Judgment :- Janarthanam, J. The appellant was the accused in S.C.No. 1 of 1986 on the file of the Court of Session, Periyar Division at Erode. He was found guilty of the offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for life. The present action is against the said conviction and sentence. 2. Brief facts are: (a) Mathippanur and Koodakkarai Thottiyapalayam are adjacent villages, situate within the jurisdictional limits of Kadathur Police Station. One Ramaswami (since deceased) was a resident of Mathippanur while the accused Murugan alias Murugesan alias Muttakose hails from Koodakkarai Thottiyapalayam. The deceased was functioning as a teacher in a Panchayat Union School at Sadhagamugai, a village situate very near to his village. He owns a garden land going by the name ‘Mamarathu Thottam’ situate in his village, in close quarters to his place Of residence. In the said garden land, there were mango trees, besides palmyrah frees, numbering ten. (b) Sometime prior to the occurrence, which event happened on the 8th April, 1985 the palmyrah trees were leased out by the deceased to the accused for the purpose of tapping toddy. The accused agreed to pay Rs.30 per mensem, for tapping toddy for a period of 100 days. The tapping season also co-terminated with the mango season. In the process or lapping today and distributing it by way of sale to consumers it so happened, that such crowd collected in the said thottam happened to pluck mangoes in the trees causing loss to the deceased. Likewise, accused also plucked mangoes in the process of tapping toddy from the trees. This also irritated the. deceased. Consequently, the deceased mandated the accused to somehow or other cease the toddy tapping operation by removal of the pots from the trees. (c) a few days prior to the occurrence, that is to say, on the morning of 4. 1985 the deceased again persisted in making the demand from the accused for removal of the pots from the trees and cease toddy tapping operation. The accused oh his part resisted such a move and there arose a wordy altercation between them. Such a wordy alteraction was likely to have resulted in an untoward incident; bur for the timely intervention of P.W.1, wife of the deceased who happened to be there. The accused oh his part resisted such a move and there arose a wordy altercation between them. Such a wordy alteraction was likely to have resulted in an untoward incident; bur for the timely intervention of P.W.1, wife of the deceased who happened to be there. As a matter of fact both the deceased and the accused rose in revolt, in the sense of the accused catching hold of a knife and the deceased seizing a stick lying there. They were actually making preparations for a fight. The accused somehow or other removed the mud pots from four of the trees and ceased to draw toddy from six trees. He, however, continued to draw toddy from the other six trees till about four days prior to the day of occurrence. (d) On the day of occurrence, at about 9 a.m., the accused was on top of the palmyrah tree situate near the well in the thottam in the process of drawing toddy. The deceased again persisted in making a demand to the accused to remove the pots from the other six trees and stop toddy tapping operations from them. At that time, P.W.1. was grazing buffaloes in the nearby fields. The accused got down from the tree and walked towards the deceased who was proceeding towards the well. The accused all of a sudden took M.O.1, aamara kathi (knife), from the basket like thing kept tied to his wrist, being utilised for the purpose of keeping the tools of his profession and with the aid of the said knife, he inflicted number of cuts on the person of the deceased and the cuts so inflicted indiscriminately fell on all portions of his body. The deceased fell down dead. P.W.1 seeing the dastardly occurrence, raised a hue and cry and on hearing the same, P.W.2 also rushed towards the place of occurrence. In the meantime, the accused ran away with the said knife. Immediately after the occurrence, P.W.3 a neighbouring land owner also came to the scene and in such process, she had the fortuitous opportunity of witnessing the accused running from there with the knife towards east. Some of the villagers also came to the scene and one such person reached the scene was by name one Muthu. (e) P.W.10 was the then Inspector of Police, Nambiyur Police Station. Some of the villagers also came to the scene and one such person reached the scene was by name one Muthu. (e) P.W.10 was the then Inspector of Police, Nambiyur Police Station. At about 11 a.m., he went to the police station and while he was available there, accused, who escaped from the scene, presented himself before him at 11.45 a.m. with bloodstained knife. Immediately, P.W.10 sent for P. W.4 Village Administrative Officer, Nambiyur, who in turn came to the police station along with one Murugesan. The accused offered to give a statement and the statement so given by him was recorded as per his narration in the printed form of First Information Report in the presence of P.W.4 and another, by name Murugesan. Ex.P-1 is the statement. P.W.4 attested the same. The same has been registered in Crime No. 56 of 1985 under Sec. 302, I.P.C. The knife (M.O.1) was also seized from the accused by P.W.10 under Form No. 95 besides the clothes worn by him, namely M.O.2 shirts and M.O.3 towel. He then proceeded to the scene of occurrence. (f) In the meantime, at 12.35 p.m., the said Muthu gave a complaint to P.W.11 Village Administrative Officer, Ukkaram Village. The complaint so given has been reduced to writing by him and the same had been despatched, through village thotti by name Palanichamy, to Kadathur Police Station. He also sent printed report intended for the Court through the said thotti