A. Packiaraj, J.: The appellant has been convicted for an offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life in S.C.No.276 of 1993 by the Court of Sessions, Trichy. Aggrieved by the same the present appeal has been filed. 2. The substance of the charge levelled against the appellant is that on 2.1.1993 at about 5.30 p.m. at Elandakudam village in Tiruchy District, due to pre-existing enemity between his wife and the wife of P.W.1, committed the murder of the deceased by assaulting her with the spade handle thrice on her head, on account of which she died instantaneously and he is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Sec. 302, I.P.C. The appellant denied the charge and hence the trial. 3. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: (a) The deceased is the wife of P.W.1. They were residing at North Street at Elandakudam village. The accused was also residing in the same street and adjacent to the house of P.W. . P.W.2 is the daughter of the deceased and P.W.1. About two days prior to the occurrence, (occurrence having taken place on 2.1.1993) there was a quarrel between the deceased who is the wife of P.W. 1 and the wife of the accused/the appellant herein regarding fetching of water from the water tap. The appellant having come to know about this was aggrieved by the same. Hence on 2.1.1993 at about 5.00 or 5.30 p.m. when the deceased was going towards her house after putting the trash in the trashbin, the accused who saw her going, ran after her holding the spade handle with a metal ring fixed on it and shouted at the deceased stating that she had caught hold of the tuft of his wife and beat her and hence he would not spare her now. So saying, he inflicted blows repeatedly on the head of the woman and ran away from the scene. The deceased who sustained the injuries fell down and she started bleeding through nose and ears and died instantaneously. The occurrence was seen by P.W.1 the husband, P.W.2 the daughter and P.W.4. Immediately thereafter, P.W. 1 went to the Village Administrative Officer and gave a report at 8.00 p.m. which has been marked as Ex.P-1. The deceased who sustained the injuries fell down and she started bleeding through nose and ears and died instantaneously. The occurrence was seen by P.W.1 the husband, P.W.2 the daughter and P.W.4. Immediately thereafter, P.W. 1 went to the Village Administrative Officer and gave a report at 8.00 p.m. which has been marked as Ex.P-1. The Village Administrative Officer P.W.5 went to the scene saw the dead body and thereafter sent Ex.P-1 through his assistant to Thirumanur Police Station. (b) P.W.9 the Sub Inspector of Police on receipt of Ex.P-1 at 10.00 p.m. sent by P.W.5, registered the same in Crime No.1 of 1993 for an offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C. He prepared Ex.P-12 the printed F.I.R. and sent the originals to the Court, while the copies thereof to his superior officers. (c) P.W. 10 the Inspector of Police on receipt of the copies at 12.30 mid night, went to the scene of occurrence prepared Ex.P-4 observation mahazar and a rough sketch-Ex.P-13. He conducted inquest from 2.00 a.m. to 4.00 a.m. during which period, he examined P.W.1, Manimozhi, Mookai and others. Ex.P-14 is the inquest report. Then he prepared Ex.P-2 the requisition to conduct post mortem and sent Ex.P-2 along with the dead body through the constable attached to his department. (d) P.W.3, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Ariyalur on receipt of Ex.P-2 and the dead body conducted the autopsy on the dead body at 11.45 a.m. on 3.1.1993 and found the following injuries: External Injuries: (1) A deep lacerated injury present in middle of the Parieto-occipital region about 4 cm x 3 cm x Bone depth muscles exposed and bone seen. edges irregular. (2) A deep lacerated injury present in the Right Parieto Occipital region about 4 cm x 3 cm x bone depth. edges irregular. (3) A deep injury present in the left occipital region about 1 1/2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep; edges lacerated, muscles exposed. Internal examinations: Hyoid bone intact. Skull bone fractured in the suture (N.C.) line -right side of the Occipital region and brain matter exposed. Skull bone fracture in the left side of the Parieto Occipital region, matter exposed. Ribs No fracture. He issued Ex.P-3 the post mortem certificate. The doctor was of the opinion that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage due to the head injuries about 20 to 22 hours prior to post mortem. Skull bone fracture in the left side of the Parieto Occipital region, matter exposed. Ribs No fracture. He issued Ex.P-3 the post mortem certificate. The doctor was of the opinion that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage due to the head injuries about 20 to 22 hours prior to post mortem. After the post mortem was over the body was handed over to the relations. Before handing over the dead body to the relations M.Os.4, 5 and 6, the apparels owned by the deceased