Judgment : T. JAYARAMA CHOUTA, J. ( 1 ) THE Appellant Velan has been convicted for an offence of murder of his wife Periammal by the Principal Sessions Judge. Periyar District. Erode in S. C. No. 83 of 1988 and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment of life by judgment dated 21/11/1988. The said conviction and sentence have been challenged in this criminal appeal. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case in brief is as follows: the appellant Velan belongs to Vethilakkavu community. He married Periammal a girl from other community. They lived happily for sometime. When the appellant was suspecting the fidelity of his wife there was frequent quarrel between husband and wife and on one occasion the appellant had destroyed the hut in which his deceased wife was residing and made her to live with her parents. ( 3 ) ON 23-12-1987 at about 4-45 p. m. at Iyyer Thottam the deceased had gone to pick up firewood. In the morning, PWs 1 to 3 and one Selvam had gone to graze the cattle and they returned. In the evening again they went to Pankadu to bring the cattle back, they heard the sound from the said Iyyer Thottam. They went and saw, the appellant cutting his wife with Veechi Aruval. P. W. 1 went to the police Station and lodged a complaint as per Ex. PT with Sub-Inspector of Police. P. W. 13 at 7 p. m. who registered a case in Crime No. 665/87 under Section 302 I. P. C. P. W. 13 took up the investigation, proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared observation Mahazar Ex.- P3 and made rough sketch Ex. P22 in the presence of P. W. 5 under a Mahazar EX. P. 6. He also seized M. Os. 1 to 4 under Ex. P. 4 in the presence of P. W. 5 P. W. 13 conducted inquest on the dead body on 24-12-1987 between 7 a. m. and 10 a. m. as per Ex. P. 13. During the course of inquest he recorded the statements of some witnesses and made an arrangement for autopsy on the dead body as per Ex. P7 through a police constable. The Doctor. P. W. 16 went to the spot and commenced the postmortem on 24-12-1987 at 3 p. m. and noticed the following injuries:1. P. 13. During the course of inquest he recorded the statements of some witnesses and made an arrangement for autopsy on the dead body as per Ex. P7 through a police constable. The Doctor. P. W. 16 went to the spot and commenced the postmortem on 24-12-1987 at 3 p. m. and noticed the following injuries:1. A TLT shaped incised wound with clear cut edges seen on the left side of the face. The upper part of the wound is 7 cm x 2cm x 2 cm in size. situated obliquely extending from the upper para of the left ear up to 3 cm. lateral from the angle of the mouth left side. The lower part of the wound is 13cm x 4 cm x 2 cm in size situated horizontally extending from 3 cm lateral from the angle of the mouth in left side crossing the lower part of the left ear up to the upper part of the neck. The ear lobule is missing. Deep structures and muscles were cut off. But no bone is cut off. 2. A spindle shaped penetrated incised wound with clear cut edges seen on the left side of the anterior abdominal wall of 25 cm x 12 cm penetrating the abdominal wall, situated horizontally extending from the midline at the level of the umbilicus upto left loin. Through which the distended small intestinal loops were protruding out. 3. A spindle shaped perpetrated incised wound with clear cut edges seen on the back of the left side of the chest of 15 cm x 4 cm x penetrating the chest wall. It extends obliquely in the left infra scapular region crossing the midline, 13 cm of the wound is situated on the left side of the midline. 2 cm on the right side of the midline deep muscles were cut off a clear cut injury of the left 8th rib 4 cm lateral com midline is noted. 4. An incised wound of 7 cm x 3 cm clear cut edges seen on the back of the lower 1/3 of the left forearm 3 cm above the left wrist. Deep muscles and structures are seen. Left hand is hanging, clear cut injury of left ulna and left radius is noted at the point. 5. 4. An incised wound of 7 cm x 3 cm clear cut edges seen on the back of the lower 1/3 of the left forearm 3 cm above the left wrist. Deep muscles and structures are seen. Left hand is hanging, clear cut injury of left ulna and left radius is noted at the point. 5. An incised wound with clear cut injuries of 2 cm x 1 cm present on the palmar aspect of the left small finger in between the second and third crease. The second Phalanix of the left small finger shows clear cut injury in that spot. That bone is cut into two pieces. 6. The left ring finger is missing above the proximal inter phalangeal joint and there is an incised wound of 1 cm x 1 cm seen on the distal end of the remaining index finger. 