to be delivered at the police station so that the same may be forwarded to the court concerned. (g) Then P.W.10 reached the scene village at about 1.30 p.m., along with accused. After inspecting the scene, he prepared Ex.P-2 observation mahazar. He also drew a rough sketch of the scene, Ex.P-13. Between 1.45 and 5.45 p.m., he held inquest over the body of the deceased. Ex.P-14 is the inquest report. During inquest he examined P.Ws.1, 2 and others. After inquest, he handed over the body of the deceased to the constable, P.W.8, along with Ex.P-4 requisition for the purpose of autopsy. Then at 5.50 p.m., he seized from the scene bloodstained granite stone (M.O.4) broken mudpot, M.O.5 blood stained earth (M.O.6) and sample earth (M.O.7) under Ex.P-3 mahazar. Exs.P-2 and P-3 were attested by P. W.5. After inquest, he handed over the body of the deceased to the constable, P.W.8, along with Ex.P-4 requisition for the purpose of autopsy. Then at 5.50 p.m., he seized from the scene bloodstained granite stone (M.O.4) broken mudpot, M.O.5 blood stained earth (M.O.6) and sample earth (M.O.7) under Ex.P-3 mahazar. Exs.P-2 and P-3 were attested by P. W.5. He also caused photographs of the scene to be taken by the photographer P.W.6 and M.Os.8 to 11 were the negative and photo prints. He then took the accused to Kadathur Police Station and kept him in the lockup there and the next day, he sent him to court for remand. (h) P.W.7, was the then Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Sathyamangalam. On receipt of Ex.P-4 requisition, he commenced autopsy over the body of the deceased at 11-30 a.m., on 4. 1985. Ex.P-5 is the post-mortem certificate he issued. He opined that all those injuries could have been caused by a sharp edged weapon like M.O.1. He would further opine that external injury No. 1 with its corresponding internal injury to the brain is necessary fatal. Ex.P-6 is the report of the Chemical Examiner relatable to the hair and Ex.P-7 is the report of the serologist regarding the sample, blood of the deceased. (i) After the autopsy was over, the Constable P.W.8 seized from the body M.O.12 shirt M.O.13, lungi M.O.14 Underwear, M.O.15 waist cord and M.O.16 wrist watch and handed over the same at the police station and the same appeared to have been seized in Form No. 95. (j) P.W.10 on the same day examined P.Ws.6 to 8. On 5. 1985; he sent Ex.P-8 requisition to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate’s Court, Gobichettipalayam for forwarding the incriminating material objects seized to the Chemical Examiner. On receipt of such requisition all the incriminating material objects had been separately packed by P.W.9 Head Clerk and sent to the Chemical Examiner under the directions of the Magistrate for the purpose of Examination under the original ofEx.P-9, office copy of the letter. Exs.P-10 and P-12 are the reports of the Chemical Examiner while Ex.P-11 is the report of the Serologist. (k) P.W.10 on completion of the investigation, laid the final report under Sec. 173(2), Crl.P.C. on 16. 1985 against the accused before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Gobichettipalayam for the alleged offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Exs.P-10 and P-12 are the reports of the Chemical Examiner while Ex.P-11 is the report of the Serologist. (k) P.W.10 on completion of the investigation, laid the final report under Sec. 173(2), Crl.P.C. on 16. 1985 against the accused before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Gobichettipalayam for the alleged offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. On committal, learned Sessions Judge, Periyar Division, Erode, framed a charge against the accused for an offence under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused, when questioned as respects the charge so framed against him, denied the same and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution, in proof of the said charge, examined P.Ws.1 to 11, filed Exs.-P-1 to P-14 and marked M.Os.1 to 16. 5. The accused, when questioned under Sec. 313, Crl.P.C. as respects the incriminating evidence and circumstances available against him, denied his complicity in the crime. He did not choose to examine any witness on his behalf; but, however, chose to mark Exs.D-1 and D-2 the former being the complaint given by Muthu P.W.11 and the latter being the printed report sent to Court by P.W.11. 6. Learned Sessions Judge on considerations of the materials placed, rendered the verdict as above. 7. From the submissions made by Mr.M. Jagadeesan, learned counsel for the appellant-accused and Mr.B. Sriramulu, learned Public Prosecutor, the, lone sole point that arises for consideration is as to whether the conviction and sentence, as had been imposed upon the appellant-accused by the court below are sustainable in law, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The incriminating pieces of evidence, as available against the accused consists of the following: .(1) The igniting or impelling cause for the accused to rise in revolt against the deceased at or about the time of the occurrence, as disclosed by the testimony of P.W.1; .(2) Direct testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 as respects the occurrence; (3). 8. The incriminating pieces of evidence, as available against the accused consists of the following: .(1) The igniting or impelling cause for the accused to rise in revolt against the deceased at or about the time of the occurrence, as disclosed by the testimony of P.W.1; .(2) Direct testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 as respects the occurrence; (3). Res gestae evidence of P.W.3 who happened to arrive at the scene immediately after the occurrence and had the fortuitous opportunity of seeing the accused running from the scene with the weapon towards east; (4) Corroborative support rendered by the medical testimony in the shape of the evidence of P.W.7, coupled with Ex.P-5 postmortem certificate he issued as to the version projected by the prosecution; .