were seized by P.W.7, the constable and were handed over to the Investigating Officer. (e) The accused was arrested at Trichy Central bus stand on 4.1.1993 and he appears to have given a voluntary statement, the admissible portion of which has been marked as Ex.P-6 and in pursuance of the same. M.O.1 spade handle was recovered under a cover of mahazar Ex.P-7. The Investigating Officer sent the material objects seized in the case to the Court and from there he caused the same to be sent took the chemical analysis for the purpose of detecting blood and after receiving the relevant reports and after concluding his investigation, he laid the final report against the appellant on 21.5.1993. (f) The accused was examined under Sec. 313, Crl.P.C. with reference to the incriminating materials found against them and he denied having committed any offence and his complicity in the case. However he has filed a written statement along with his 313 statement. The substance of which is that the accused was informed that about two days prior to the occurrence there was a quarrel between his wife and the deceased during which time the deceased caught hold of the tuft of his wife and abused her in filthy language. Then on the day of occurrence at about 5.00 or 5.30 p.m. when the deceased was going towards his house with the spade, the deceased came out from her house and with a view to see that the woman folk do not quarrel hence forth, questioned the deceased as to why she should indulge in such incident like catching hold of the tuft and quarreling, whereupon the deceased is said to have spat at him and told that the appellant was incapable of controlling his wife and instead has come to advice her. Whereupon the deceased got enraged at this and beat her with the handle on her head. He would further say that he had no intention of committing the murder. He had also examined his wife on his side who speaks to the above said version. (g) To establish the prosecution case the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.10 marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-14 and produced M.O.1 to 6. 4. In order to establish that the deceased died due to homicidal violence, the prosecution had examined P.W.3 the Doctor who conducted the post mortem. The following injuries were found by him at the time of conducting post mortem: External Injuries: (1) A deep lacerated injury present in middle of the Parieto-Occipital region about 4 cm x 3 cm x Bone depth muscles exposed and bone seen edges irregular. (2) A deep lacerated injury present in the Right Parieto Occipital region about 4 cm x 3 cm x bone depth, edges irregular. (3) A deep injury present in the left occipital region about 1 1/2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep; edges lacerated, muscles exposed. Internal examinations: Hyoid bone intact. Skull bone fractured in the suture (N.C.) line - right side of the Occipital region and brain matter exposed. Skull bone fracture in the Lt. side of the Parieto Occipital region, matter exposed. Ribs No fracture. The Doctor has in detail narrated the symptoms found on the deceased in the post mortem report namely Ex.P-3 and has given opinion stating that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage, in view of the injuries sustained on her head. The defence has not seriously challenged that the death was due to the injuries. However, their only claim is that all the injuries could have been caused by a single blow. Therefore, in our opinion the prosecution has clearly established that the deceased in this case died due to homicidal violence. 5. The next question that arise for consideration is as to whether it is the appellant who had caused the injuries. As far as this is concerned there appears to be no quarrel between the accused and the defence. Therefore, in our opinion the prosecution has clearly established that the deceased in this case died due to homicidal violence. 5. The next question that arise for consideration is as to whether it is the appellant who had caused the injuries. As far as this is concerned there appears to be no quarrel between the accused and the defence. Since the prosecution has clearly established that it was the appellant who caused those injuries on the head of the deceased at 5.00 or 5.30 p.m. on 2.1.1993 and it has been admitted by the accused/appellant by way of written statement that he was the one who caused the injury, hence it may not be necessary for us to delve deep into that question. 