Judgment :- Thangamani, J. One Semban has preferred this appeal against his conviction and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Sec.302, I.P.C passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Periyar District at Erode in Sessions Case No.51 of 1985 on his file. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 6. 1984 at 10.00 p.m. Semban stabbed his wife Karupayyee who was sleeping in their house, with M.O.2 knife, and intentionally caused her death. 3. Of the witnesses examined by the prosecution P.W.2 Pavazhayee and P.W.3 Bhuvana alias Karuppayee turned hostile. The evidence on record discloses that the appellant Semban was living with his wife deceased karuppayee, P.W.1 Karuppan his 14 years old son, another son Lakshmanan and unmarried daughter Palaniammal at Oricheripudur. The said Palaniammal is a dumb person. Their daughter P.W.5 Kaliyammal was given in marriage in Andhiyur. On 6. 1984 at 10-00 p.m. P.W.1 Karuppan was sleeping with his parents and sister. In the midnight he woke up and saw his father stabbing his mother Karuppayee. When he tried to intervene, the appellant pushed him away. There was profuse bleeding from the injury sustained by Karuppayee. The appellant took P.W.1 Karuppan and his younger brother Lakshmanan to his daughter’s house in Andhiyur. At 04.00 a.m. he reached the house of P.W.5 Kaliyammal and entrusted his two sons with P.W.5 Kaliyammal and told her that thereafter she had to look after her two brothers. He also told P.W.5 Kaliyammal that he had stabbed her mother and left that place. Thereupon P.W.5 Kaliyammal came to Oricheripudur and saw her mother lying dead with stab injuries in the house. P. W.4 Kaliannan in the elder brother of the appellant Semban. On 6. 1984 at 6.30 a.m. one of the daughters of the deceased came and told him that her father had one to Andhiyur after stabbing her mother. This witness went to the house of the appellant and saw Karuppayee lying dead. 4. On 6. 1984 at 9.30 a.m. when P.W.ll Sub Inspector was in the police station, Bhavani, the appellant Semban came there. He gave Ex.P-6 statement. The Sub-Inspector registered the same in his station Crime No.202 of 1984 under Sec.302, I.P.C. He prepared Ex.P-12expressF.I.R.andsent the documents to J.S.C.M. Court. 4. On 6. 1984 at 9.30 a.m. when P.W.ll Sub Inspector was in the police station, Bhavani, the appellant Semban came there. He gave Ex.P-6 statement. The Sub-Inspector registered the same in his station Crime No.202 of 1984 under Sec.302, I.P.C. He prepared Ex.P-12expressF.I.R.andsent the documents to J.S.C.M. Court. He also arrested the accused and seized M.O.2 bloodstained pen knife produced by the appellant and M.O.6 bloodstained dhoti under Ex.P-2 Form No.95 P.W.6, V.A.O. of Bhavani village has attested these mahazars. 5. On receipt of information, P.W.12 Inspector took up investigation of the case. He visited the scene place at 11.00 a.m. and prepared Ex.P-3 observation mahazar and Ex.P-14 rough sketch. P.W.7 Kandasamy has attested Ex.P-3 mahazar. The Inspector held inquest over the dead body of Karuppayi from 11.30 a.m. to 2.30 p.m. and prepared Ex.P-13 inquest report. During inquest he examined P.W.1 Karuppan and P.W.4 Kaliannan and P.W.5 Kaliyammal. He handed over the body to P.W.10 constable with Ex.P-5 requisition for post mortem. 6. At 02.45 p.m. on the same day the Inspector recovered M.O.7 bloodstained earth, M.O.8 sample earth, M.O.3 Cot and M.O.1 kerosene light from there under Ex.P-4 mahazar which was attested by P.W.7 Kandasamy. 7. On the same day at 04.00 p.m. P.W.8 Doctor conducted the autopsy over the dead body of Karuppayi in the Government Hospital, Bhavani. She found the following injuries: "External Injuries: 1. A stab wound 11/2 x 1/2 x 2 cm. at infra auxiliary region i.e. midline on left side. 2. A stab wound 11/2 x 1/2 x 2 cm. located 3 cms. below and backwards to injury No.1. 3. A horizontal stab wound 11/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 cms. at the 9th intercostal space, 3 cms. right to the vertebral column. 4. A stab wound 11/2 x 1/2 x 1 cm. over the inferior angle of right scapula. 5. A horizontal incised wound 3x1/2x1 cm. over the middle of the medial aspect of left hand. Small muscles of the hand are incised. 6. Multiple incised wounds of varying size present over left palm, left index and middle finger. 7. A stab wound 11/2x1/2x2 cm. over the middle of the medial aspect of left arm. 8. An incised wound 3x1/2x2 cm. over the root of right thumb (palmar surface). 9. A stab wound 1x1/2x2 cm. over the right deltoid region (horizontal). 10. Astab wound over the epigastric region 11/ 2x1/2 cm. 7. A stab wound 11/2x1/2x2 cm. over the middle of the medial aspect of left arm. 8. An incised wound 3x1/2x2 cm. over the root of right thumb (palmar surface). 9. A stab wound 1x1/2x2 cm. over the right deltoid region (horizontal). 10. Astab wound over the epigastric region 11/ 2x1/2 cm. probe enters into the abdominal cavity. 11. Stab wound 1 x 1/2 cm. over the 3rd inter costal space just left to sternum. Probe enters into the thoracic cavity. 12. An incised wound 2x1/2x1/2 cm. over the right side of the middle of neck. 113. An incised wound 2 x1 x 1/2 cm. over the lateral side of the upper aspect of right thigh. 