Judgment : R. Balasubramanian, J. Accused in Sessions Case No.100 of 1987 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli has filed this appeal questioning the judgment dated 210. 1987 rendered by the learned trial Judge in the above mentioned case, convicting the appellant for an offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life. 2. P.W. 1 is a resident of Anna Nagar in Purathangudi. His first wife died in the year 1972 and thereafter in the year 1976 he married one Amaravathi as his second wife. Amaravathy is the deceased in this case. P.W.1 has a vegetable shop in the bus stand at Purathangudi. Dhanaraj is the father of the accused and he resides at Irungalur. Before the occurrence, the deceased Amaravathy and Dhanaraj, the father of the accused developed illicit intimacy between them. The accused did not like this and he has been cautioning his father about that. On 3. 1987 the deceased Amaravathy gave a complaint Ex.P-14 to the Police stating that the accused has assaulted her. On 3. 1987 evening the Sub Inspector of Police, Samayapuram, P.W.12 went to Irungalur and enquired the deceased Amaravathy, accused his father Dhanaraj, Dhanaraj’s another son Kuzhandhairaj, Madhiya Nathathiram, wife of Dhanaraj and Chinnappan. Thereafter P.W.12 took them to the Police Station and warned them that they should not quarrel with each other. Regarding this, an undertaking in Ex.P-15 was recorded by P.W.12 signed by Dhanaraj, Chinnappan Kuzhanthairaj and others. All of them assured that thereafter they would not go in the way of Amaravathy. On 13. 1987 there was a quarrel between the accused and his father Dhanaraj. Regarding this incident, a complaint in Ex.P-17 was given by Dhanaraj to the Police. On the said complaint, P.W.12 enquired the parties concerned and obtained Ex.P-18 a statement from the respective parties. 3. At 4 P.M., on 4. 1987 when P.W.1 was in his vegetable shop, the deceased Amaravathy came there and gave him coffee. After taking coffee, P.W.1 advised the deceased Amaravathy to go home. While Amaravathy was going back home, Dhanaraj, the father of the accused was in the tea shop of P.W.2 and he was taking tea at that time. On seeing Amaravathy, Dhanaraj, the father of the accused, call her to come near him. Amaravathy went near Dhanaraj and they talked. After taking coffee, P.W.1 advised the deceased Amaravathy to go home. While Amaravathy was going back home, Dhanaraj, the father of the accused was in the tea shop of P.W.2 and he was taking tea at that time. On seeing Amaravathy, Dhanaraj, the father of the accused, call her to come near him. Amaravathy went near Dhanaraj and they talked. At that time, the accused, who was coming in a cycle, witnessed the said incident, got down from the cycle and questioned the deceased Amaravathy as to how she was talking with his father and so saying, he slapped Amaravathy on her cheek. The deceased Amaravathy immediately fell down. On seeing Amaravathy swooning, her husband, P.W.1 went near her and took her to the nearby cycle shop owned by P.W.3, Victor Williams. Amaravathy was made to sit in the shop. Ten minutes later, the accused came back and caught-hold of the tuft of Amaravathy, Assaulted her on the back side of her head with a ‘Veli Karuvai’ log M.O.1. After receiving the injury, Amaravathy ran out of the shop and fell down on the road. Even thereafter, the accused beat on the back side of her head twice with M.O.1. This was witnessed by P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 4. After assaulting deceased Amaravathy in the manner stated above, the accused ran towards west from the place of occurrence with M.O.1 in his hands. Amaravathy was bleeding through her ears and nose and then died. 4. At 4.30 in the evening of 4. 1987, P.W.1 went to Irungalur and gave a complaint to the Village Administrative Officer - P.W.8 about the fatal attack on Amaravathy by the accused. P.W.8 visited the scene of occurrence and found Amaravathy lying dead. Thereafter, he recorded the statement given by P. W. 1 and it is Ex.P-1 in this case. P.W.8 sent Ex.P-1 through his village menial P.W.5, Chinnayan to Samayapuram Police Station. 5. At 5.30 in the evening of 4. 1987 P.W.11, the Head Constable attached to Samayapuram Police Station received Ex.P-1 from P.W.5 and registered it in his Police Station Crime No.75 of 1987 under Sec.302, I.P.C. He prepared Express First Information Report Ex.P-13. He informed the higher Police Officials at Mannachanallur by phone about the incident and gave the copy of First Information Report to the Inspector of Police P.W.13 at the road junction of Samayapuram. He informed the higher Police Officials at Mannachanallur by phone about the incident and gave the copy of First Information Report to the Inspector of Police P.W.13 at the road junction of Samayapuram. On receipt of the First Information Report, the Inspector P.W.13 went to the scene of occurrence at about 6 P.M., and inspected the place of occurrence in the presence of Village Administrative Officer, P.W.8 and one Raghavendran. He prepared Ex.P-5 Observation mahazar and sketch Ex.P-19. He recovered M.O.2 blood-stained earth, M.O.3 sample earth, M.O.4 se-ries-2 chappals. M.O.5 Ever silver jug, M.O.6. Eversilver cup, M.O.7 Five Rupee note, M.O.8 one rupee note from the person of the deceased Amaravathy under P-6 mahazar. On the same day between 7.15 P.M., and 10 P.M., he conducted inquest on the dead body of Amaravathy in the presence of witnesses (i.e.) P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and others and Ex.P-20 is the Inquest Report. P.W.13 thereafter sent the dead body of Amaravathy for post-mortem under Ex.P-3 requisition through P.W.9 constable. 