Judgment : N. Arumugham, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, South Arcot District at Cuddalore in S.C. No.27 of 1989, dated 24 and 210. 1989, whereby, finding the appellant/ accused guilty for the offences under Sec.302 on two counts, 326,324 and also 309 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, convicting and sentencing him to life imprisonment under Sec.302, I.P.C. on two counts, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence under Sec.326, I.P.C. and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence under Sec.324, I.P.C. However, no separate sentence was awarded for the offence under Sec.309, I.P.C. All the sentence are to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case as culled out from the case records in the appeal is stated as hereunder: The accused by name, Kalivaradhan belongs to the Village Sendur near Mailam in Tindivanam taluk. P.W.2 Savithri is his wife and the first deceased by name,, Karthikeyan aged about 4 years and the second de-; ceased by name, Kalaiarasi aged about 12 years and P.W.4 Kathiravan aged about 10 years are their children. The accused is doing rickshaw pulling work at Madras, leaving his family at Sendur and he used to send money often for their maintenance out of his earnings and he used to visit his family frequently. P.W.2 Savithri, the wife of the accused belongs to Avudayarpattu. During the course of the absence of her husband, P.W.2 used to go to her parents’ house at Avudayarpattu for the purpose of eking out her livelihood and return back to her husband’s house at Sendur with her children. One Manoharan is the son of P.W.2’s maternal uncle and he is living at Avudayarpattu Village. In this backdrop whenever the accused used to visit his Village, he developed suspicion over the fidelity and character of his wife with the said Manoharan which was however denied by P. W.2. In view of the above suspicion, bickerrings and wordy quarrel between the accused and P.Ws. emerged out very often. It was, in this background on 26. 1988 the accused had been to Avudayarpattu Village and brought his wife and children to his Village at Sendur. In view of the above suspicion, bickerrings and wordy quarrel between the accused and P.Ws. emerged out very often. It was, in this background on 26. 1988 the accused had been to Avudayarpattu Village and brought his wife and children to his Village at Sendur. At about 7.00 p.m., on that day, following the wordy quarrel erupted among P.W.2 and the accused, the accused pulled P.W.2 and beat her. Thereafter, he took M.O.3 knife from his waist and stabbed his son Karthikeyan, the first deceased, twice on his body and caused bleeding injuries. Following the same, he stabbed Kalaiarasi, the second deceased, his daughter, on her chest and stomach, with the result, both the children fell down with bleeding injuries and became unconscious, among whom Karthikeyan died on the spot. When P.W.2 tried to intervene, the accused assaulted P.W.2 also with the knife and then, another son P. W.4 was assaulted with knife by the accused and caused bleeding injuries. After assaulting others, the accused stabbed himself with the same knife of his abdomen and attempted to commit suicide and due to bleeding injury, he became unconscious. The entire occurrence was witnessed by P.W.2, the injured wife and P.W.3, a village menial who is the neighbour and P. W.4 another injured son of the accused with the light flooded from the electric post situate at about 35 feet away from the scene of occurrence as evidenced from Ex.P-19 rough sketch. The surrounding portion of the accused’s house was occupied by the brother of the accused and his father. 3. Mention at this stage has become necessary about the conduct of both the accused and P.W.2, the husband and wife. As referred to above, though the accused was doing rickshaw pulling work at Madras, he used to visit his family at Sendur frequently and during his non-visit, he used to send money-order to P.W.2 for family expenses arid with that money, she was eking out her livelihood along with her children. When P.W.4 was aged about 3, the accused in a drunken brawl drove P.W.2 away from his house which made her to go to her mother’s house at Avudayarpattu Village and lived there for about 1 1/ 2 years. When P.W.4 was aged about 3, the accused in a drunken brawl drove P.W.2 away from his house which made her to go to her mother’s house at Avudayarpattu Village and lived there for about 1 1/ 2 years. During that so journ, since she had no wherewithal to live, she pledged her ‘thali’ and thereby she maintained herself, but however, she could not redeem it, and the brother of P.W.2 and Manoharan, referred to already, redeemed the said thali. When the accused questioned about thali, she told him that while she was taking bath, in a nearby tank, it was found missing. When again she pledged the thali when the accused left her for Madras, since Manoharan told him about the redemption of the thali, the accused came to his village and asked his wife P.W.2 to beat Manoharan with broom stick for which P.W.2 appears to have replied that she was prepared to beat Manoharan with broomstick provided