrutiny of the earlier part of her cross-examination would throw a flood of light on this aspect of the matter. A little bit of scrutiny of the earlier part of her cross-examination would throw a flood of light on this aspect of the matter. The defence would either wittingly or unwittingly, or whatever be the reason, put certain questions as respects the factum of the existence of electrical lamp post with a burning light, burning usually on all days except the days on which there was moon light. This gives the clearest indication possible about the admission by the defence of the existence of an electric lamp post in the scene with a bulb emitting flood of light. The fact that the investigating officer failed to elicit this aspect of the matter during the course of investigation had been properly filled up by the defence clearing any doubt on this aspect of the matter. In this view of the matter the visible factor provided by natural moon light as well as by the artificial illumination emitting from the electric lamp post could have enabled P.W.1 to correctly fix upon the assailant as the accused and none else. Even otherwise, in the extreme case of there being no light at all, such a situation cannot at all be stated to advance the case of the defence to any extent whatever in the peculiar circumstances of the case. It is not as if the accused is quite a stranger to P.W.I. As adverted to earlier, he is none else than her paramour for some time, in whose blissful company, she enjoyed pleasurable nights, bringing her ecstasy of joy. For such a lady like P.W.I it could not have been difficult to correctly identify the accused as the assailant even in the pitch of darkness. 11. We would like to point out one more aspect as respects the credibility of the version of P.W.I. She never hesitated to admit her in famous past in the sense of her having clandestine relationship with the accused. She never proclaimed herself as a paragon of virtue. She had divulged her clandestine relationship in so open a fashion even at the time of giving the report Exs.P-1 to P.W.4. Of course, she erred in the past betraying fidelity to her husband - the deceased. There was locus pasenitentia and on coming to the path of rectitude in having a good life with her husband the deceased she was sought to be disturbed by the accused. Of course, she erred in the past betraying fidelity to her husband - the deceased. There was locus pasenitentia and on coming to the path of rectitude in having a good life with her husband the deceased she was sought to be disturbed by the accused. In this view of the matter we are of the view that the evidence of P.W.1 rings true as respects the occurrence. 12. It is not the rule of law that criminal liability cannot at all be fastened upon the accused by the solitary testimony of a witness. Nor is the law that the testimony of a solitary witness should be viewed as tainted evidence or equated to that of an approver’s evidence requiring corroboration on material particulars before the same is acted upon. What is required in such a situation is that there is an onerous duty cast on the Courts to carefully scrutinise the testimony of such a witness, and on a proper scrutiny, if the Court is satisfied that such evidence rings true, then there cannot be any difficulty at all to safely rely upon such testimony without seeking corroboration from any quarter whatever. In this respect, the learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to two decisions of the Supreme Court in Karunakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 383 and The State of U.P. v. Satish Chandra and others, A.I.R. 1986S.C. 313. Both the decisions referred to above are not at all applicable to the facts of the present case. In the first of the decisions the solitary testimony was not only contradicted by the medical evidence but also by the First Information Report thereby not affording any sort of a lending assurance factor for the Court to safely rely upon the testimony. The other decision is also on similar lines. So far as the case on hand is concerned, as stated earlier, the testimony of P.W.1 is cogent and convincing, without the least possibility of any material contradiction, besides inspiring the confidence of the Court as a natural witness in such a situation. The other decision is also on similar lines. So far as the case on hand is concerned, as stated earlier, the testimony of P.W.1 is cogent and convincing, without the least possibility of any material contradiction, besides inspiring the confidence of the Court as a natural witness in such a situation. In this context, a useful reference could be made to the observations of the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Sarvan Singh and others v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2304:1976 Crl.L.J. 1757, wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down as follows: “It is not the law that the evidence of an interested witness should be equated with that of a tainted evidence of that of an approver so as to require corroboration as a matter of necessity. The evidence of an interested witness does not suffer from any infirmity as such, but the Courts require as a rule of prudence, not as a rule of law, that the evidence of such witnesses should be scrutinised with a little care. Once that approach is made and the Court is satisfied that the evidence of interested witnesses have a ring of truth such evidence could be relied upon even without corroboration”. 