M. Karpagavinayagam, J.: Nallappan, the appellant herein was convicted for the offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Challenging the same, he has filed this appeal. 2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: “(a) Both deceased Nallappan and the accused Nallappan are Pangalis. They were residing in the same village and having their houses in the same compound. P.W. 1 Ranjitham is the wife of the deceased Nallappan. There was a dispute over the pathway between the deceased family and the accused family. There were frequent quarrels between them, since the father and mother of the accused invariably used the pathway which was allotted to the deceased family. (b) On 9.11.1996 at about 6.30 p.m., the father of the accused went through the pathway near the house of the deceased which was objected by the deceased. Therefore, there was a wordy quarrel between father and mother of the accused and the deceased. At that time, the accused came and intimidated the deceased that he will kill him one day or the other. Then, P.W. 3 Ramasamy, neighbour came and pacified both the parties and separated them. (c) At about 7 p.m., the deceased Nallappan accompanied by P.W. 1 Ranjitham, his wife, went to the grocery shop of P.W. 4 Subramani. After purchasing match-box, beedis and bananas and when they were proceeding towards their house, the accused, who concealed himself nearby, suddenly appeared in the scene sand began to attack the deceased Nallappan with rice pounder and inflicted injuries on the head and other parts of the body and due to that, the deceased fell down and died on the spot. During the course of beating, the rice pounder was broken into two pieces M.O. 1 and M.O. 2. Leaving M.O. 1 at the scene itself, the accused carried the other piece M.O. 2 and ran away from the scene. The occurrence was witnessed by P.W. 1 and P.W. 4. (d) Thereafter, P.W. 1, Ranjitham, along with her brother, P.W. 2 Kittusamy, went to the police station and gave a complaint at about 9.00 p.m., to P.W. 12, Sub Inspector of Police at Palani Taluk. The occurrence was witnessed by P.W. 1 and P.W. 4. (d) Thereafter, P.W. 1, Ranjitham, along with her brother, P.W. 2 Kittusamy, went to the police station and gave a complaint at about 9.00 p.m., to P.W. 12, Sub Inspector of Police at Palani Taluk. He received the complaint and registered the same in Crime No. 1100/1996 for offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C. (e) P.W. 13, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the message took up investigation and went to the scene of occurrence and observed all the formalities, prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch and recovered blood stained earth and sample earth. He also recovered M.O. 1, one of the broken piece of rice pounder and the banana. He conducted inquest and examined the witnesses. Thereafter, the body was sent to postmortem. (f) P.W. 10 Doctor attached to the Palani Government Hospital, conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased and found four injuries on the head, eye and shoulder. He gave the postmortem certificate Ex.P-13, giving opinion that the deceased died due to head injury. (g) On 11.11.1996, P.W. 13 arrested the accused and obtained confession statement and in pursuance of the confession, the other broken piece of the rice pounder M.O. 2 was recovered. After finishing the investigation, P.W. 13 filed the chargesheet against the accused for the offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C.” 3. During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 13 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-17 were filed on M.O. 1 to M.0.9 were marked. When questioned under Sec. 313, Crl.P.C., the accused stated that a false case had been foisted against him and pleaded innocence. No evidence was adduced on the side of the defence. 4. The trial Court on appreciation of the materials available on record concluded that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and found the accused guilty for the offences under Sec. 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. 5. Challenging the finding given in the judgment impugned, Mr. Jegadeesan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, after taking through the entire evidence on record, would strenuously contend that the testimony of P.W. 1 and P.W. 4, the eye-witnesses, cannot be believed, since it would suffer from various infirmities and artificialities. 5. Challenging the finding given in the judgment impugned, Mr. Jegadeesan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, after taking through the entire evidence on record, would strenuously contend that the testimony of P.W. 1 and P.W. 4, the eye-witnesses, cannot be believed, since it would suffer from various infirmities and artificialities. He would vehemently contend that P.W. 4 Subramani, the shop owner, could not have witnessed the occurrence, since in the place of occurrence shown in the rough sketch and the observation mahazar, there is a ‘thatti’ (fence) in between the shop and the place of the occurrence. He would further contend that P.W. 1 would not have been present during the time of occurrence, since P.W. 1 did not admit that her saree was stained with blood, even though she would state that the blood gushed out from the head of the deceased. Ultimately, he would submit in the alternative that on the pleading of the confession, Ex.P-4, it would be clear that the accused out of sudden and grave provocation on hearing the filthy words uttered by the deceased against his mother, took the rice pounder and inflicted injuries on the head of the deceased and as such, the offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C. is not made out and at the most, he is liable to be punished only for the offence under Sec. 304(I), I.P.C. 6. In reply to the above contentions learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 is cogent and natural, especially when P.W. 4 who is an independent witness would speak about the occurrence. There is no reason to disbelieve his evidence when the occurrence had taken place in front of his shop. In reply to the above contentions learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 is cogent and natural, especially when P.W. 4 who is an independent witness would speak about the occurrence. There is no reason to disbelieve his evidence when the occurrence had taken place in front of his shop. He would further submit even assuming that accused had stated in his confession about the filthy words used against his mother by the deceased at about 6.30 p.m., it would not be sufficient to hold that the offence under Sec. 304(i), I.P.C. is made out, in view of the fact that the accused herself had admitted that after half an hour, he took the rice pounder from his house and went to the grocery shop with an intention to finish him once for all to avoid further abuse and then, he killed him in the presence of P.W. 4 and as such, the conviction imposed by the lower Court is liable to be confirmed. 