Judgment :- This Crl. A. No. 79/1989 is filed by the appellant-Gopal against the conviction and sentence imposed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem in S.C. 76/1986. The appellant was convicted for an offence under S. 304, Part I, IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years. 2. On the side of prosecution 13 witnesses were examined and 23 documents were marked. M.Os. 1 to 26 were also marked. The prosecution case is as follows :- The appellant is a resident of Kundalpatti Village. The deceased Pachaiammal is his third wife. Their marriage was registered in the Registrar's office. After the marriage of the deceased, the appellant married another woman by name Thulasiammal. So, the deceased Pachaiammal filed a complaint against the appellant/accused under S. 494, IPC. The complaint is Ex. P. 1. Then on intervention of the panchayatdhars the matter was settled by which the appellant agreed to settle his property measuring about 1-42 acres in favour of the deceased Pachaiammal and in view of the said panchayat, the deceased withdrew the complaint. Then as per agreement he settled the properties by executing a settlement deed in favour of the deceased. The said deed is Ex. P. 2. Thereafter the land was enjoyed by the deceased. For some period both the appellant and the deceased were living together. But some time later since there was quarrel between the husband and wife, the deceased left matrimonial home and joined her parents in the same village. In the land settled by the appellant in favour of the deceased, there was a Kottagi. On 29-1-1986 the deceased gave complaint to the Kaveripattinam Police stating that the appellant set fire to the Kottagai which was in her land. P.W. 10 Sub-Inspector of Police registered the case under S. 436, IPC. The printed FIR is Ex. P. 3. On 19-3-1986 the deceased Pachaiammal gave another complaint Ex. P. 4 to the police stating that she was assaulted by the appellant. On the same day the appellant also gave a counter complaint Ex. P. 19 stating that he was also assaulted by the wife. P.W. 10 received both the complaints and conducted an enquiry and closed the matter by interrogating both the parties on 25-3-1986. 3. The occurrence in question took place on 30-4-1986 at 2-00 p.m. in the land belonged to the deceased which was previously settled in her favour by the appellant. P.W. 10 received both the complaints and conducted an enquiry and closed the matter by interrogating both the parties on 25-3-1986. 3. The occurrence in question took place on 30-4-1986 at 2-00 p.m. in the land belonged to the deceased which was previously settled in her favour by the appellant. P.W. 1 Devendran is the sister's son of the deceased, Pachaiammal P.W. 5 Arumugam is the sister's husband of the deceased Pachaiammal. At the time of occurrence both P.W. 1 and P.W. 5 were proceeding towards Kundalapatti Village in a bicycle, to go to tea shop and the rationshop. When they were on the way to their destination, they had to cross the said land. At that time, they saw the appellant and the deceased quarrelling. Suddenly the appellant with Koduval M.O. 1 gave indiscriminate cuts on the neck of the deceased. P.W. 1 and P.W. 5 tried to prevent him but they did not go near him since they were afraid of their lives. The deceased though warded of the attack through her hands, the appellant gave continuous and indiscriminate cuts repeatedly all over the body on her head and other parts of the body. Then the appellant severed her head and proceeded to the police station along with M.O. 1 and the severed head. At that time P.W. 2 V.A.O. Muthuswamy after collecting the tax amount was coming on the way. P.W. 1 and P.W. 5 informed the same to P.W. 2, V.A.O. 4. Then the appellant straightway went to the police station and put the head of the deceased in a tree near the police station and then entered inside the station. At the same time P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 and another also came to the police station. P.W. 2 alone went inside the police station. At that time P.W. 11 Sub-Inspector of Police interrogated the appellant and recorded his statement. P.W. 2 also attested the said statement. P.W. 11 registered the same in Crime No. 112/1986 for an offence under S. 302, IPC and he sent the printed FIR to the Court as well as to the higher officials. Ex. P. 20 is the printed copy of the FIR. Then he recovered M.O. 1 Vettukathi and the bloodstained dhothi M.O. 2, Shirt M.O. 4 under Ex. P. 11 mahazar attested by P.W. 2.. 5. Ex. P. 20 is the printed copy of the FIR. Then he recovered M.O. 1 Vettukathi and the bloodstained dhothi M.O. 2, Shirt M.O. 4 under Ex. P. 11 mahazar attested by P.W. 2.. 