114. An incised wound 1x1/2x1/2 cm. located 2 cms. anterior and superior to injury No.13. 115. An incised wound 1 x 1/2 x 1/2 cm. over the lower border of left gluteal region. 116. Ants mark present all over the body. She found the following on internal examination: Thorax: Clotted blood seen over the under surface of whole of sternum. Heart: l-l/2x 1/2 cm. vertical stab wound over the anterior wall of the right atrium present/Clotted blood seen all over the heart on its outer surface. Weight 200 gms. Lungs: Right 350 gms. left 200 gms. pale. Cut pieces float in water. Hyoid bone: Intact. Stomach: Perforated over the middle of the anterior surface. Stomach contained partially digested food particles. Liver: 1600 gms. pale: spleen: 100 gms. pale. Kidneys: Both 450 gms; Intestines: distended withgas. Uterus: Normal Bladder: empty, Brain: 1200 gms. Normal." In the opinion of the Doctor the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to vital organ i.e. heart. Ex.P-6 is the post-mortem certificate. Since Ex.P-6 is not legible at the second page, Ex.P-7 another copy has been given. Most of the external injuries were on the vital part of the body of the deceased. External Injury No.10 corresponds to the internal injury in the stomach. External injury No.11 corresponds to the internal injury in the heart. The injuries found on the deceased could have been caused by a weapon like M.O.2. The injuries are sufficients the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased. The injury on the heart would have caused instantaneous death. The deceased would have died within 12 hours to 24 hours prior to autopsy. 8. The injuries found on the deceased could have been caused by a weapon like M.O.2. The injuries are sufficients the ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased. The injury on the heart would have caused instantaneous death. The deceased would have died within 12 hours to 24 hours prior to autopsy. 8. After post-mortem P.W.10 constable recovered M.O.4 saree, M.O.5 jacket, M.O.9 Thali from the deceased and handed over them in the police station. 9. On receipt of Ex.P-8 requisition from P.W.12 Inspector, the bloodstained articles were sent for chemical examination from J.S.C.M. Court under Ex.P-9 covering letter. Exs.P-10 and P-11 are the reports of the chemical examiner and Serologist. 10. The Inspector completed the investigation and laid charge sheet on 30.10.1984. 11. When examined under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. the appellant admitted that the deceased Karuppayee is his wife and that they were living together with their son P.W.1 Karuppan and other children. P.W.5 Kaliyammal has been given in marriage in Andhiyur. He denied the other allegations against him. 12. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty under Sec.302, I.P.C. convicted and sentenced him as indicated earlier. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court went wrong in basing the conviction on the uncorroborated testimony of P.W.1 Karuppan who is a child witness. However, we find that the evidence P.W.1 Karuppan has been recorded only after the Court was satisfied that he was a competent witness. This 14 years old witness is the son of the appellant and deceased. He states in his evidence that there was a function in the neighbouring house. After attending the function he took his bed at 10.00’ clock in the night. He woke up on hearing the noise of his mother. There is no reason for his deposing against his own father unless it is true. Besides we find that immediately after the incident the appellant had taken this boy to his daughter’s house in Andhiyur. P.W.5 Kaliyammal the daughter of the appellant speaks in her evidence about the extra judicial confession made by her father. According to her, her father told her that he had stabbed her mother and thereafter she alone had to look after her brothers whom he had brought with him. This version of P.W.5 Kaliyammal has a right of truth and it amply supports the evidence of P.W.1 Karuppan. According to her, her father told her that he had stabbed her mother and thereafter she alone had to look after her brothers whom he had brought with him. This version of P.W.5 Kaliyammal has a right of truth and it amply supports the evidence of P.W.1 Karuppan. We also find from the testimony of P.W.11 Sub-Inspector that on the morning of 6. 1984 the appellant surrendered in the Police Station and produced M-O.2 knife and M.O.6 bloodstained dhoti of him. This conduct on the part of the appellant also gives strength to the prosecution theory. Besides Ex.P-11 the Serologist’s report indicates that M.O.2 knife, M.O.6 bloodstained dhoti of the appellant and M.O.4 blood stained saree of the deceased bear the same ‘O’ group of human blood. This also supports the involvement of the appellant in the crime. So we have no hesitation in accepting the prosecution case on he basis of the materials referred to above. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that in columns 3 and 4 of Ex.P-13 Inquest Report the name of P.W.1 Karuppan is not mentioned as the person who had last seen the deceased. Instead the name of the appellant finds a place in these columns of the inquest report. This inquest report had reached the court only on 16. 