the accused should give up the habit of drinking. Then, on a Thursday prior to the occurrence, both the accused and P.W.2 had been to Avudayarpattu Village where also the accused had gone under the influence of the liquor. Because the accused was under the influence of liquor, P.W.2 did not comply with her words by beating Manoharan with broomstick. Therefore, the accused having beat P.W.2 and taking Karthikeyan, the first deceased with him, left for his Village Sendur. Then, on the subsequent Saturday at about 1.00 p.m., the accused had been to Avudayarpattu Village and brought P.W.2 and other children to his own house and thus, the accused and his family in its entirety reached Sendur on the fateful evening. When the children were lying in the front vasal of his house, the accused took wordy quarrel with his wife P.W.2 and by saying that no one should live, took M.O.3 knife and committed the overt acts above referred to. 4. P.W.3, while returning home after duty under P.W.1 at about 7.00 p.m. had seen the wordy quarrel started by the accused with his wife P.W.2 and the overt acts, in all details, done by the accused, on the children, wife and himself. P.W.3 also saw the knife M.O.3 falling down nearby. After having seen the occurrence, P.W.3 had been to P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer and informed about the occurrence at about 7.30 p.m. on that day. P.W.3 also saw the knife M.O.3 falling down nearby. After having seen the occurrence, P.W.3 had been to P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer and informed about the occurrence at about 7.30 p.m. on that day. On getting information P.W. 1 had been to the place of occurrence and verified in person with regard to what he was informed and then, he reduced into writing the narration made by P.W.3 to him and having left P.W.3 in the place of occurrence, he had been to Mailam police station in cycle and gave the complaint Ex.P-1 to P.W.9 Sub Inspector of Police at about 9.30 p.m. On the basis of the said complaint P.W.9 the Sub Inspector of Police registered the case in his police Station Crime No.45/88 as for the offences under Secs.326,307,302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code, and prepared Ex.P-18 printed first information report and he sent Exs.P-1 and P-18 to his higher Officials and to the court. Then, he gave information to the Inspector of Police through mike van. Then, he had been to Sendur Village at about 10.00 p.m. on that day and sent Kalaiarasi, P.W.2 and P.W.4 to the hospital for treatment along with Ex.P-16 memo and he remained in the place of occurrence itself. 5. P.W.10, the Inspector of Police, Vikravandi Police Station, after having received the intimation about the registration of the case at about 11.30 p.m. on that day, had reached the spot by 12.00 midnight and stayed there during the night. At about 6.30 a.m. on 26. 1978 morning, he prepared the observation mahazar of the scene of crime in the presence of one Purusothaman and the observation mahazar has been marked as Ex.P-2, attested by the said Purusothaman. The rough sketch prepared by him was marked as Ex.P-19. Then, in the presence of the same witness, at about 7.30 a.m., he recovered M.O.1 blood stained earth, and M.O.2 sample earth under the mahazar Ex.P-3 attested by the same witness. At about 8.00 a.m. on the same day, he recovered M.O.3 blood stained knife from the scene of occurrence under the cover of mahazar Ex.P-4, attested by the same witness. Between 8.00 a.m. and 10.15 a.m. on that day, he conducted the inquest over the dead body of Karthikeyan on the spot itself in the presence of Panchayatdars and witnesses and prepared inquest report Ex.P-20 by examining the witnesses. Between 8.00 a.m. and 10.15 a.m. on that day, he conducted the inquest over the dead body of Karthikeyan on the spot itself in the presence of Panchayatdars and witnesses and prepared inquest report Ex.P-20 by examining the witnesses. After the inquest was over, P.W.10 sent the dead body of Karthikeyan to the Government Hospital, Tindivanam with Ex.P-5 requisition to conduct autopsy. 6. P.W.5 Dr.Kasinathan, attached to Government Hospital, Tindivanam on receipt of the requisition Ex.P-5, conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of Karthikeyan at about 10.50 a.m. on that day, During the autopsy, he found the following injuries upon the dead body: .(1) An elliptical stab wound with clean cut margin 3 cm. x 1 cm. x depth of which ascertained later, 5 cm. below the epigastric region and 7 cms. above the umblicus on the left side of midline of abdomen. .(2) Contusion left parietal region 3 cm. x 2 cm. .(3) Ant bitten marks seen on the limbs and chest. .(4) A stab injury with clean cut margin right hypochandrium 2 cm. x 1 cm. x depth of which ascertained later. .(5) On opening the abdomen in continuation with injury No.1, a hole seen in the posterior aspect of the anterior abdominal wall 4 cm. x 3 cm. .(6) On further dissection in continuation with injury No.5, showed a puncture 3 cm. x 2 cm. in the small intestine and corresponding puncture 3 cm. x 2 cm. in the descending aerta. .