13. Coming to the aspect of medical evidence, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot at all be countenanced on the facts and circumstances of the case. The evidence of P.W.1 is in no way contradicted by the medical testimony available on record. As adverted to earlier, she had seen one of the cuts inflicted by the accused, and the reason for her inability to see the other cut has already been adverted to by us in the foregoing paragraphs. The doctor P.W.8 who conducted the autopsy found the following two injuries: 1. An incised wound 7 cm x 10 cm x 2 cm deep, an appearance of slicing with a flab of skin hanging below the middle of jaw in front of neck, edges are clear. 2. An incised wound extending from the middle of front of neck extending to back of neck on the left side. The size of the wound 15 cm x 10 cm x 5 cm edges of the wound are clear. The wound is exposing the vessels and nerves and muscles of neck on the left side. 2. An incised wound extending from the middle of front of neck extending to back of neck on the left side. The size of the wound 15 cm x 10 cm x 5 cm edges of the wound are clear. The wound is exposing the vessels and nerves and muscles of neck on the left side. The mere fact that the Doctor had found two injuries on the person of the deceased does not mean, on the face of the explanation given by us in the earlier paragraph that it would serve as a contradiction to the evidence of P.W.1. It is not at all the case of the prosecution that only one cut had been inflicted by the accused. The Doctor has clearly opined that both the injuries could have been caused by a weapon like M.O.1. As such the medical testimony available on record is completely in accord with the version projected by the prosecution. 14. Let us now turn our attention to the motive aspect of the case. This is unfolded by the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with certain material facts contained in Ex.P-1. Some few days prior to the occurrence, when P.W.1 was going along with P.W.2 to engage herself in a well-digging operation in the field of one Chinnathambi Gounder, the accused called for the company of P.W.1 in a lustful fashion which was dissented to out and out by P.W.1 and on getting enraged by such conduct the accused tried to inflict harm on the person of P.W.1 by means of a battle-axe which was timely prevented initially by P.W.2 and subsequently by P.W.3 aided by the support rendered by the deceased who happened to come that way after grazing his cattle. On this aspect of the matter, apart from the evidence of P.W.1 there is the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 against whom nothing could have been stated by the defence as they are emerging from independent quarters not proved to be having any sort of animosity or enmity towards the accused or that they are very much interested in the cause and welfare of the family of P.W.1 so that they designed to depose falsely miles away from what they have seen. Their evidence coupled with the averments in Ex.P-1 would disclose that the accused vowed vengeance on P.W.1 and he decided that somehow or other, either or both the spouses were to be finished on the fateful night or at a distant future. It may be argued that animosity for the accused towards the deceased was not at all there as he was having a grudge only against P.W.1 and therefore he ought to have, if it all, quenched his thirst of vengeance against P.W.1 alone who refused to give him the ecstatic pleasure as she was giving him earlier in his jocund company. This can very easily be explained. His immeasurable infatuation and firm fascination towards P.W.1 was such that he was practically roaming and wandering about in all places wherever P.W.1 was going for work. It is also to be taken note of that the accused was unmarried and his conduct in chasing P.W.1 carving for sex at her hands points out in no uncertain terms that he could not live without her company and he wanted to have her as his exclusive possession. Her husband, possibly it is, stood as an insurmountable obstacle in the way of his having the exclusive company of P.W.1. That perhaps was the reason for his decision, for the deceased to be done away with on the fateful night in question. 15. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the prosecution has successfully established its case that it was the hand of the accused that was responsible for giving the two lethal cuts on the neck of the deceased on the fateful night in question. 16. The next question that crops up for consideration is as to what is the offence that had been committed by the accused. The two injuries as found on the deceased by the post-mortem Doctor P.W.8 as described above would point out the severing of the major vessels viz., carotid artery and jugular veins and cutting the nerves and muscles and further the death is more or less instantaneous. The wielding of a weapon like M.O.I by the accused for inflicting the two lethal cuts on the neck of the deceased, a vulnerable portion of human anatomy, is indicative of the intention of the accused in doing away with the deceased. He had not chosen to inflict cut on any other portion except the neck. The wielding of a weapon like M.O.I by the accused for inflicting the two lethal cuts on the neck of the deceased, a vulnerable portion of human anatomy, is indicative of the intention of the accused in doing away with the deceased. He had not chosen to inflict cut on any other portion except the neck. This further confirms his intention to do away with the deceased. In this view of the matter, we feel that the case of the accused squarely falls under Clause I of Sec.300, I.P.C. We therefore feel that the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment passed on the appellant for the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C., by the learned Sessions Judge are perfectly justified calling for no interference. 17. Accordingly, we confirm the conviction and sentence. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.