5. P.W. 12 Inspector of Police on receipt of the information at 3-45 p.m. on 30-4-1986 through telephone, reached the police station at 3-55 p.m. He interrogated the appellant and he arranged for taking photos of the head of the deceased through P.W. 9 photographer. Then between 4-00 and 5-30 p.m. he conducted the inquest. Ex P. 21 is the inquest report. P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 5 were examined by P.W. 12. at the time of inquest. Then he sent the head along with Ex. P. 9 requisition to the Doctor through P.W. 7 for post mortem examination. Then he recovered the M.O. 3 bloodstained earth under Ex. P. 5 mahazar, attested by P.W. 2 and P.W 3. Then P.W. 12 went to the spot and prepared the observation mahazar Ex. P. 7 in the presence of P.W. 4 and others. Then photos were taken. Then he prepared Ex. P. 22 rough sketch. Then he recovered M.O. 5 bloodstained earth, Thalikayaru two pieces M.O. 6 saries, broken glass bangled M.O. 7 series, 4 pins M.O. 8 series, Surukku bag M.O. 9, containing M.O. 10 to M.O. 16, saries, Key M.O. 17, M.O. 18 betalnut pieces under Ex. P. 8 mahazar attested by P.W. 4 and another. He conducted the inquest on the trunk between 7-00 and 9-00 p.m. Ex. P. 23 is the inquest report. At that time he examined P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and P.W. 5. Then he handed over the trunk to P.W. 10 constable along with Ex. P. 10 requisition for post mortem examination. Then at about 10-00 a.m. he went to the hospital and arranged for photographs through P.W. 9 by joining the head and trunk of the deceased. M.O. 20 is the photos and M.O. 21 saries are the negatives. Then on 1-5-1986 the accused was sent to the Court for judicial remand. Then P.W. 6 Dr. on receipt of Ex. P. 9 requisition on 1-5-1986 at 10-00 a.m. conducted the post mortem examination on the head and found the following injuries :-1. M.O. 20 is the photos and M.O. 21 saries are the negatives. Then on 1-5-1986 the accused was sent to the Court for judicial remand. Then P.W. 6 Dr. on receipt of Ex. P. 9 requisition on 1-5-1986 at 10-00 a.m. conducted the post mortem examination on the head and found the following injuries :-1. An incised wound present around the neck severing the whole upper part of neck and head from lower portion of neck and body at the level of 4th cervical vertebral measuring antero posterior diameter about 6"lateral to lateral 5" with a circumference of 15"situated. 1" below the lower end of left ear. All the structures of the neck were cut, left side mandible also cut. clotted blood seen in the wound; 2. Incised injury present over the left mastoid region of the scalp which extends to the left ear also size 4"x 1/2" x 1/4"; 3. Incised injury present over left occipital region of scalp size 2" x 1"x 1/2"; 4. Incised injury present over face near right side eye size 3/4"x 1/2" x 1/4 "Then on receipt of the requisition Ex. P. 10 at 11-00 a.m. she conducted the post mortem examination on the trunk and she found the following injuries :- 1. An incised wound present around the neck severing the whole lower part neck and body from upper portion of neck and head at the level of 4th cervical vertebrae measuring antero posterior diameter about 6"lateral to lateral 5" with a circumference of 15" 1. All the structures of the neck were cut. Clotted blood present in the wound 2. An incised injury present over right fore arm measuring (4"x 1"x 1/2" which extends from medical surface to lateral surface 3. An incised injury present over right hand palmar surface size 2"x 1/4" x 1/8" * 4. Incised injury present over back of left wrist joint size 2"x 1/2" x 1/8" 5. Incised injury present over left upper arm in the deltoid region size 1"x 1/4" x 1/4" * 6. Incised injury present over center of left upper arm which extends to medical side size 3"x 1"x 1/2" She gave the opinion that both head and trunk belonged to one and the same person. She also opined that the death must be instantaneous and all the injuries are necessarily fatal. Ex. P. 11 is the post mortem certificate regarding the head. Ex. She also opined that the death must be instantaneous and all the injuries are necessarily fatal. Ex. P. 11 is the post mortem certificate regarding the head. Ex. P. 12 is the post mortem certificate regarding the trunk. Then P.W. 12 sent M.Os. for analysis through the court. Ex. P. 12 and P. 15 are the Chemical Analyst reports. According to the reports, vertebra found in the head and trunk was of the same body. Ex. P. 17 and P. 18 are the Chemical Analyst report and Cerologist Report. These reports reveal that the blood group of the head is that of the same group of the blood contained in the body of the deceased. Then after completing investigation P.W. 12 filed the charge sheet on 13-6-1986. 