(7) On opening the abdominal wall corresponding the injury No.4, a hole seen in the posterior aspect of the anterior abdominal wall 3 cm. x 2 cm. Stomach contained undigested rice particles about 100 grams. Mucosa normal. No definite smell. Liver, lungs, kidneys-pale, Heart: Right side full. Left side empty. Hyoid bone: intact. Bladder-empty. Skull and brain: Normal. Peritoneal cavity contained full of fluid blood with clots. He was of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injuries 1 to 7 sustained by him, between 17 and 20 hours prior to the autopsy. Ex.P-6 is the post-mortem examination certificate given by him. Bladder-empty. Skull and brain: Normal. Peritoneal cavity contained full of fluid blood with clots. He was of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injuries 1 to 7 sustained by him, between 17 and 20 hours prior to the autopsy. Ex.P-6 is the post-mortem examination certificate given by him. He would say that injuries 5 to 7 are the internal injuries corresponding to the external injuries and particularly, internal injuries 5 and 6 are corresponding to external injury No.l and internal injury No.7 is corresponding to external injury No.4 and injuries 1, 4 and 7 could have been caused by a weapon like M.O.3. According to him, external injury No.l with its corresponding internal injuries is likely to cause death is the ordinary course of nature. 7. After the autopsy was over, M.O.4 shirt and M.O.5 half pant were taken from the dead body by the postmortem escort constable and handed over to the police station under Form 95. 8. At about 11.15 p.m. on 26. 1988 Dr.Ali Sultan having received the medical memo sent by the Sub Inspector of Police, Mailam police station examined the accused and found the following injuries: Intestinal loope proclapsing out through stab wound. On the abdominal wall in the left side of anterior aspect. No bleeding. Incised wound interior abodminal wall, peritonium deep, in midline supra umblical 3 cm. x 2 cm. with loops of bowel prolapsing out. Perforation of prolapsed wound. He was of the opinion that the injury found upon the person was grievous in nature. He would say further that when the accused was brought, though his condition of the body was good, he was not in a position to speak. He would say that the above injuries could have been caused by self-infliction. When he expressed his opinion, the accused did not say anything. However, he made a reference in Ex.P-13. He would say further that the injury could have been caused, at 7.00 p.m. on 26. 1988. He referred the patient for further treatment to JIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry. P. W.8, on the receipt of the police memo at about 11.15 p.m. on 26. 1988 examined P.W.4 and during that time, P.W.4 has stated that at about 7.00 p.m. on 26. 1988 his father stabbed him. Then, P.W.8 noted the following conditions: Pulse weak. B.P. not recordable. 1988. He referred the patient for further treatment to JIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry. P. W.8, on the receipt of the police memo at about 11.15 p.m. on 26. 1988 examined P.W.4 and during that time, P.W.4 has stated that at about 7.00 p.m. on 26. 1988 his father stabbed him. Then, P.W.8 noted the following conditions: Pulse weak. B.P. not recordable. Abdominal content of stomach and omentum has come out in the left side of the epigastrium, the lump measuring about 6 cm. and 5 cm. in diameter. He would say that the above injury was grievous in nature and could have been caused by a weapon like M.O.3 at about 7.00 p.m. 26. 1988. Ex.P-14 is the wound certificate given by him. 9. P.W.8 on receipt of police memo at about 11.30 p.m. on 26. 1988 examined P.W.2 said to have been attached with knife by her husband at about 7.00 p.m. on that day, examined and noted the following injuries: 1. Lacerated injury at the left cheek 3 cm. x 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. 2. Lacerated injury at the left ear at the posterior aspect 2 cm. x 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. He was of the opinion that the above injuries are simple in nature. The accident register copy was marked as Ex.P-15. He is of the opinion that the said injuries could have been caused by blunt portion of M.O.3 at about 7.00 p.m. on that day. Ex.P-16 is the police memo regarding P.Ws.2 and 4. At about 11.00 p.m. on 26. 1988, he gave treatment to Kalaiarasi who was brought to the hospital with Ex.P-16. It was stated then that Kalaiarasi was injured by her father at about 7.00 p.m. on 26. 1988. On his examination, P.W.8 found the following injuries: 1. Stab injury on the right side of chest 3 cm. x 2 cm. x 1/2 cm. 2. Stab injury in the left side of the abdomen near umblicus of 3 cm. x 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. Copy of the accident register regarding Kalaiarasi was marked as Ex.P-17. P.W.8 was of the opinion that the injury No. 1 in the said document is grievous in nature and the other one is simple in nature and both would have been caused at about 7.00 p.m. on that day by a weapon like M.O.3. 10. x 1/2 cm. Copy of the accident register regarding Kalaiarasi was marked as Ex.P-17. P.W.8 was of the opinion that the injury No. 1 in the said document is grievous in nature and the other one is simple in nature and both would have been caused at about 7.00 p.m. on that day by a weapon like M.O.3. 