6. On 4. 1987 at 9.30 A.M., P.W.7 Dr.Ravindran attached to Srirangam. Government Hospital, on receiving the requisition, conducted autopsy over the dead body of Amaravathy. In the course of autopsy, the doctor found the following injuries: 1. Lacerated injury of 4 x 2 x 1 c.m. in the occipital region. .(2) Contusion with an abrasion left parietal region 3 x 1 x 1 c.m., above the left ear. .(3) Laceration of right pinna middle 2 x 5 c.m. On internal examination the doctor found subcutaneous haemotoma occipital region about 20 m.l. of clotted blood. Fracture of occipital been transverse 6 x 2 cm., Bilateral, extensive Sub durable clot about 100 m.l. extending tenterially surface of brain congested. Abdomen-viscera was found intact. Pallor of all abdominal viscera was present. The doctor is of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage from the injuries sustained about 18 to 24 hours prior to the post-mortem examination. Ex.P-4 is the Post-mortem certificate. The doctor was of the opinion that external injury No.1 with its corresponding internal injuries is necessarily fatal. 7. At 3.30 P.M., on 4. 1987 P.W.13 arrested the accused at the coconut thope of one Amirtham in the presence of P.W.8 Pugazhendhi and one Raghavendran. At that time the accused gave a statement and the admissible portion of which is Ex.P-7. 7. At 3.30 P.M., on 4. 1987 P.W.13 arrested the accused at the coconut thope of one Amirtham in the presence of P.W.8 Pugazhendhi and one Raghavendran. At that time the accused gave a statement and the admissible portion of which is Ex.P-7. In pursuance of this statement, the accused took the Investigating Officer and the witnesses to Irungalur and produced M.O.1 log from a lorry. At 5.30 P.M., M.O.1 was recovered under Ex.P-8 mahazar. The Inspector sent a requisition to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Lalgudi for sending M.Os.1, 3, 9 to 11, 14 and 15 for chemical examination. Accordingly, M.Os.1, 3, 9 to 11, 14 and 15 were sent for chemical examination along with the covering letter of the Court. The office copy of the covering letter is Ex.P-10. Ex.P-11 is the report of the Chemical Examiner and Ex.P-12 is the Serologist’s report. After examining the other witnesses, P.W.13 filed a final report on 25. 1987 before the Court. 8. When the accused was questioned under Sec.313, Cr.P.C., about the incriminating circumstances made available against him, he denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses in toto. He did not examine any witness on his side. .9. The learned trial Judge after recording the oral evidence of 13 witnesses as well as documentary evidence Exs.P-1 to P-20 and Exs.D-1 and D-2, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and thus convicted him under Sec.302, I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life. The correctness of the said conviction and sentence is questioned in this appeal by the accused. 10. We heard Mr.G.Jawaharlal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. According to the learned counsel, there are a number of discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which to the root of the case and therefore the evidence must be discarded. According to him, there are admittedly a series of incidents in which the Police intervened and warned the deceased not to continue her affair with his father namely Dhanaraj and despite that, the deceased continued her illicit affair with Dhanaraj. According to the learned counsel on noticing Amaravathy talking with his father Dhanaraj. On the date in question, the accused got angry and only due to sudden provocation, he had attacked the deceased. According to the learned counsel on noticing Amaravathy talking with his father Dhanaraj. On the date in question, the accused got angry and only due to sudden provocation, he had attacked the deceased. According to the learned counsel, on the facts of the case, the prosecution assuming for a moment that it had established it’s case, yet the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C., is not made out and the accused has to be punished only for a lesser offence in nature. 11. On the other hand, Mr.Babu Muthu Meeran, Government Advocate, submits that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is convincing, cogent and clear. There are no materials at all whatsoever to disbelieve their evidence and the reasons given by the learned trial Judge are based on acceptable evidence. According to the learned Government Advocate only the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C., is made out and so the gravity of the offence cannot be brought down. .12. We heard the rival contentions of both the parties concerned as well as considered the entire evidence on record. From Ex.P-14 which is the complaint given by the deceased Amaravathy herself to the police on 3. 