Judgment : ARUNACHALAM, J.: 1. For having caused the death of Marimuthu by stabbing him with a Suri knife at or about 7.30 p.m. on 10.9.1984 at Velur, the appellant was charged under Sec.302, I.P.C. in S.C.No.19 of 1985, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem. He was also charged under Sec.307, I.P.C. for having attempted to cause the death of P.W.1 Mariyayee, the elder sister of the wife of the deceased during the course of the same transaction. 2. Learned Sessions Judge, after an elaborate trial, found the appellant guilty of both the charges. For the capital offence, he sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and for the other offence, he sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years the sentences to run concurrently. The verdict of the learned Sessions Judge is challenged in this appeal, as not sustainable. 3. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: P.W.4 Pattu aliasSarasu is the wife of the deceased. P.W.1 Mariyayee is the elder sister of P.W.4. P.W.1 was residing in East Street, Velur. The deceased was living along with his wife opposite to the house of P.W.1. Palaniappa Gounder, the husband of P.W.1 died about 15 years ago. Through Palaniappa Gounder P.W.1 had a daughter named Poongothai (not examined). The’ appellant Jagadeesan was residing along with his aunt near the house of P. W. 1. Some time later, the appellant shifted from the house of his aunt and commenced residing in a portion of the house belonging to P.W.3. P.W.1 recommended to P.W.3 to accommodate the appellant as a tenant in his house. Five months prior to the occurrence, P. W. 1 borrowed a sum of Rs.25Q from the appellant. A month thereafter, the appellant demanded repayment of the loan. P.W.1 did not have funds and therefore chose to pledge her ear-rings (M.O.1 series) to P.W.2 Natarajan. She received Rs.200 from P.W.2 on pledge of her jewel, and handed over the said sum to the appellant. A month thereafter, the appellant again lent Rs.200 to P.W.1 since his financial. position improved. During this period, P.W.1 used to visit the house of the appellant quite often. Such frequent visits led to development of illicit intimacy between P.W.1 and the appellant. The appellant requested P.W.1 to give her daughter Poongothai in matrimony to him. A month thereafter, the appellant again lent Rs.200 to P.W.1 since his financial. position improved. During this period, P.W.1 used to visit the house of the appellant quite often. Such frequent visits led to development of illicit intimacy between P.W.1 and the appellant. The appellant requested P.W.1 to give her daughter Poongothai in matrimony to him. P.W.1 did not accede to the said request; but chose to give Poongothai in marriage to one Kulaindaisami (not examined). It was the deceased Marimuthu who made all arrangements for the. marriage between Poongothai and Kulandaisami apart from taking a prominent interest, in performing the said marriage. The appellant developed animosity against P.W.1 and the deceased, on that score. 4. The aggrieved appellant commenced demanding repayment of the loan from P.W.1 and in that process beat her on various occasions. On the day prior to the occurrence at or about 9.00 p.m., the appellant went over to the house of P. W. 1. Poongothai and Kulandaisami had come to the house of P. W. 1 earlier on that day and had left the house, to witness a cinema. The appellant was armed with an aruval, when he went over to the house of P.W.1. The appellant questioned P.W.1 in the following manner: “TAMIL” So saying he cut the sack of paddy kept in the house of P.W.1. M.O.2 is the said sack, which contained paddy. P.W.1 prevented the appellant from causing further damage and brought him outside her house. The deceased Marimuthu, was then sleeping outside the house of P.W.1. The appellant questioned P.W.1 as to what she would do if he chose to cut the deceased, though she was able to prevent him from cutting the paddy bags. The appellant also aimed the aruval on the deceased, who was sleeping. P.W.1 advised the appellant not to cut and prevented him from achieving his object. The appellant took P.W.1 to a lane near the house of one Chinnakanthan and asked her whether she could run away with him. In that process, the appellant beat P.W.1. P.W.1 refused to elope with the appellant and promised to repay the loan on the next day. At or about 5 p.m. on 10.8.1984 adjacent to the house of P.W.1, near the temple car shed, there was a crowd. The appellant threatened P.W.1 that if she did not repay the loan, he would destroy her family. P.W.1 refused to elope with the appellant and promised to repay the loan on the next day. At or about 5 p.m. on 10.8.1984 adjacent to the house of P.W.1, near the temple car shed, there was a crowd. The appellant threatened P.W.1 that if she did not repay the loan, he would destroy her family. Murugesan (not examined) husband of P.W.1s eldest sister, handed over Rs.250 to P.W.5 Kanniamma and directed her to pay the said sum to the appellant. Murugesan also told P.W.5 to warn the appellant not to have any more connection with P.W.1. P.W.11 Sundaram, knew the above repayment of loan taken by P.W.1, to the appellant by Murugesan through P.W.5. 