10. After Kalaiarasi was admitted in JIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry for further treatment, at about 2.45 a.m. on 26. 1988 she passed away. P.W.10 had been to JIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry on 26. 1988 and conducted inquest over the dead body of Kalaiarasi between 10 a.m. and 12.00 noon and prepared the inquest report Ex.P-21. He examined P.W.3, Ayyavoo, Thulasi Ammal and Krishnan and he sent the body for autopsy with the requisition Ex.P-7 to the hospital. On receipt of the said requisition, P. 2.W.6 Doctor Sheriff noted the following injuries upon the dead body of Kalaiarasi; 1. A stab wound present over the left side of front of abdomen 3 cms. away and 1 cm: above the umblicus 1.5 cm. 1 cm. x cavity deep, oblique margins were clean cut with upper angle semilunar, lower angle acute. 2. A stab wound roughly ‘L’ shaped situated over the right nipple 1.5 cms. and 1 cm. x 1/2 cm. in width x cavity deep margins were clean cut upper angle semilunar, lower angle acute. 3. An abrasion present ever the middle of right side of neck 2 cms. away from midline, oblique 1.5 cm. x 1 cm. situated 3 cms. above the inner end of left collar bone covered by dried blood. 4. An abrasion present over the back of lower and of right upper arm and over the elbow 4 cm. into 1.5 cm. covered by dried blood. Internal injuries: (a) The right 3rd intercostal muscle was seen completely cut in the 3rd intercostal space adjacent to the parasternal margin leaving a gap of 3 cms. x 1/2 cm. roughly oval. The cartilagenous part of 4th and 5th ribs were seen clean cut 1/2 cm. away from parasternal region on the right side. The underlying pleura is also seen cut. The right pleural cavity shows 400° c. of fluid blood mixed clots, (b) There was a stab wound over the anterior surface of lower lobe of right lung in its lower half cutting through and through 1 cm. x 1/4 cm. x 2.5 cm. away from parasternal region on the right side. The underlying pleura is also seen cut. The right pleural cavity shows 400° c. of fluid blood mixed clots, (b) There was a stab wound over the anterior surface of lower lobe of right lung in its lower half cutting through and through 1 cm. x 1/4 cm. x 2.5 cm. in size (c) Diaphragm covering the upper part of liver at the junction of its right and left lobes is seen cut obliquely 2 cms. x 1/2 cm. (d) A stab wound present over the upper surface of liver at the junction of its right and left lobes, 1.5 cm. x 1/2 cm. x 1 cm. The margins of all the above stab wounds were clean cut. All the injuries were antemortem in nature. All other internal organs were pale. Ex.P-8 is the post-mortem examination certificate given by the doctor. He was of the opinion that the internal injuries noted by him upon the body of Kalaiarasi are all corresponding to the external injury No.2. External injuries 3 and 4, according to him, could have been caused by coming into contact with rough surface and external injury No.1 is simple in nature. However, he was firm in saying that external injury No.2 with all its corresponding internal injuries is likely to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The same doctor during the course of his examination has also claimed that external injuries Nos.3 and 4 could have been possible by coming into contact with rough surface and other injuries are not possible by double-edged sharp weapon. We have referred to this portion of the opinion of the doctor in order to meet the defence thesis projected on behalf of the learned counsel for the accused. He would say further that the above injuries could not have been caused by a weapon like M.O.3, but, could have been caused by a single edged weapon with a breadth of 2cm. and injury No.1 have been caused by a weapon like M.O.3. 11. P.W.10 examined some more witnesses on 26. 1988 and on26. 1988 he examined Manoharan of Avudayarpattu and the witnesses P.Ws.5 and 6 on the next day. At about 10.00 p.m. on 7. 1988, he arrested the accused in the bus stop opposite the JIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry. and injury No.1 have been caused by a weapon like M.O.3. 11. P.W.10 examined some more witnesses on 26. 1988 and on26. 1988 he examined Manoharan of Avudayarpattu and the witnesses P.Ws.5 and 6 on the next day. At about 10.00 p.m. on 7. 1988, he arrested the accused in the bus stop opposite the JIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry. Then, he sent Ex.P-9 requisition to the court for subjecting M.Os.1 to 5 to Chemical examination on 27. 1988. M.Os.1 to 5 were sent for chemical examination by P.W.7 along with the original of Ex.P-10 covering letter. Exs.P-11 and P-12 are the chemical examiner’s report and serologist’s report received. This situation is fortified by the evidence of P.W.7, the court head Clerk. On obtaining the wound certificates on 11. 1988, he completed the investigation by examining further witnesses and laid the charge sheet on 30.11.1988 against the accused which reached the court on 212. 1988. 