(5) The incriminating conduct of the accused surrendering before P.W.10 with bloodstained weapon MO.1 and bloodstained clothes M.Os.2 and 3 he was wearing on his person; and .(6) The lending assurance factor of the knife M.O.1 and the clothes of the accused M.Os.2 and 3 containing ‘O’ group of blood, which was as that of the deceased as revealed, by the serologist’s report Ex.P-11. 9. There is no demur from any quarter whatever as to the accused having taken lease of ten palmyrah trees sometime prior to the occurrence, for the purpose of tapping toddy. It is also not in dispute that in the tope where the palmyrah trees were situate, there are also mango trees and the season was a mango season. Some few days prior to the occurrence, the deceased, having been enraged as to the loss caused by the plucking of mangoes not only by the accused but also by his customers, changed his mind to have the toddy tapping operation somehow or other terminated or stopped and so he mandated the accused to remove the pots from the palmyrah trees and stop the toddy tapping operation. Though the accused resisted such, a move initially, somehow or other, some four days prior to the occurrence, he removed the mud pots from four trees and continued to draw today from the other six trees. On that day, a wordy altercation arose between accused and the deceased and there could have been every possibility of an untoward occurrence being happened on that day, in the sense of the accused arming with a knife and the deceased arming with a slick got entangled in mutual fight. On that day, a wordy altercation arose between accused and the deceased and there could have been every possibility of an untoward occurrence being happened on that day, in the sense of the accused arming with a knife and the deceased arming with a slick got entangled in mutual fight. On this aspect, there is the evidence of P.W.1. The fact that P.W.1 happened to be the wife of the deceased is not a ground at all for rejection of her testimony in the absence of her evidence suffering from any other infirmity or contradiction of such a vital nature doubting her version as being beset with such inherent improbabilities. Nothing of that sort emerged from her testimony. Such being her testimony we are unable to find any reason to reject her testimony as respects the igniting or impelling cause, leading to the occurrence. 10. At or about, the time of the occurrence, the deceased again persisted in his demand for the removal of the mud pots from the rest of the trees and at that time, the accused was perched on the top of one of the palmyrah trees situate near the well and on his coming down from the said tree, he made a march towards the deceased, who was proceeding towards the well and inflicted as many cuts as possible with M.O.1 knife on his person indiscriminately, thereby causing bleeding injuries and succumbing to such injuries on the spot. The narration of the occurrence had been graphically painted by P.W.1 and despite incisive cross-examination done by hurling of volley of questions put to her, she stood as a solid rock, without giving rise to any sort of a suspicion that she could not have been present at or about the time of occurrence and had the opportunity of witnessing the same. As already, stated, we feel that the testimony of P.W.1 rather bears an impress of ingrained truth. 11.Res gestae evidence of P.W.3 also rather appears to be natural and supports the version of P.W.1 as respects that part of the accused running away from the scene with the bloodstained weapon. Nothing is also elicited in the course of cross-examination of P.W.3 to doubt her version. 12. 11.Res gestae evidence of P.W.3 also rather appears to be natural and supports the version of P.W.1 as respects that part of the accused running away from the scene with the bloodstained weapon. Nothing is also elicited in the course of cross-examination of P.W.3 to doubt her version. 12. These things apart, there is the telling incriminating circumstance of the accused himself appearing before P.W.10 while he was in Nambiyur Police Station, immediately after the occurrence, drenched with blood stain in his clothes, M.Os.2 and 3, along with M.O.1 weapon also stained with blood. His appearance before P.W.10 in such a posture is not only deposed to by a police officer, P.W.10, but also is vouch-safed by the testimony emerging from an independent quarter, in the shape Of P.W.4, responsible Village Administrative Officer of Nambiyur Village. 13. Such incriminating conduct on the part of the accused is further reinforced by the report of the Serologist, Ex.P-11 pointing out that not only M.O.1 knife stated to have been used by the accused in inflicting the indiscriminate cuts on the person of the deceased, as deposed to by P.W.1, but also the clothes worn by him at our about the time of the occurrence, namely M.Os.2 and 3 were stained with ‘O’ group blood, which was the same blood group of the deceased. This circumstance clearly points out in an uncliching fashion his presence, participation and utilisation of the weapon of offence in inflicting the cut injuries on the person of the deceased, as deposed to by P.W.1. 14. Top of all, there is also the corroborative support of unfliching character emerging from the medical testimony, in the shape of the doctor, P.W.7, coupled with Ex.P-5, Post-mortem certificate he issued. The doctor would state that all the injuries he found on the person of the deceased, as having been described in Ex.P-5 post-mortem certificate, could have been caused by a sharp edged weapon like M.O.1. 