5. At or about 7.30 p.m. P.W.1 in the companyof P.W.3 Poosari and the deceased went over to the house of P.W.2 Natarajan, to redeem her ear ornaments pledged earlier, She had already repaid a part of the amount and after paying the balance he attempted to redeem the jewels. P.W.2 told P.W.1 and others, that the appellant had visited him a little earlier and asked him not to return the jewels to P.W.1 in his absence. However, soon after the redemption of the Jewels P.W.1 handed over M.O.1 series to P. W.3 who in turn handed them over to the deceased All the three of them left the house of Natarajan (P.W.2) and when they were nearing the rice mill of Samiyappa Mudaliar, P.W.1 noticed the appellant coming towards them running, armed with a Suri Knife, the appellant also shouted as follows: “TAMIL” So saying he stabbed on the right chest portion of P.W.1 with the knife M.O.3. The deceased Marimuthu questioned the appellant as follows: “TAMIL” also attempted to apprehend the appellant. At that point of time, the appellant stabbed the deceased Marimuthu on his chest. This occurrence was witnessed by P.W.1 and P.W.3. P.W.4 Pattu aliasSarasu wife of the deceased, who was living 300 ft. away from the scene, on information ran to the venue of occurrence. To his wife, Marimuthu who was lingering for life told that the appellant had stabbed him. P.W.4 with the help of her elder sister Nagammal (not examined) took the injured Marimuthu to the Government Hospital, Velur. The scene place was well lighted and P.W.12 Muthu, Wireman of the Electricity Board has deposed about the said fact. 6. To his wife, Marimuthu who was lingering for life told that the appellant had stabbed him. P.W.4 with the help of her elder sister Nagammal (not examined) took the injured Marimuthu to the Government Hospital, Velur. The scene place was well lighted and P.W.12 Muthu, Wireman of the Electricity Board has deposed about the said fact. 6. P.W.1 who was afraid of her being stabbed again, ran straight to the Government Hospital and reached there at or about 8.45 p.m. P.W.6 Dr.Dharmalingam examined P.W.1 at or about 8.45 p.m. for injuries stated to have been sustained by her at or about 7.30 p.m. on the same date, opposite to Samiyappa Mudaliar Rice Mill. P.W.6 noticed on P.W.1 a transverse incised injury over the right side of the chest near midline, 2“below the cost charging 2” × 1“x ½” injurity the muscles. Ex.P-2 is the wound certificate. P.W.6 suspected serious internal injury and therefore, directed P.W.1 to Government Head quarters Hospital, Salem. On the basis of the report from Salem Government Hospital, P.W.6 had noted the following further symptoms on P.W.1 in Ex.P-2. “1. A right dorsum of the diagram for 1” × ½“. 2. A laternal wound on the outer surpase of the base of the right lung for ½” × ¼”. 3.150 c.c. of fluid on the periotinal cavity. 4. A tear on the right lobe of the base for 3/4” x½”. 7. The same doctor examined injured Marimuthu produced before him on the same night. The In the opinion of the doctor, the injury sustained by P.W.1 was grievous in nature. The said injury could have been caused by stabbing with M.O.3 at the time and in the manner alleged. condition of Marimuthu was precarious. His pulse could not be felt. The victim was gasping for breath. Even while examining, the deceased breathed his last. P.W.6 forwarded Exs.P-3 and P-4 intimations regarding P.W.1 and Marimuthu to Velur Police Station. P.W.18 Sivanandam, Sub Inspector of Police on receipt of both the intimations reached the hospital at or about 9.15 p.m. He recorded Ex.P-1 statement of P.W.1 returned to the police station and on Ex.P-1 registered Crl.No.308of 1984 under Secs.302 and 324, I.P.C. Ex.P-14 is the printed F.I.R. P.W.18 forwarded Exs.P-1 and P-14 to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Paramathi and his superior officers. The learned Magistrate, had received both Exs. The learned Magistrate, had received both Exs. P-l and P-14 at or about 11.30 p.m. on the same night. The distance between the Police Station and the Magistrates court is about 7 Kms. P.W.19 P.C.Muthusami, the then Inspector of Police, on receipt of a copy of Ex.P-14 took up investigation at or about 10.30 a.m. on the same night. Between 10.45 p.m. and 1.45 a.m. he conducted inquest over the corpse of Marimuthu, during the course of which he examined P.Ws.2,3 and 4. Ex.P-15 is the inquest report. After inquest, he forwarded the dead body through Police Constable Janakiraman (P.W.8) with a request Ex.P-5 to P.W.7 Dr.Dharmalingam for the conduct of post mortem. Thereafter, he proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared the scene sketch Ex.P-16. Though P.W.17 Sarangapani, P.W.19 arranged for photographs being taken of the scene of occurrence. M.O.8 and M.O.9 series are the photographs and the corresponding negatives. 8. P.W.7 Dr.Dharmalingam, commenced autopsy on the dead body at 9.00 a.m. on 11.9.1984 and found the following external injuries: “1. An incised wound 5 cms × 2 cms. × thoracic cavity on the right side chest, near the eternal border at the 6th intercostal space with blood clots. 