7. An incised wound of 3 cm x 1 cm seen on the left middle finger. A clear cut injury of the middle phalanix of the left middle finger is noted. 8. An incised wound with clear cut edges of 9 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm seen on the palmer aspect of right hand extending from the thenar eminence to the web space between the right ring and little finger. Deep muscles and tendons are seen. Clear cut injury metacarpal bone of right middle finger and right index finger present. 9. An incised wound of 3 cm x 1cm x 1/2 cm seen on the palmer aspect of right index finger in between the first and second crease. On dissection clear cut injury of the first phalanix of right index finger present. 10. An incised wound of 3 cm x 1 cm x 1/2 cm seen on the flexor aspect of the lower 1/3 right forearm situated 2 cm above the wrist on the medical side. He furnished his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of hemorrhage and shock due to the injuries about 22 to 26 hours prior to his autopsy and he issued a postmortem certificate Ex. P. 12. ( 4 ) ON 25-12-1987 at about. 12 p. m. the/appellant surrendered before P. W. 1 4. Inspector of Police who seized his cloths M. Os. 2 and 3 under a Mahazar Ex. P. 12. ( 4 ) ON 25-12-1987 at about. 12 p. m. the/appellant surrendered before P. W. 1 4. Inspector of Police who seized his cloths M. Os. 2 and 3 under a Mahazar Ex. P. 6 in the presence of P. W. 7 Since the appellant had sustained some injuries he was sent to Doctor P. W. 11 who examined and found the following injuries:1. A lacerated wound 4 cm x 1/2 cm x muscle deep on the right thigh outer aspect. Wound covered with blood clot. 2. A lacerated wound 2 cm x 1/2 cm x muscle deep and transverse on the left side of occipital region. 3. A lacerated wound 2-1/2 cm x 1/2 cm/ scalp deep 2 cm below injury No. 2. 4. An abrasion 1 cm x 1/2 cm on the right side of temporo parietal region of scalp. 5. An abrasion 1 cm x 1/2 cm on the left side of scalp 5 cm above the ear. 6. An abrasion of 6 cm x 2 cm on the back of right shoulder. All the wounds are covered with blood clots and mud. Complaint of pain left shoulder back and hip. Treated as out patient. He said that the injuries were simple in nature and issued wound certificate as per Ex. P15. ( 5 ) SINCE the appellant was willing to make a judicial confession that on 31-12-1987 the appellant was produced before the judicial Magistrate P. W. 12 and the Judicial Magistrate after following all the necessary formalities recorded his statement as per Ex. P. 20. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was laid on 12-1-1988 and on committal, charge was framed against the accused under Section 302 I. P. C. and the accused pleaded not guilty. ( 6 ) ON behalf of the prosecution. P. Ws 1 to 14 were examined and Exs. P1 to P23 were got marked and M. Os 1 to 12 were produced before the court No witness nor any document was produced on behalf of the defence. The Sessions Judge after completion of the trial and putting all the incriminating circumstances which were against the appellant under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. ( 7 ) WE heard the learned advocate Mr. The Sessions Judge after completion of the trial and putting all the incriminating circumstances which were against the appellant under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above. ( 7 ) WE heard the learned advocate Mr. S. E. Victor, on behalf of the appellant and Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent. They took us through the material evidence and the relevant documents in the case. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the court below was not justified in placing reliance on the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 the so called eye witnesses to convict the accused. He further submitted that the court below ought to have placed reliance on the extra judicial confession in its entity and should have extended the benefit to the appellant since the offence committed by him would not fall under Section 302 I. P. C. v ( 8 ) WE heard learned Additional Public prosecutor on these points. He submitted before us that the sessions Judge was justified in placing reliance on the evidence of P. Ws 1 to 3, eye witnesses to the incident. He pointed out that Ex. P20, the extra judicial confession made before P. W. 12 on 31-12-1987 is an after-thought and at the instance of somebody he has made that statement. It cannot be believed and according to the Additional Public Prosecutor, the Sessions Judge was not justified in placing reliance on extra judicial confession. Ex. P. 20 he submitted that Ex. P. 20 should be eschewed in its entirety. He also pointed out that there were sufficient materials to show that the accused had motive to commit the murder of his wife in view