6. The only dispute now that arises for consideration is as to how the incident had originated. The prosecution has come forward with the specific case through the evidence of P. W.1, P.W.2, and P.W.4 to the effect that the accused on 2.1.1993 at about 5.00 or 5.30 p.m. as soon as he saw the deceased, shouted at her and asked her as to how dare she could catch hold of the tuft of his wife and with the avowed object of killing her, hit her on the head with the spade handle two or three times, as a result of which the deceased fell down and died instantaneously. It is the further case of prosecution that the spade handle had a metal ring attached at the end of the handle with which the deceased was assaulted. Therefore, the case of the prosecution is that the deceased was minding her work, while it was the accused who uttered these words and without any conversation or outburst or any quarrel, attacked the deceased and caused the fatal injuries. However, the appellant would state that at about 5.00 or 5.30 p.m. on 2.1.1993 he saw the deceased on the road, he questioned her as to why she should unnecessarily quarrel with his wife, whereupon the deceased is alleged to have stated that “You are not able to control your wife and how can you come and accuse me”, and also spat. Enraged by these words and action he gave a single blow out of sudden provocation. 7. Enraged by these words and action he gave a single blow out of sudden provocation. 7. Therefore, as against the positive evidence let in by the prosecution through P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4, the defence had examined the wife of the accused as D.W.1 and according to her on the fateful day the appellant had asked the deceased as to what was the quarrel about, whereupon the deceased spat at the direction of the appellant and accusing him that he was living with his wife who was a whore. Whereupon the accused got enraged and attacked the deceased. Consequently, the learned counsel for the appellant would argue that this witness had been examined even during the investigation by the Investigating Officer and has spoken about it in a like manner and consequently ought to have accepted her evidence and the Court below should have found him guilty only under Exception 1 of Sec. 300, I.P.C. However, we perused the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 in detail and minutely to see whether there is any material that would support the case of the defence or in the alternative to discard their own evidence. P. W. 1 who is none other than the husband of the deceased, has in clear terms had spoken about the occurrence and though he has been subjected to be cross-examined, nothing material has been brought out in cross-examination which would render his evidence unacceptable. In fact, the entire cross-examination appears to be only as suggestions, barring a few questions. These suggestions are the defence case themselves and they have been rejected outright by these witnesses. P.W.1 has in clear and cogent manner stated as to how the entire incident had originated and has spoken to right from the beginning till the end. His evidence has been further corroborated by P.W.2 who is daughter of P.W.1. Merely because she is related to P.W.1, her evidence cannot be eschewed. The Supreme Court, time and again has stated that evidence of such close relations has to be viewed with care and caution. We see that she is yet another witness who has come forward with the clear version and we see no reason whatsoever to discredit her version. In fact most of the cross examination are confined to suggestions and the same has been denied. We see that she is yet another witness who has come forward with the clear version and we see no reason whatsoever to discredit her version. In fact most of the cross examination are confined to suggestions and the same has been denied. Equally so is the evidence of P.W.4 and she has also spoken in detail about the occurrence to the effect that at about 5.00 or 5.30 p.m. when she came out of the house and was about to go to her fields for picking sticks, she found the accused going towards the deceased hiding the spade handle behind his back and immediately after nearing her inflicted blows and ran away. Hence we see no reason whatsoever to reject the positive evidence of these witnesses which would clearly show that it was the appellant who went and picked up a quarrel and attacked the deceased, a woman who was totally unarmed and assaulted her to death. 8. At this juncture the learned counsel would try to persuade us to hold that the confession of the accused to the Police Officer in pursuance of which the recovery of the weapon is said to have been made, discloses that the deceased abused him and consequently wanted us to hold that the appellant is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as defined under Exception 1 of Sec. 300, I.P.C. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that in view of the abuses made by the deceased, the accused got provoked and consequently had attacked the deceased and done her to death. 9. The question that arises for consideration is whether the confession statement of an accused to a police officer can be taken into consideration as against the positive evidence, which negatives the stand taken by the accused. We would like to emphasize on the words “as against the positive evidence”. We expressed our inability to accept the contention of the learned counsel that the confession of the accused to the Police Officer cannot be taken into consideration as against the positive evidence let in by the prosecution. However, the learned counsel would cite some of the decisions of our High Court and state that the Courts have accepted the confession statement of the accused as against the positive evidence of the prosecution witnesses relied on by the prosecution. 