12. When the accused was questioned under Sec.313(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of the incriminating portion of the evidence made available against him through the prosecution witnesses, he has denied his complicity in toto. However, he submitted a written statement, wherein, he has stated that the case of the prosecution is a false one and his wife had an illicit connection with one Manoharan of Avudayarpattu Village and he condemned her for doing so. Further he has stated that his wife had sold away her thali through the said Manoharan and with the sale consideration, both were living happily and when he questioned about the thali, the said Manoharan was in his house at Sendur and he asked Manoharan as to why he spoiled his family and picked up a wordy quarrel with him and Manoharan stabbed the accused on his stomach and then, the accused fainted, and then, Manoharan stabbed his wife and children with the knife and the entire case has been foisted against him falsely. Though pleaded so, he examined no witnesses on his behalf, but however marked three documents on his side, Ex.D-1 Form 95 prepared by the investigating Officer for recovering M.Os.4 and 5, Ex.D-2 another Form 95 prepared to recover M.O.3 and Ex.D-3 another Form 95 prepared to recover M.Os.1 and 2. .13. Though pleaded so, he examined no witnesses on his behalf, but however marked three documents on his side, Ex.D-1 Form 95 prepared by the investigating Officer for recovering M.Os.4 and 5, Ex.D-2 another Form 95 prepared to recover M.O.3 and Ex.D-3 another Form 95 prepared to recover M.Os.1 and 2. .13. Having considered the oral testimonies of 10 witnesses, 21 documents Exs.P-1 to P-21 with five material objects marked on the side of the prosecution and three documents Exs.D-1 to D-3 marked on the side of the accused, in the context of the rival contentions, learned trial Judge found the accused guilty as the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offences under Sec.302 (two counts), under Sec.326 instead of Sec.307 (Part II), under Sec.324 instead of Sec.307 (Part II) and under Sec.309 of the Indian Penal Code and consequently awarded this quantum of sentence referred to supra by rendering the impugned judgment and it is, this judgment being challenged in this appeal for its correctness and legality. 14. We have heard the arguments advanced by the bar on behalf of the appellant/ accused challenging the correctness and validity of the impugned judgment and in contra, justifying the impugned judgment, by the learned Public Prosecutor. .15. While attacking the impugned judgment, Mr.K.V. Sridharan,learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following four points: (i) There is a considerable delay in sending the first information report by P.W.1 as well as by the police to the court and the date seal of the court of the Judicial Magistrate put in the first information report causes great doubt and there is delay for more than 3 days and such a delay is very vital which goes to the root of the prosecution as it remains unexplained by the prosecution in any manner, (ii) There are three eye-witnesses in this case, among whom two are injured and the second injured witness P.W.4 could not be believed as his evidence shatters the prosecution claim and his evidence is that the so-called person by name, Manoharan has caused all injuries to him, his sister, brother and father and this is in direct conflict with the claim made by P.Ws.2 and 3. (iii) For all the injuries found upon the body of the deceased kalaiarasi, the evidence of the doctor, P.W.6 seems to be very positive that the injury No.2 with corresponding internal injuries could not have been caused by a weapon like M.O.3, considering the breadth and length of the opening part of the injury. P.W.6 has claimed that those injuries could have been caused by a single edged weapon and not M.O.3. This is the vital part of the evidence made available in support of the accused (iv) Learned Counsel contended that in the absence of the production of Ex.P-16 which, ought to have been sent by the police to the court along with Exs.P-13, P-14 and P-15, in the context of the defence documents Exs.D-1 to D-3, there is a grave doubt made available which shakes the prosecution version. Raising the above four points, learned Counsel also fervently added that the accused had been subjected to sustained provocation by P. W.2 by her acts, i.e., having pledged her thali, having gone to Avudayarpattu, her parents’ Village and having illicit intimacy with Manoharan which made the accused to lose his temper and therefore, it is a case of sustained provocation. By raising the above contentions, learned counsel wants to give the benefit of doubt to the accused. .16. Controverting the above contentions, Mr.R. Shanmugasundaram, learned Public Prosecutor contended that in scrutinising Exs.D-1 to D-3 with the signature subscribed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and the court seal, it can be safely found that there was no delay in sending the case records to the court and that the first information report in this case has reached the court on the next day and all the injured witnesses including the deceased