2. An incised wound 5 cms. × 5 cms. skin deep on the front and middle of right forearm with blood clots.” Ondissection of injury nos.1,6th and 7th ribs were found cut clearly. Blood clots were also seen. The wound had entered into the right plural cavity and had also pierced the right lung lower lope 4 cms × 0.5 cms. There was an incised wound on the right side bone of the diagram with a punctured wound 3 cms x. 0.5 cms. with blood clots, on the posterior superior aspect of the left lobe of liver. In the opinion of the doctor, the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries to vital organs namely, right lung and liver 12 to 16 hours prior to conduct of post mortem. Ex.P-6 is the post mortem certificate. The injuries noticed on the deceased could have been caused by a weapon like M.O.3. Injury No.2 could have been sustained while attempting to ward off infliction of injury No.1. Injury No.1, with its corresponding internal injuries, was sufficient in the ordinary nature of course to cause the death. Ex.P-6 is the post mortem certificate. The injuries noticed on the deceased could have been caused by a weapon like M.O.3. Injury No.2 could have been sustained while attempting to ward off infliction of injury No.1. Injury No.1, with its corresponding internal injuries, was sufficient in the ordinary nature of course to cause the death. On 12.9.1984, P.W.19 seized M.O.1 series produced by P.W.10, who had discovered them near about the scene of occurrence. M.O.2 sack was seized on being produced by P.W.4. P.W.10 Perumayammal is none other than the mother of P.W.1 and P.W.4. 9. The appellant was employed in the garden land of P. W. 14 Andiappan. On the night of occurrence, the appellant went over to his house, took M.O.7, cycle of P.W.14, stating that he urgently required it for his use. The appellant did not choose to bring back the cycle. 10. P.W.15 Varadarajan is a resident of Uanjalur village. At or about 6.00 p.m. on a morning in the month of September, the appellant brought M.O.7 cycle to his house, and leaving the cycle in his house, the appellant stated that he would take it back after sometime. P.W.15 found the appellant very restless then. 11. P.W.19 arrested the appellant at or about 3.00 p.m. on 20.8.1984 near the new bus stop at Velur. The appellant volunteered a statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P-11. In pursuance of his statement, the appellant took P.W.19 and his party to Narikaruppu Mudhuku. From a thorny bush adjacent to Narikaruppu Madhaku, on the bank of Rajavaikal, the appellant produced M.O.3 which was seized under a mahazar Ex.P-12 attested by P.W.13. At 12.30 noon on 3.10.1984 P.W.19 seized M.O.7 cycle from the house of P.W.15 under a mahazar Ex.P 43 attested by P.W.16. 12. The material objects seized during investigation were forwarded for chemical analysis, through court. Exs.P-9 and P-10 are the reports of the chemical analyst and the serologist respectively. M.O.3 did not contain any blood. The clothes of the deceased contained ‘B’ group human blood. Jayaraman, Inspector of Police (not examined) who succeeded P.W.19 laid the charge sheet against the appellant, before the Committal Court on 30.11.1984. 13. When the appellant was questioned under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in evidence, he chose to deny his complicity in the crime. He specifically stated, that he had no connection with the murder. 13. When the appellant was questioned under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in evidence, he chose to deny his complicity in the crime. He specifically stated, that he had no connection with the murder. He had chastised P.W.1 and P.W.3 who were found together in his room. No evidence was adduced in defence. 14. Learned trial Judge on meticulous consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, accepted the prosecution case, rejected the defence and dealt with the appellant in the manner indicated earlier. 15. Mr.Samuelraj Pandian, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the motive evidence sought to be spoken by P.W.1 cannot be accepted. He pointed out that P.W.1 had deposed that illicit intimacy developed between her and the appellant seven months prior to the occurrence and at the same time had stated that about a year ago, Poongothai was given in marriage to Kulandaisami. if that be so learned counsel contended, that the appellant could not have asked for the hand of Poongothai subsequent to her marriage with Kulandaisami. He then pointed out the evidence of P.W.4, the elder sister of P.W.1 to show that the conduct of P.W.1 was admittedly despicable for about two years. Therefore, he contended that the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be held to be credible. He there urged, that P.W.3 could not have been an eye witness, since he did not choose, either to set the law in motion or accompany injured Marimuthu to the hospital. He also pointed out, that according to P.W.3, Marimuthu had run away to his house, while the other evidence was contra, for P.W.4 had found her husband at the scene of occurrence. Finally, he contended that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the appellant earlier in the evening and therefore, the appellant must have been provoked in committing the crime and therefore, Exception I to’Sec.300, I.P.C. may have to be applied and the appellant found guilty of an offence lesser than what this been recorded. 