of the fact that he was suspecting the fidelity of his wife. He brought to our notice the evidence of P. W. 6 from whom the accused got M. O. 1 for the purpose of commission of offence which was seized at the scene of occurrence. The accused after attacking his wife had thrown the said weapon from the scene of occurrence. He submitted that the Sessions Judge was justified in placing reliance on the evidence of eye witnesses P. Ws. 1 to 3 to convict the appellant. The accused after attacking his wife had thrown the said weapon from the scene of occurrence. He submitted that the Sessions Judge was justified in placing reliance on the evidence of eye witnesses P. Ws. 1 to 3 to convict the appellant. ( 9 ) IT was not disputed before the trial court and even before us that Periammal met with homicidal death in view of the evidence of P. W. 1 and, certificate Ex. P 12 issued by him, wherein he has clearly stated that due to the injuries sustained by Periammal, she died due to shock and hemorrhage. ( 10 ) THE prosecution has mainly relied upon the eye witnesses P. Ws 1 to 3 PW. 1 is the deceased sisters husband. who was also resident of the same area. He has stated that the deceased Periammal married the accused eight months prior to the occurrence. She belonged to Valaiyar caste whereas the accused belongs to Vethilaikarar caste. After marriage they lived in their village and they used to quarrel often and the said quarrelling was on account of the accused suspecting the fidelity. In fact the deceased complained to P. W. 4 that the accused suspecting her fidelity demolished their hut and burnt the clothes. Hence she requested P. W. 4 to separate the marriage. Six days prior to the occurrence the panchayat was held. but the accused though present in the Panchayat left the panchayat abruptly. Since the accused left the place without saying anything after this the deceased Periammal started living with P. W. 1 and even thereafter the accused was threatening the deceased often. He has further stated that on 23-12-1987 he along with his brother Selvam had gone to Pankadu to graze the cattles which is 1 km away from the house. They left the cattles and returned home. Periammal was also accompanied them. Again they went to Pankadu to bring the cattles back. The deceased Periammal went to forest to harvest grass. When they were coming near Iyyar Thottam while they were bringing their cattles. P. W. 2. Veeran also followed them. When they heard the shouting saying he is killing me they ran towards the Thottam. P. W. 3 who was also with them they came to the place. They saw the accused cutting the deceased with M. O. 1 Veechuravul on the neck and stomach and also on hand. P. W. 2. Veeran also followed them. When they heard the shouting saying he is killing me they ran towards the Thottam. P. W. 3 who was also with them they came to the place. They saw the accused cutting the deceased with M. O. 1 Veechuravul on the neck and stomach and also on hand. The intestine had come out. On seeing these witnesses the accused left the place leaving the weapon M. O. 1. The deceased wanted them to take her to hospital. The deceased wanted water. After drinking water she died. It was about 5 p.m. He went to Sathiamangalam Police Station and narrated the incident to P. W. 13. The Sub-Inspector of Police who recorded his statement as par Ex. P. 1 and prepared First Information Report Ex. P. 2. The said Ex. P. 1 was forwarded to the court which was received by the police at 10 p. m. on the same night. P. W. 13 also forwarded a copy to his superior. In the cross-examination it was brought on record that this witness did not know personally about the marriage between Periammal and the accused. They stayed after their marriage for sometime. He has admitted that he was not on talking terms with the accused since he married his sister-in-law. He has also admitted that he was not angry with the accused. The suggestion to this witness that since Periammal did not marry his brother Selvam and she married the accused so he gave evidence against the accused. has been denied by this witness. He has also denied the fact that they pelted stones on the accused even though he has mentioned this fact before the Investigating Officer. The evidence of this witness does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Nothing has been brought on record from this witness by the accused. The complaint Ex. P1 was immediately given before P. W. 13 and the police station which is at the distance of 8 Kms. from the scene of occurrence. The said complaint was received by the court without any delay at 10 p. m. In the said complaint the part played by the accused has been clearly stated. That being so it is difficult to disbelieve the version given by