were seen and treated on the same night itself in the hospital and therefore, there was no delay in lodging the first information report. Secondly, learned Public Prosecutor would reply that the evidence of P.W.4 can tilt the balance on either way for the reasoning that during chief examination, he has supported the prosecution case in full, but however, in the cross-examination, P.W.4 has admitted that as instructed by his father he has nodded for each and every question put to him by the counsel for the accused and therefore, if the evidence of P.W.4 as a whole is eschewed or accepted, the prosecution case in no respect would suffer from any vices for the very reasoning that the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 remains as rock and substantiates the prosecution case as a whole. Even after searching cross-examination of P. W.2. One of the injured at the hands of the accused, and P.W.3, a stranger, but however, the neighbour of the accused, who claimed and narrated the sequence of the occurrence happened with the specific overt acts of the accused, the evidence is overwhelming, very cogent, natural and convincing and cannot be suspected and therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the prosecution has succeeded in its mission of proving the complicity of the accused. Learned Public Prosecutor has reiterated that what the doctors opinion with regard to injury No.2 with its corresponding internal injuries found on the body of the deceased kalaiarasi cannot be accepted for the reasoning of the very same nature breadth and depth of the injury found upon the dead body as given by him which warrant a general view to the naked eye that it could have been caused by a weapon like M.O.2 and the answer given by P.W.6 doctor during his cross-examination is mere a catch answer bearing no nexus or relevancy to the factual aspects of the instant case, Lastly, with regard to sustained provocation, learned Public Prosecutor has doubly denounced the existence of the thesis is sustained provocation’ in this case for want of any evidence at all. 17. 17. In the context of the above rival positions, the only question that remains to be seen by us is whether the prosecution has succeeded in its mission of establishing the complicity of the accused in causing the death of two persons by name, Karthikeyan and Kalaiarasi and causing injuries to P.Ws.2 and 4 as well as causing injuries found upon his body himself and if so, whether the appeal canvassed by and on behalf of the appellant is sustainable? 18. The fact that both the deceased and P.Ws.2 and 4 are the members of one family viz., wife, daughter and some of the accused and were living at Sendur Village and the accused was doing his profession at Madras by pulling rickshaw, visiting frequently to the village and his family and during his absence in the interregnum, he used to send money to P.W.2, his wife and his children for their livelihood very often, is not in controversy and not in dispute among the parties herein. Likewise, the very fact that the accused used to have the habit of drinking liquor and in that mood, he used to pick-up quarrel with his wife is also not in dispute. In the similar manner, he used to beat his wife by picking up quarrel with her. If we peruse the whole testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the investigating Officer, it has to be noticed that the accused used to suspect the very fidelity of P. W.2 over her alleged illicit intimacy with Manoharan of Avudayarpattu Village. It is also the case of the prosecution that whenever P.W.2 failed to get money from the accused, she used to suffer for the daily livelihood with her children and therefore, she used to go to Avudayarpattu Village and because of the beating and quarrelling with the accused, P.W.2 had been driven away to Avudayarpattu Village where she lived for a duration of 1 1/2 years and during the said period, she pledged her thali itself to maintain herself. It is also in the evidence that the accused was having the habit of beating his wife P.W.2 very often and quarrelling with her in drunken mood. The sole reasoning for the mishappening is that he suspected her fidelity with the said Manoharan. It is also in the evidence that the accused was having the habit of beating his wife P.W.2 very often and quarrelling with her in drunken mood. The sole reasoning for the mishappening is that he suspected her fidelity with the said Manoharan. It is also in evidence that on the date of occurrence, the accused insisted his wife to beat the said Manoharan with broomstick, for which P.W.2 retorted by saying that she would beat him provided he gives up the drinking habit, but however, on that day, having seen the accused coming in drunken mood, she failed to do so which erupted in wordy quarrel and in the evening he went and took P.W.2 and his family to Sendur where also at about 7.00 p.m. on 26. 