16. On these contentions, we have heard Mr.Parthipan, learned counsel representing the Additional Public Prosecutor, He contended that the evidence regarding motive was clear and categoric. The appellant had entertained animosity against the deceased, since the latter was responsible for the arrangement and conduct of the wedding of Poongothai. 16. On these contentions, we have heard Mr.Parthipan, learned counsel representing the Additional Public Prosecutor, He contended that the evidence regarding motive was clear and categoric. The appellant had entertained animosity against the deceased, since the latter was responsible for the arrangement and conduct of the wedding of Poongothai. Further the appellant was under the impression that the deceased was behind the activities of P.W.1. He urged that P.W.1 being an injured witness, her presence at the scene cannot be doubted. The first information report had been promptly recorded, at the hospital from P.W.1 and the same had reached the Magistrate within two horse thereafter. The name of P. W.3 has been mentioned in Ex.P-1. He contended that the evidence of P.W.3 cannot be rejected on imaginary and untenable grounds. He strenuously argued that the offence cannot be anything less than murder, and no case has been made out to apply. Exception I to Sec.300, I.P.C. in favour of the appellant. 17. We have carefully considered the rival contentions placed before us. P. W. 1 is an injured witness. Therefore, her presence at the scene cannot be doubted. She has admitted her illicit relationship with the appellant. That she had illicit intimacy with the appellant has been spoken to by P.W.3 as well. The evidence of P. W.4 will also lend support to the way ward life of P. W.1 We are unable to find any substance in the argument of the learned defence counsel, that motive could not be accepted, due to variations in the period of intimacy of P.W.1 with the appellant and the marriage of Poongothai with Kulandaisami. We are unable to find any divergence for the specific case of P.W.1 is that she developed illicit intimacy with the appellant seven months prior to the occurrence, Whereas the marriage of Poongothai had taken place about a year prior to her deposing in court on 8.8.1985. Hence this argument, as though there is a vital discrepancy, sufficient to raise a doubt cannot be upheld. That P.W.1 and the appellant had been intimate is also clear from the manner in which P.W.1 had recommended the tenancy of the appellant to the house of P.W.3 apart from taking the appellant to the house of P.W.2 when she chose to pledge her ear ornaments (M. 0.1 series). That P.W.1 and the appellant had been intimate is also clear from the manner in which P.W.1 had recommended the tenancy of the appellant to the house of P.W.3 apart from taking the appellant to the house of P.W.2 when she chose to pledge her ear ornaments (M. 0.1 series). The evidence clearly shows, that the appellant was aggrieved with P.W.1 since she not only refused to give her daughter in marriage to him, but also did not accede to run away with him. As far as the deceased is concerned, the appellant had entertained animosity, since the deceased had taken a leading part in the conduct of marriage of Poongothai. It was also the apprehension of the appellant that but for the backing of the deceased, she would not have behaved against his interest. That the appellant was aggrieved, is also clear from the evidence of P.W.2, since sometime prior to the occurrence proper, the appellant had gone over to the shop of P.w.2 and asked him not to return M.O.I series, in his absence. We cannot overlook that even at 5 O’clock, the appellants loan had been repaid fully and therefore, he cannot have any claim for the jewel of P.W.1, which was in the custody of P.W.2. We can safely take it that the prosecution has established sufficient motive for the appellant, to commit the crime in question. 18. We then have the ocular evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 regarding the incident proper. P.W.1 is an injured eye witness. She had suffered grievous hurt and out of fear, she had rushed straight the hospital where she was examined by P.W.6 Dr.Thangavelu, at or about 8.45 p.m. she had told the doctor that she had sustained the injury found on her near Samiappan Rice Mill, due to an attack with a suri knife. The medical evidence, fully supports the manner in which P.W.1 claims to have been injured. P.W.1 has also spoken about the deceased having been attacked by the appellant, when he questioned the latter, as to why he had attacked her. The injury found on the deceased has also been medically corroborated not only by p.W.6 but also by Dr.Dharmalingam, the medical officer who conducted post mortem on the corpse. Both the doctors are