6. Then the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. when he questioned about the circumstances brought on record against him he admitted that he only caused the death of the deceased. However he said P.W. 1 and P.W. 5 were not there and they were not eye witnesses. He also narrated the circumstances under which he has committed the crime as follows :-" * The deceased filed a complainant under Section 494 IPC against him. This case was withdrawn on the intervention of the panchayatdhars. On the advise of the panchayatdhars he settled his properties of 1-42 acres in favour of Panchaiammal. Then for some days the deceased was living with him. However she quarrelled with him and she left his custody and went and joined back to her parents. On the date of occurrence at 3-30 p.m. he went to his land and cutting the leaves and at that time the deceased came there and threatened him that if he would come again to her land, she would beat him with chappal. When he questioned her, she said that he is not her husband and her sister's husband would be her husband. She also said that he married four wives and so, she would take the bed with 10 persons. These words provoked him and then he attacked the deceased." In order to substantiate this defence, though no defence evidence has been adduced, he filed a statement to that effect through his counsel. 7. After completion of the trial, the trial Court found the accused guilty for an offence under Section 304 Part I. IPC. These words provoked him and then he attacked the deceased." In order to substantiate this defence, though no defence evidence has been adduced, he filed a statement to that effect through his counsel. 7. After completion of the trial, the trial Court found the accused guilty for an offence under Section 304 Part I. IPC. and convicted and sentenced him as referred earlier. 8. The counsel for the appellant Mr. K. V. Sridharan eloborately argued by taking the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution and the judgment rendered by the trial court. He submitted that P.W. 5 gave a report to the VAO. and the same was not brought on record. Secondly he submitted that the trial court having disbelieved some portions of the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 5, ought to have rejected the prosecution case and acquitted him. He also submitted that a suggestion has been put to the police officer that he gave a complaint to the police and the same has not been produced before the court., and instead some other statement was written by the police officials and his signature was obtained in the said statement. In short, the submission by the counsel for the appellant is that there is no substantive evidence to prove the offence. However, he ultimately requested this court to reduce the sentence imposed by the trial court. 9. The counsel for the respondent Mr. Manimaran Government Advocate appearing for the State countenanced and said that the evidence adduced by the prosecution Witnesses viz., P.W. 1 and P.W. 5 which has been corroborated by medical evidence, which would go to prove that the appellant has committed the offence under Section 302 IPC. However, he admitted that due to some procedural defects the State was not able to prefer an appeal against acquittal in respect of 302 IPC. However, he requested this court to confirm the conviction and sentence under Section 304 Part I IPC and according to him, the sentence of 7 years cannot be said to be excessive in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 10. However, he requested this court to confirm the conviction and sentence under Section 304 Part I IPC and according to him, the sentence of 7 years cannot be said to be excessive in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 2 V.A.O. coupled with the fact of accused having surrendered before the police with weapon and the statement of the accused before the court and the suggestion put to the police officials would clinchingly prove that the appellant alone has committed this crime and he caused the death of the deceased. Even according to the appellant he settled the property in favour of the deceased, and even then the deceased was not prepared to live with him continuously and she joined back her parents. Though the property has been settled in favour of the deceased through the sale deed, the evidence of the prosecution is that the said land was enjoyed by the accused who ploughed the land and raised crops. The evidence of the prosecution is that the deceased and her relatives went into the land and harvested the crops and took away. It is the case of the prosecution as admitted by the appellant that prior to the date of occurrence there were complaints by the deceased against the appellant. This would show that the deceased gave lot of trouble to the appellant and this would be the motive for this occurrence. 