15. The only evidence that is left out of consideration is the evidence of P.W.2. No doubt true it is that he posed himself to be an eye witness to the occurrence. He is not a person hailing from that village. But he is a person hailing from a different village going by the name Ukkaram and he had been serving as a watchman in an elementary school at Ukkaram. No doubt true it is that he posed himself to be an eye witness to the occurrence. He is not a person hailing from that village. But he is a person hailing from a different village going by the name Ukkaram and he had been serving as a watchman in an elementary school at Ukkaram. What he would state is that at or about the time of occurrence, he had been to Ukkaram village for the purpose of catching fish and finding no fish in that lake, he thought of catching fish in the well situate in the Mamarathu Thottam of the deceased and that perhaps was the reason for him to go to the scene of occurrence and in that process, he had the fortuitous opportunity of witnessing the occurrence. The contumacious circumstance he had created of his having been present in the scene of occurrence, by resorting to the device as aforesaid was not at all stated by him during his earlier statement recorded under Secl64, Crl.P.C. by the Magistrate. That apart, he had not stated in Sec.164, Crl.P.C. Statement before the Magistrate that he had seen the actual act of cutting the deceased by the accused. In such circumstances, taking these aspects of the matter into account, the Court below had not placed any reliance upon his testimony and the same had been eschewed out of consideration and we feel that learned Sessions Judge was right in doing so. 16. From the various incriminating evidence and circumstances, as stated above, we rather feel that it is the accused and his hand alone that was responsible for inflicting the injuries on the person of the deceased. 17. The next question that arises for consideration is as to what is the offence that had been committed by him. Learned counsel appearing for the defence would however strenuously contend that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the act of the accused in cutting the deceased would not at all fall under any one of the four clauses under Sec. 300, but it may, fall under Exception 4 of Sec.300 of the Indian Penal Code. To such a submission, we are unable to affix our seal of approval, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 18. To such a submission, we are unable to affix our seal of approval, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 18. The evidence available on record, as adduced by the prosecution, does, not at all throw any light as to the happening of any wordy altercation leading to any mutual fight between the accused and the deceased immediately prior to the occurrence and what all transpired from such evidence is that when the deceased was going towards the well unarmed, the accused, who got down from the palmyrah tree, proceeded towards the deceased and inflicted indiscriminate cuts on his person with M.O.1. resulting in his death, more or less instantaneously at the spot. Of course true it is, that in the earliest information Ex.P-1 furnished by the accused, certain averments incorporated therein had been relied upon by learned counsel for the defence. The averments are: Of course the statement of the accused like the present one given before a police officer like P.W.10 cannot at all be utilised in projecting or advancing, the case of all prosecution. In that view of the matter, the statement relatable to his inflicting certain cuts on the person of the deceased, as stated above, is clearly inadmissible in evidence and the same cannot at all be utilised against the accused. But at the same time, the other portion of the statement, relatable to his asking the deceased as to where he had to go, in case he was not allowed to tap toddy from the palmyrah trees belonging to the deceased for eking out his livelihood and for that, the deceased replying him that he could seek justice elsewhere and it, was for him to clear out of the place immediately can certainly to taken as a circumstance as he relies upon the same in projection of his defence theory.....Even if such a circumstance that led to the occurrence is viewed in favour of the accused, we are unable to understand as to how such a circumstance could take the act of the accused within the four corners of Exception 4 to Sec. 300 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, we reject the submission of learned counsel for the defence on this aspect of the matter. 19. Therefore, we reject the submission of learned counsel for the defence on this aspect of the matter. 19. Taking into account the indiscriminate cuts inflicted by the accused on the person of the deceased, almost on all portions of the body, inclusive of the neck, a vulnerable portion of human anatomy with a lethal and dangerous weapon like M.O.1, aamara kathi, coupled with the evidence of the doctor, P.W.7.that the external injury No.1, corresponding to internal injury caused to the brain is necessarily fatal, we rather feel that the act of the accused cannot be any one other than the, one done with the intention of causing the death of the deceased, thereby taking his act clearly falling under clause (1) of Sec.300, amounting to an offence of murder, punishable under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code. 20. In this view of the matter, the conviction and sentence as had been imposed on the accused by the court below cannot at all be stated to be not sustainable in law. 21. In the result, the appeal is. dismissed. The conviction and sentence, as had been imposed upon the appellant-accused by the Court below are confirmed.