certain, that the injury noticed on the deceased could have been caused by M.O,3 at the time and in the manner alleged. The injury found on the deceased has also been medically corroborated not only by p.W.6 but also by Dr.Dharmalingam, the medical officer who conducted post mortem on the corpse. Both the doctors are certain, that the injury noticed on the deceased could have been caused by M.O,3 at the time and in the manner alleged. P. W. 1 in her prompt enough complaint, recorded at 9.20 p.m., has clearly painted a picture of all that had happened on the fateful night. This complaint contains, the threat administered by the appellant to her on the earlier day, the repayment of loan by P.W.5 on the evening of occurrence as well as the redemption of jewel from P.W.2 and the occurrence taking place subsequently in which she and the deceased were attacked. The presence of P.W.3 along with her and the deceased, has also been fixed in the first information report. The evidence of P.W.3 fully and completely corroborates the eye witness account of P.W.1. We are unable to reject the evidence of P.W.3, since he did not choose to set the law in motion or accompany the victim to the hospital. The reason for the conduct of P.W.3 is apparent. P.W.4, wife of the deceased, who was living so near to the scene of occurrence, had come over to the scene immediately thereafter and she had taken steps to remove her husband to the Government hospital, with the fond of hope of saving him. Once the relation of the victim had taken charge of him, it is not surprising that P.W.3 did not think it necessary to do anything further in the matter. It is true, that P.W.3, had stated, that injured Marimuthu, after tying the injured portion with a towel, ran away to his house, while P.W.4 has deposed of taking her husband to the hospital from the scene. It is quite possible that the victim attempted to run away to his house which was nearby. But before that, his wife (P.W.4) and her sister had come to the scene and taken him to the Government Hospital for treatment. On that score, alone especially when P.W.3 was deposing in court, about a year after the occurrence, his evidence cannot be distrusted. But before that, his wife (P.W.4) and her sister had come to the scene and taken him to the Government Hospital for treatment. On that score, alone especially when P.W.3 was deposing in court, about a year after the occurrence, his evidence cannot be distrusted. We are unable to overlook the further clinching piece of evidence spoken to by P.W.4, that her husband made an oral dying declaration to her implicating the appellant as his assailant. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 inspires confidence and we are prepared to hold, that they have spoken the entire truth. The subsequent conduct of the appellant in attempting to run away from the scene, has been spoken to by P.Ws.14 and 15. Merely because M.O.3 did not contain bloodstains and hence, it could not be connected as the weapon of offence, that is not a serious infirmity to discredit the other evidence, which is totally acceptable, Merely because P.W.1 might have led a wayward life, it does not mean that she should be treated as an unreliable witness. The first information report having reached the court, on the very same night, gives further sanctity, to the prosecution case. The oral evidence in court is in fully conformity with the averments made, in the first information report. 19. We are unable to hold that the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of Exception I to Sec.300, I.P.C. In Ex.P-1, P.W.1 has stated, that at or about 7 p.m. when the deceased met the appellant near Kongaliamman temple, be told the latter not to create any more problem to P. W.1,since the loan had been read, and while doing so, he uttered some vulgar words. The appellant is stated to have challenged the deceased, then. P.W.1 intervened and took away the deceased it was thereafter, that P.Ws.1 and 3 along with the deceased had gone over to the house of P.W.2. There was sufficient interval of time in between the oral altercation between the deceased and the appellant and the occurrence proper. There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate any provocation, much less grave and sudden, sufficient enough to deprive the appellant of the power of self control. The question whether provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is purely a question of fact. There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate any provocation, much less grave and sudden, sufficient enough to deprive the appellant of the power of self control. The question whether provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is purely a question of fact. There is not even an iota of evidence to help the appellant to claim the benefit of Exception I to Sec.300, I.P.C. 20. We are satisfied, that he learned trial judge has rightly found the appellant guilty of both the offences with which he was charged. We do not have a different view to take. The convictions and sentences imposed on the appellant are confirmed. This appeal shall stand dismissed.