1984. This was pressed into service by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of his claim that P.W.1 Karuppan could not have seen the occurrence. However, considering the entire circumstances of the case, we are not impressed with this argument. In our view, there is no reason for not acting upon the evidence of P.W.1, Karuppan. 15. Ex.P-1 complaint in this case has been given by the appellant himself in the Police Station before P.W.11 Sub Inspector at 9.30 a.m. on 6. 1984. in Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar, (1966 M.L.J. (Crl) 134, the Supreme Court has laid down as under: “If the first information report is given by the accused to a police officer and amounts to a confessional statement, proof of the confession is prohibited by Sec.25 of the Evidence Act. The confession includes not only the admission of the offence but all other admission of incriminating facts related to the offence contained in the confessional statement. The confession includes not only the admission of the offence but all other admission of incriminating facts related to the offence contained in the confessional statement. No part of the confessional statement is receivable in evidence except to the extent that the ban of Sec.25 is lifted by Sec.27. Save and except the formal part identifying the accused as the maker of the report, no part of the confessional first information report could be tendered in evidence.” In Mottai Thevan v. State, 1951 M.W.N. (Crl.) 274, it has been held that Sec.25 of the Evidence Act does not prohibit the use of the confession in favour of the accused. In the majority of cases, the confessions are sought to be used only against the accused. The cases in which such confessions would or can be used in favour of the accused will be very few and they will be the exceptions to the general rule. Where the accused was found guilty of murder, the only extenuating circumstances was found in confession made by him to the police which was also the first information in the case the motive and extenuating circumstance appearing in the confession the court is entitled to use the confession in favour of theaccused. In Thandavan, In re., 1972 L.W. (Crl) 244, in a prosecution for an offence under Sec.302,I.P.C., the accused made a confessional statement to police in which he said that the deceased (his wife) told him that even sometime ago she was lying with one N, and what could the accused do with her, and he pleaded grave and sudden provocation. Relying on the judgment of Somasundaram, J. in Mottai Thevan v. State, 1951 M. W.N. (Crl.) 274, a Division Bench of this Court has held that though the entire confession was inadmissible under Sec.25, Evidence Act, the said statement could be used in his favour as an extenuating circumstance. Ganesan, In re., 1973 L.W. (Crl) 42, was also a case under Sec.302, I.P.C. in that the husband killed his wife by inflicting indiscriminate cuts on her with a koduval on the night of occurrence. The F.I.R. consisted of a long confessional statement by him. Another Division Bench of this Court held that only portion of the statement which could be admitted is the initial portion that he was making the statement which would not be of any use to the prosecution. The F.I.R. consisted of a long confessional statement by him. Another Division Bench of this Court held that only portion of the statement which could be admitted is the initial portion that he was making the statement which would not be of any use to the prosecution. But, there is no bar to the appellant using the statement in his favour. 16. So in this case also Ex.P-1 complaint can be looked into to find out whether there are any extenuating circumstances. It is seen from Ex.P-1 that he married the deceased Karuppayee 25 years ago. His wife attained puberty only one year after marriage. Since then she was having illicit intimacy with his brother P.W.4 Kaliyannan. Though he warned her several times, she continued to have the illicit intimacy. So they used to quarrel often. Four days prior to the occurrence he came to know that deceased Karuppayee and P.W.4 Kaliyannan went together to a condolence without the knowledge of the appellant. When he questioned his wife about her conduct, she challenged him that if possible, he could catch her red-handed. On 6. 1984 when he called the deceased to come with him to Andhiyur to see their daughter, P.W.5 Kaliyammal who was ailing, Karuppayee refused to go with him. Besides, she scolded him in filthy language and stated that she was not his wife. And this is the background in which the appellant was driven to commit the murder of his wife. We are of the view that the entire circumstances form part of the same transaction and the provisions of Exception 1 to Sec.300 are attracted. Only on being deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation offered by the deceased in proclaiming that she was not his wife and challenging him to catch her red-handed, the appellant was driven to state his wife and cause her death. So the appellant cannot be held liable under Sec.302, I.P.C. and instead he is guilty only under Sec.304, Part-I, I.P.C. 17. In the result, the appellant is allowed in part and the conviction and sentence to undergo imprisonment for life are modified to one under Sec. 304. Part I, I.P.C. and to undergo R.I. for 7 (seven) years.