1988 he picked up a wordy quarrel and ultimately took the knife M.O.3, from his waist and stabbed his son, the first deceased, his daughter, the second deceased, his another son P.W.4 and his wife P.W.2 and lastly stabbed himself to commit suicide. It is in the evidence that the accused himself has proclaimed, no one should survive’ and having so said, he has assaulted everybody with the result, his son, Karthikeyan and daughter Kalaiarasi have sccumbed to their injuries the former, instantaneously and the latter subsequently at JIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry, as spoken to by the doctor. 19. The above aspects of the case are considered very carefully and meticulously. It has been clearly established that the first deceased Karthikeyan and the second deceased Kalaiarasi, both the children of the accused and P. W.2 were done to death by homicidal violence at about 7.00 p.m. on 26. 1988 and also P.Ws.2 and 4 were assaulted with the lethal weapon like M.O.3 at the same place and time as claimed by the prosecution. It is seen that the accused also with grievous injury required treatment given at JIPMER Hospital, Pondicherry as evidenced by the Doctor. The only fact remains that the injuries found upon the accused, P.Ws.2 and 4 could have been caused by the violent attack that took place at about 7.00 p.m. on 26. 1988 and two homicidal deaths also happened at the same time. There cannot be any dispute or controversy with regard to this. The only fact remains that the injuries found upon the accused, P.Ws.2 and 4 could have been caused by the violent attack that took place at about 7.00 p.m. on 26. 1988 and two homicidal deaths also happened at the same time. There cannot be any dispute or controversy with regard to this. The only question that remains is whether the complicity of the accused in causing two homicidal death of two persons, simple injuries to P.W.2, and grievous injury caused to P.W.4 and himself has been established or not. 20. As discussed by the learned trial Judge, the evidence of ocular witness P.W.2, one of the victims who sustained injuries in the violent attack of the accused, coupled with the independent witness P.W.3, in narrating the entire facts in sequence seem to be natural, cogent and convincing and nothing is available to suspect their evidence in any form or to reject or to disbelieve their evidence in toto. In so far as the other ocular witness P.W.4 is concerned, though he is aged about 10, he supported the prosecution case during the chief-examination, but in the cross examination, he has stated in one sentence that all the injuries were caused by Manoharan. It is also to be noticed that he has stated so as his father requested him to speak so. The boy of 10 years old, brought to the court to give evidence from the custody of his mother for some time and his father for some time seems to have contributed equally by saying for his mother at one time and later for his father. It is well-settled by now, the testimony of the hostile witness should not be rejected in toto and if the court finds such portion of his version is believable, the court can place conviction by relying upon the said portion of the evidence of the hostile witness. Keeping in view the said principle, if the evidence of P.W.4 is meticulously perused, considering his age factor and the circumstances that he was in the custody of his mother for some time and father for some time, and particularly, the injuries found upon his person as claimed by P.Ws.2 and 3 and corroborated by the doctor, we find that the version of P.W.4 has added further strength and substantiation to the prosecution case and the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3. Therefore, with regard to the complicity of the accused in causing the violent attack upon the first and send deceased and the injured P.Ws.2 and 4 and also upon himself, we believe the prosecution case in its entirety as observed by the trial Judge. 21. Coming to the medical evidence, we are not in a position to suspect or discredit the medical evidence made available by the prosecution in the instant case. One aspect, as relied upon by the learned counsel, with regard to the evidence of P.W.6 is the discrepancy as to the injuries found on the deceased Kalaiarasi. We do not want to attach any legal credence to this aspect for the reasoning that when the doctor himself has given the breadth and length and the nature of the injuries with clean cut on either side, then, it is not known under what basis the doctor has given evidence in the cross-examination that injury No.2 with its corresponding internal injuries could have been caused by a single edged weapon. If such injury was caused with single edged weapon, then both sides of the injury could not have been seen alike to be clear cut. Therefore, the opinion of the doctor P. W.6 who did autopsy over the dead body of Kalaiarasi as elicited in his cross-examination is hereby rejected as unnatural and cannot be believed and it is only a catch answer elicited during different contexts. Hence, we believe the doctor’s opinion and evidence supporting the prosecution as it has full corroboration and substantiation of eye-witnesses in this case. 22. Coming to the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, we are totally unable to accept the same for the simple reasoning that there is no delay in lodging the first information on report and in setting the law in motion. Admittedly, the occurrence is said to have taken place at about 7.00 p.m. on 26. 