the witness. from the scene of occurrence. The said complaint was received by the court without any delay at 10 p. m. In the said complaint the part played by the accused has been clearly stated. That being so it is difficult to disbelieve the version given by the witness. ( 11 ) P. W. 2 is another witness who had also seen the incident while he was coming from Pankadu to bring the cattle. He has also fully corroborated the version given by P.W. 1. He has also denied the fact that P. W. 1 did not pelt the stones on the accused. Nothing has been brought on record to disbelieve the version given by P. W. 2. We believe the version of this witness also 12. P. W. 13 who is the third witness who had given eye witness version as that of P. Ws. 1 and 2. In the cross- examination he has denied the fact that Periammal was leading immoral character and also the fact that he has not seen the incident. The evidence of these three eye witnesses clearly goes to show that it was the accused who attacked the deceased. ( 12 ) THE learned advocate Mr. Victor however contended that the eye witness Selvam who was present according to the evidence of P. W. 1 has not been examined by the prosecution and hence an adverse inference should be drawn. In this connection he has also invited our attention to Ex. P. 20 the judicial confession made by the accused before the Magistrate P. W. 12 on 31/12/1987 wherein fie stated that on 22/12/1987 he stayed at Sathia-mangalam and on the next day i. e. 23/12/1987 at 3-30 p. m. he went home. His wife the deceased was not available. On enquiry he came to know that she has gone to her mothers home. Accordingly he went there and enquired. His mother-in-law told him that she has gone to Thottam to collect grass. When he went to Thottam he found his wife Periammal and her cousin Selvam in a compromising position. He returned silently and came back with weapon and assaulted his wife with weapon. He has also stated that he was drunk. Accordingly he went there and enquired. His mother-in-law told him that she has gone to Thottam to collect grass. When he went to Thottam he found his wife Periammal and her cousin Selvam in a compromising position. He returned silently and came back with weapon and assaulted his wife with weapon. He has also stated that he was drunk. Immediately after this P. W. 1 Perumal and P. W. 2 Veeran and P. W. 3 Annamalai pelted stones on the accused and the accused sustained head injury and on the right thigh later he surrendered before the Sathyamangalam Police Station. ( 13 ) THE argument of the learned advocate for the appellant was that the Sessions Judge after believing the version of P. W. 20 the judicial confession made by the accused before the Magistrate P. W. 12 ought to have believed in its entirety and should have held that out of grave and sudden provocation being seen his wife and Selvam in a compromising position he went to the house and brought a weapon and assaulted his wife which proved fatal and hence the act committed by the accused will be one of the exceptions mentioned under Section 300 I. P. C. We are not prepared to accept this contention. The eye witnesses have not been cross examined on this point. Further as stated above the said statement was given by the accused after a week. Even in his 313 statement it was not a stand taken by the accused. In those circumstances we are of the opinion that the defence was invented by the accused to get rid of the offence committed by him. The Sessions Judge according to us was not justified in placing reliance on the extra judicial confession EX. P. 20 Accordingly we hold that the said Ex. P. 20 could not be relied upon and we reject the same. ( 14 ) IN view of the evidence of P. Ws. The Sessions Judge according to us was not justified in placing reliance on the extra judicial confession EX. P. 20 Accordingly we hold that the said Ex. P. 20 could not be relied upon and we reject the same. ( 14 ) IN view of the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 who were eye witness to the incident and the complaint which was given by P. W. 1 before P. W. 13 immediately after the incident and also the evidence that he got motive and the evidence pertaining to the weapon which was purchased from P. W. 6 we are of the opinion that it was the accused who committed the murder of his wife and the Sessions Judge was justified in convicting him for an offence punishable under Section 302 I. P. C. ( 15 ) AFTER considering the entire evidence and on the basis of the entire material placed before us we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and accordingly it is dismissed. The appellant is on bail. He has to surrender before the trial court to undergo the remaining period of sentence. Appeal dismissed.