10. However, the learned counsel would cite some of the decisions of our High Court and state that the Courts have accepted the confession statement of the accused as against the positive evidence of the prosecution witnesses relied on by the prosecution. 10. The first decision relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is the judgment reported in Mottaitheavan v. State, 1951 M. W.N. (Crl.) 274, wherein their Lordships have taken into consideration the confession statement of the accused. But in so far as the facts relating to this decision is concerned, the witnesses had seen and spoken only to the effect that they saw the accused retrieving, or in other words, pulling a spear out of the deceased back. They have not spoken as to what had taken place earlier and to find out the origin, they had looked into the confessional statement. Though they say that they have taken the confession statement into consideration, nevertheless they have found him guilty of an offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C. only and had made recommendation to the Government to commute the sentence. 11. The second decision relied on by the counsel is the decision reported in Thandavan, In re., 1972 L.W. (Crl.) 244, where the prosecution case itself is that there was a quarrel and that the finding of the Division Bench is clear that there was quarrel between the accused and the deceased, which went on resulting in the deceased hitting with a stone pestle on her head. Therefore, since the very prosecution case itself was that there was quarrel between the accused and the deceased and the details of which has not been clearly narrated by the prosecution, their Lordships had considered the confessional statement as an extenuating circumstance, by taking into consideration the actual words said to have been used by the deceased and consequently had accepted the statement of the accused and reduced the sentence to one of imprisonment of life. [Italics supplied] 12. [Italics supplied] 12. The third decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant is the judgment reported in Ganesan, In re., 1973 L.W. (Crl.) 42, wherein the Division Bench of this Court had also considered the confessional statement of the accused and had reduced the offence to one under Sec. 304, Part I, I.P.C. from 302, I.P.C. But as far as this case is concerned, their Lordships have disbelieved the prosecution case and since the accused had also given a report and the accused having admitted his presence there, they took into consideration his statement and had acted upon it. As far as this decision is concerned, we would like to reiterate here that the prosecution case has not been believed and probably if the accused has not accepted the confessional statement, he would have been acquitted of all charges. Therefore, in our opinion the confessional statement of the accused has not been preferred as against the positive evidence. [Italics supplied] 13. The last of the decision referred by the learned counsel is the decision of this Court reported in Vairamuthu v. State, (1996) 1 L.W. (Crl.) 9, wherein the confessional statement of the accused to the police had been taken into consideration. However, there again it is the prosecution case that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the appellant and it was during the said quarrel the accused is said to have attacked the deceased and had done him to death. Therefore, we are of the clear view that none of the above cited judgments would establish that the confession of the accused has been accepted as against the positive evidence adduced by the prosecution case, negativing that such an incident took place in the manner put forward by the prosecution. 14. At this juncture though the learned counsel has not referred to the decision of the Supreme Court, we feel that the following decision clinches the issue once and for all. In Murali alias Denny v. State of Rajasthan, 1995 S.C.C. (Crl.) 57, their Lordships of the Supreme Court has stated that the statement of the accused, in other words, the confession statement which formed the F.I.R. cannot be used for any purpose in favour of the prosecution and against the accused. In Murali alias Denny v. State of Rajasthan, 1995 S.C.C. (Crl.) 57, their Lordships of the Supreme Court has stated that the statement of the accused, in other words, the confession statement which formed the F.I.R. cannot be used for any purpose in favour of the prosecution and against the accused. But however, the only admission found in the statement which was in favour of the accused is being taken into account to examine whether the offence falls under Exception 1 of Sec. 300, I.P.C, in view of the fact that there was no other evidence, disclosing as to how the quarrel ensued and the incident took place. The words, “In view of the fact that there is no other evidence” mentioned by their Lordships in the said judgment makes it abundantly clear that they preferred to look into the confessional statement only because there was no positive evidence about the origin. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the admission of the accused in a confession made to the police can be looked into in the absence of any other evidence. But however, when there is positive evidence adduced by the prosecution and if the Court accepts those evidence whatever admission in the confession to the police which is favourable to the accused is of little use. As far as the present case before us is concerned, we clearly see that P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 have in clear terms stated that it was the accused who started the quarrel and attacked the deceased. The deceased was apparently unarmed, nor had she picked up the quarrel and the suggestions put forward by the defence counsel had been denied by the witnesses. There appears to be no ambiguity or doubt as to how the occurrence took place. It will not be out of place for us to state that barring a few suggestions put to those three eyewitnesses, nothing has been elicited which would discredit their version. 15. There appears to be no ambiguity or doubt as to how the occurrence took place. It will not be out of place for us to state that barring a few suggestions put to those three eyewitnesses, nothing has been elicited which would discredit their version. 15. The next piece of evidence which the learned counsel placed reliance, is the evidence of D.W. 1 who is none other than the wife of the accused and according to her the appellant herein had merely asked the deceased as to why she should quarrel with his wife and whereupon it is alleged that she spat on the accused and also accused the wife of the appellant to be a whore and the accused was not able to control her wife and instead is finding fault with her. It is on hearing these words, the accused got enraged and attacked the deceased. According to the learned counsel, these witnesses have been examined even during the course of the investigation and has come forward with the same version. However, the fact that whether or not she has come forward with this version in her 161 statement cannot be considered by us in view of the specific bar imposed under Sec. 162 which restricts the powers of the Court to use it only for the purpose of contradicting the witnesses. As far as the use of 161 statement of a witness, the Supreme Court in Dandu Lakshmi Reddy v. State of A.P., 1999 S.C.C. (Crl.) 1176 at paragraph 20 of the Judgment has held as follows: ........In other words, if the Court has not put any question to the witness with reference to this statement recorded under Sec. 161 of the Code, it is impermissible for the Court to use that statement later even for drawing any adverse impression regarding the evidence of that witness. What is interdicted by Parliament in direct terms cannot be obviated in any indirect manner. So, in the above context, we are not able to accept the argument that the witnesses has spoken about it even during investigation. As far as her evidence is concerned we are not in a position to give much weight as against the positive evidence of prosecution witnesses. 16. So, in the above context, we are not able to accept the argument that the witnesses has spoken about it even during investigation. As far as her evidence is concerned we are not in a position to give much weight as against the positive evidence of prosecution witnesses. 16. Considering the nature of the injuries as spoken to by the post mortem Doctor the first injury is a deep lacerated injury present in middle of the Parieto-Occipital region about 4 cm x 3 cm x Bone depth muscles exposed and bone seen and the specific evidence of the witnesses are that the accused inflicted more than two blows and as a matter of fact, the evidence of P.W.4 would go to show that the accused was hiding the spade handle on his back and while approaching the deceased had attacked her with it and especially of the circumstances that he was hiding the spade handle in his back and splashing it at the appropriate time on the deceased would only reveal his intention to commit the murder of the deceased. Accordingly we see that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt and the learned Sessions Judge is perfectly justified in convicting the appellant of the aforesaid offence. 17. In the result, we confirm the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge and dismiss the appeal. If the accused is on bail, the Court of session is directed to secure the presence of the accused and commit him to the prison to serve the rest of the imprisonment imposed on him.