11. On the date of occurrence when P.W. 1 and P.W. 5 were proceeding to the ration shop and tea shop on a bi-cycle they saw the deceased and the appellant quarrelling with each other. Suddenly by means of a Koduval which was in possession of the appellant, he gave indiscriminate cuts on the neck of the deceased and he severed the head of the deceased and then he was proceeding to the police station along with Koduval. P.W. 2 who came on the side at that time also happened to receive the information from P.W. 1 and P.W. 5. So all these parsons went to the police station and they saw the appellant in the police station giving statement to P.W. 11 the Sub-Inspector of Police. This aspect has been amply proved by the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 5 who accompanied P.W. 2 to the police station. So all these parsons went to the police station and they saw the appellant in the police station giving statement to P.W. 11 the Sub-Inspector of Police. This aspect has been amply proved by the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 5 who accompanied P.W. 2 to the police station. The trial court though referred that P.W. 1 and P.W. 5 are chance witnesses and they could not have come to the place of occurrence for taking tea, the trial court has failed to take note of the fact that P.W. 1 and P.W. 5 come there not only to tea shop but also to the ration shop and also the distance to the place of occurrence and the house of P.Ws 1 and 5 is only 1/2 kms. So, it cannot be contended that P.W. 1 and 5 could not have come to the place of occurrence. Regarding registration of the case and the investigation has been spoken to by P.W. 11 and P.W. 12. The medical evidence adduced by P.W. 6 would also corroborate the evidence of P.W. 11 the trial court convicted the appellant/accused under Section 304 Part I IPC only on the basis of 313 statement, in which he stated that he got provoked suddenly and gave a cut on the neck of the deceased. To substantiate this statement there is no material culled out from any of the witnesses during the course of their cross-examination. Not even a suggestion was put to P.W. 1 and P.W. 5. So without any difficulty one can come to the conclusion that the explanation given by the appellant under 313 statement was a belated one. However, I do not propose to go into the question whether the material found available on record would constitute and offence under Section 302 IPC or not since there was no appeal filed by the State against acquittal in respect of Section 302 IPC. Moreover, the revision preferred by P.W. 5 Arumugham only is for enhancement of sentence for the offence under Section 304 Part I IPC and not for requesting the court to convert the offence under Section 302 IPC by way of remanding the matter to the trial court. Moreover, the revision preferred by P.W. 5 Arumugham only is for enhancement of sentence for the offence under Section 304 Part I IPC and not for requesting the court to convert the offence under Section 302 IPC by way of remanding the matter to the trial court. On considering the facts and circumstances, though I feel the sentence of 7 years R.I. which has been imposed for an offence under section 304 Part I IPC is not sufficient, I am not inclined to enhance the sentence since it has been bought to my notice that the land which was settled in favour of the deceased has been now enjoyed by P.W. 5 and his family. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that the sentence of 7 years RI is sufficient in the light of the above circumstances. For the reasons stated above, I feel that there is no justification for interfering with the findings of the court below with regard to the sentence of the trial court and as such, this appeal deserves to be dismissed as there is no merit. 12. In the result, the conviction of the appellant under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 7 years shall stand confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. 13. In view of the dismissal of appeal C.A. 79/1989 this revision viz., Crl.R.C. 450/89 filed by P.W. 5 is also dismissed.