1988 in Sendur Village in front of the house of the accused. Admittedly, the occurrence is said to have taken place at about 7.00 p.m. on 26. 1988 in Sendur Village in front of the house of the accused. After seeing the occurrence, P.W.3 the neighbour of the accused had been to P.W.1, his master, the Village Administrative Officer and informed him as to what had happened and the Village Administrative Officer, in turn, had been to the second of crime and fortified what his menial had informed and thereafter, he recorded everything in writing and reached Mailam police station, which is about 5 kilometers away from the scene at about 9.30 p.m. and Ex.P-18 the printed first information report prepared by the Sub Inspector of Police and it has been despatched along with Ex.P-1, which reached the court next day morning, that is, on 26. 1988 as evidenced from the initials made by the learned Judicial Magistrate in his own handwriting and the time when it reached was 10.00 a.m. The court seal however does not relate to that date, but it relates to only 30th, which is taken as a shield of defence by the learned counsel for the appellant by stating that the first information report did not reach the Court on the next day. But, it is stated that the court staff were on strike and so, the court seal of the court could not have been affixed on that day itself. At this juncture, we are not inclined to take that there is any delay, much less any inordinate delay in settling the law in motion or there is any delay in the first information report reaching the court. From the moment the occurrence had happened, everything has done properly with quite succession. The law was set in motion and the first information report reached the court at proper time. Hence, for the said reasoning, we reject the first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. 23. Regarding the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, for the reasoning given above already, we are unable to endorse the same also. Regarding the third contention, after having perused the entire case records in original, we accept the contention made by the leaned Public Prosecutor in this case and accordingly, we reject the arguments advanced by Mr.K.V.Sridharan on this score. Such contention also deserves to be rejected as it has no force at all. Regarding the third contention, after having perused the entire case records in original, we accept the contention made by the leaned Public Prosecutor in this case and accordingly, we reject the arguments advanced by Mr.K.V.Sridharan on this score. Such contention also deserves to be rejected as it has no force at all. The defence theory formulated by and on behalf of the appellant/ accused does not survive for the very reasoning that it lacks every significance or link or any legal credence. It is an attempt made by the accused in order to have an escape from the clutches of the law and from the sin committed by him. If we believe the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 as well as P.W.4 as the medical evidence corroborates and substantiates the same, we have to necessarily reject the case and the explanation given by the accused. Lastly, as rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, there is no material or iota of evidence made available in this case or brought out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to accept the concept of sustained provocation in this case. 24. It is a case which is purely out of malice-influenced mind. It is seen that the accused had gone to Avudayarpattu and invited his wife P.W.2 and children and came to his house. While the children were sleeping in the front vasal of the house, again he picked up a wordy quarrel at about 7.00 p.m. with his wife followed by the assault made by him on his wife and children with the lethal weapon like M.O.3. If the target of the accused was P.W.2 his wife for the reasoning of his suspicion upon her fidelity, then one would expect that the accused would have attacked only P.W.2 and we find no reason at all for the accused to attack first his children, the deceased Karthikeyan, the deceased Kalaiarasi and the injured P.W.4 and lastly his wife P.W.2 and that too, caused minor injuries to her. From the nature of injuries and the manner of assault perpetrated by the accused as spoken to by the prosecution, we are fully satisfied and convinced that the complicity of the accused in causing homicidal violence against the deceased karthikeyan and the deceased Kalaiarasi and grievous injuries against P.W.4 and against himself and simple injuries on P.W.2 has been clearly established by the prosecution and we endorse our view with the findings of the learned trial Judge which have been arrived at after elaborate discussion of the evidence and as such, we find no merits in this appeal and accordingly, it is liable to be dismissed. 25. In the result, for all the foregoing reasonings, the appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned trial Judge in S.C. No.27 of 1989, dated 24 and 210. 1989 is hereby confirmed and maintained.