1987, it is seen that the accused along with his family members have been accusing the deceased in view of her continuous illicit intimacy with his father. In this complaint, the deceased herself has categorically stated that the accused and his family members often threatened to do away her life. On this complaint, the Sub-Inspector of Police called for the parties concerned and ultimately the entire matter was compromised. As a result of the compromise Ex.P-15 had come into existence. In these series of documents the parties, namely the complainant and the accused have given an undertaking that they will not interfere with the affairs of the others and the deceased Amaravathy will not thereafter continue her illicit intimacy with Dhanaraj, the father of the accused. As already stated, even thereafter there was a quarrel between the accused and his father and on the basis of which, Exs.P-17 and P-18 records have come into existence. Even though the quarrel was comprised at the instance of the police, the accused continued to have his all feelings against his father and his concubine. In this background it is possible to infer that the accused was not happy with the deceased Amaravathy, when she was found talking with his father. 13. Even though the quarrel was comprised at the instance of the police, the accused continued to have his all feelings against his father and his concubine. In this background it is possible to infer that the accused was not happy with the deceased Amaravathy, when she was found talking with his father. 13. It is evident that on 4. 1987 the deceased Amaravathy went to the vegetable shop of P.W.1 to offer him coffee. After taking coffee, P. W. 1 advised Amaravathy to go back to his house. While she was on her way back to her house, Dhanaraj called her from the tea shop of P.W.2 and was talking with her. It was not as though they were talking in any secret place, but it was in a public road and in front of the tea shop of P.W.2. It is also in evidence that at that time, the accused who was coming in a cycle, witnessed Amaravathy talking with his father Dhanaraj. Annoyed at this he got down from the cycle and questioned Amaravathy as to how she was talking with his father and so saying, he slapped her. It is also in evidence that Amaravathy immediately fell down and the accused left the place. Ten or fifteen minutes later, as deposed by P.W.3, the accused came back. In the meantime, P. W. 1 had taken his wife with his support to the shop of P.W.3 and she was given water and a little later she regained consciousness, It is in the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 that the accused, who left the scene of occurrence after slapping Amaravathy, came back with M.O.1 in his hand. The accused was searching Amaravathy by entering into every shop to find out whether Amaravathy was there. In that process, he found Amaravathy was in the shop of P.W.3. On seeing her, immediately he entered into the shop and gave a blow on the near of her head with M.O.1 by holding her tuft. Immediately after received the injury Amaravathy came out of the shop of P. W.3 and fell on the road. The accused, who followed her, gave her two more blows with M.O.1 on the rear side of the head. Immediately after received the injury Amaravathy came out of the shop of P. W.3 and fell on the road. The accused, who followed her, gave her two more blows with M.O.1 on the rear side of the head. These blows on the person of the deceased by the accused are corroborated by the medical evidence viz., Post-mortem certificate and the evidence of P.W.7 Amaravathy died instantaneously at the place of occurrence itself. .14. The complaint was lodged within one hour from the time of occurrence before the police on the same day. The investigation was taken on the same day night without any delay. Material witnesses have been examined. The evidence available in this case in the form of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 clearly establish the every act attributed to the accused with reference to the deceased. P.W.2 also speaks about one portion of the occurrence namely that he had witnessed the accused slapping the deceased Amaravathy twice and taking of the deceased by P. W. 1 to the shop of P. W.3. He further says that as he left his tea shop for purchasing some goods, he did not know what had happened subsequently, However, as already stated, regarding the complete overt acts of the accused, there is the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4. No materials whatsoever have been pointed out in their evidence to disbelieve or discredit their evidence. The discrepancy pointed out in their evidence namely that where exactly and how many blows were given to Amaravathy. Whether all the blows were given inside the shop or outside the shop are not of much importance in this case. The fact remains that all the witnesses viz., P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 categorically stated that the accused assaulted on the head of the deceased thrice with M.O.1. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 cannot be impeached at all on any ground much less on the ground of discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. .15. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the offence made out against the accused could not be under Sec.302, I.P.C., but only under Sec.304, Part II I.P.C. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the deceased Amaravathy was persistent in her attitude of continuing her illicit affair with Dhanaraj, the father of the accused. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the offence made out against the accused could not be under Sec.302, I.P.C., but only under Sec.304, Part II I.P.C. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the deceased Amaravathy was persistent in her attitude of continuing her illicit affair with Dhanaraj, the father of the accused. This not only affected the dignity of the family in the village, but also affected the future marriage prospects of his unmarried sister getting married. The learned counsel submits that due to some provocation in the mind of the accused on account of the above he assaulted the deceased, but not with intention to cause her death, and therefore, he would be entitled to the benefits of the exceptions provided under Sec.300, I.P.C. We have carefully considered the submission made by the learned counsel. It is in evidence that since a few months prior to the occurrence, there has been some dispute with regard to the illicit intimacy between the father of the accused and the deceased Amaravathy and that the accused warned the deceased Amaravathy not to continue her affair with his father. In March, 1987 Amaravathy gave a complaint to the police against the accused. It is an admitted fact that the accused did not like the conduct of the deceased Amaravathy and his father Dhanaraj in having illicit affair with each other on the ground that this would affect the entire family members in the village. But it is not a sufficient ground for the accused to have a provocation to attack the deceased Amaravathy on the date of occurrence. It is in evidence that at first the accused on seeing the deceased talking with his father, came there and slapped on her face. Then he left the place. Thereafter he came to the scene of occurrence after 15 minutes with M.O.1, searched for Amaravathy in each and every shop, finally found her in the cycle shop of P. W.3 and attacked her with M.O.1. If really he had the intention, as pleaded by the learned counsel for the appellant, to cause only injury to her, then he could have done so during the time when she questioned her in the tea shop of P.W.2 while she was talking with his father Dhanaraj. If really he had the intention, as pleaded by the learned counsel for the appellant, to cause only injury to her, then he could have done so during the time when she questioned her in the tea shop of P.W.2 while she was talking with his father Dhanaraj. He need not have brought M.O.1 ‘Veli Karuvai’ log which is a deadly weapon, after this incident, that too after a lapse of time. Further, he searched the deceased in each and every shop and ultimately after finding the deceased inside the shop of P.W.3, he gave one blow on the head of the deceased. She ran out and fell on the ground. Not satisfied with the blow, he again gave two more blows on the head. The blows were given on the vital part of the human body. This would clearly indicate that the intention of the accused was to cause such injury on the body of the deceased which is likely to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. So in the present case, there is no evidence available to show that the accused had been suddenly provoked or there was any quarrel between him on the one hand and Amaravathy and Dhanaraj on the other. In the absence of such materials to probabilise any sudden provocation or a quarrel between the parties, the act of the accused on the date of occurrence in causing the fatal injury on the deceased Amaravathy is nothing short of murder. We are unable to accept the submission made by the learned counsel in this regard that the accused had sudden provocation which made him to give the fatal blows as there is no basis for it. For the reasons stated above, we are unable to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel that the accused is entitled to the benefits of any exception provided under Sec.300, I.P.C. 16. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, we are satisfied that the prosecution has proved it’s case beyond all reasonable doubts. We see no reason at all to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.1,3 and 4. It is very natural, convincing, cogent and impressive. The complaint has been laid within a short time after the occurrence and the investigation started immediately thereafter in all promptness. All the material witnesses have been examined on the very same day itself. We see no reason at all to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.1,3 and 4. It is very natural, convincing, cogent and impressive. The complaint has been laid within a short time after the occurrence and the investigation started immediately thereafter in all promptness. All the material witnesses have been examined on the very same day itself. Therefore, there is no question of any deliberation in the mind of the prosecution witnesses to falsely implicate the accused with the commission of the offence. For all the reasons stated above, we hold that the learned trial Judge was correct in convicting the accused for the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C., and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life. We are unable to persuade ourselves to take any different view than the view taken by the learned trial Judge. The finding of guilt rendered by the learned trial Judge is fully supported by acceptable legal evidence. In view of the reasons given above, we hold that there are no merits in this appeal and it fails. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The bail bonds if any, executed by the accused/appellant shall stand cancelled. The judgment dated 210. 1987 in S.C.No.100 of 1987 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli, stands confirmed.