7. We have gone through the entire records and given our anxious consideration to the contentions urged on either side. 8. According to P.W. 1, there was a dispute over the pathway between the two families. There were frequent quarrels between the families. There is no dispute regarding the fact that both the parties are close relatives and their houses are situated in one compound. As usual, the quarrel started between the deceased family and the accused family when the father of the accused used the pathway allotted to the deceased family at about 6.30 p.m. on 9.11.1966. 9. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased objected to the said use of the pathway and scolded the father and mother of the accused. When the accused came and objected to the scolding of the deceased, P.W. 3, Ramasamy, who is the neighbour, intervened and pacified and separated them. After half an hour, P.W. 1 along with the deceased went to the grocery shop for purchase of Beedi, match box. Accused came there and concealed himself. After purchase of all these things from the grocery shop, the deceased and P.W. 1 were proceeding back to their home. At that point of time, the accused appeared in the scene with a rice pounder and dealt heavy blows inflicting injuries on the head and shoulder of the deceased. Accused came there and concealed himself. After purchase of all these things from the grocery shop, the deceased and P.W. 1 were proceeding back to their home. At that point of time, the accused appeared in the scene with a rice pounder and dealt heavy blows inflicting injuries on the head and shoulder of the deceased. With the result, the deceased died on the spot. These aspects of the fact have been spoken to by both P.W. 1, the wife of deceased and P.W. 4 the grocery shop owner. 10. It contended that P.W. 1’s evidence is artificial, since in the village when a husband goes to purchase beedi, match box etc., no wife would accompany him. But, this cannot be said as a common rule. In the evidence of P.W. 1, she had stated that she accompanied the deceased to the shop of P.W. 4 and this can be believed because half an hour before, there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused and in that quarrel, the accused intimidated the deceased that he will kill him. Probably out of fear, P.W. 1 would have thought that it would be better to accompany the deceased in order to avoid further clash between the accused and the deceased. 11. It is stated that the saree did not contain blood stain. Admittedly, the saree has not been seized. Under these circumstances the question as to whether the saree was stained with blood or not need not be gone into. 12. A reading of the evidence of P.W. 1 as a whole would make it clear that the occurrence had taken place in front of the shop of P.W. 4 and the same was witnessed by P.W. 1 who accompanied the deceased. Further more, the evidence of P.W. 1 has been clearly corroborated by P.W. 4 who is the independent witness. 13. Admittedly, the occurrence had taken place in front of the shop of P.W. 4. There is no reason as to why P.W. 4 would speak falsehood against the accused. It has not been elicited from the cross-examination of P.W. 4 that he is having any interest in the family or he is inimical towards the accused. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the oral evidence adduced by P.W. 4 can be accepted to be true. 14. It has not been elicited from the cross-examination of P.W. 4 that he is having any interest in the family or he is inimical towards the accused. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the oral evidence adduced by P.W. 4 can be accepted to be true. 14. It is contended that P.W. 4 could not have seen the occurrence since ‘thatti’ was put in front of the shop. The distance between the shop and the scene of occurrence is only 10 feet. Furthermore, the question as to whether P.W. 4 could have seen the occurrence when the thatti was put nearby has not been put to P.W. 4 in the cross-examination and to P.W. 13 Inspector of Police. That apart, the sketch shows that ‘thatti’ was erected in front of the house of P.W. 4 and not in front of his shop. Therefore, there is no difficulty in holding that the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 proves that the occurrence had taken place in the manner alleged. 15. Lastly, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the occurrence had taken place due to sudden and grave provocation and therefore, the accused cannot be convicted under Sec. 302, I.P.C. 16. This argument is based upon the confession, Ex.P-4. It is settled law that though the entire confession which has been recorded by the police is not admissible as against the accused, the same can be used if it is in favour of the accused. But on going through Ex.P-4, the confession, it is clear that the first occurrence had taken place at 6.30 p.m., when the deceased used filthy language against the mother of the accused. It would also sow that the deceased used abusive and filthy language against the mother of the accused in the presence of the accused. So, normally, when a person hears those words which are filthy against his mother, he would react immediately on provocation. 17. But, in this case, the accused had kept quiet and after half-an-hour, he took the rice pounder from his house with a view to kill the deceased and went to grocery shop after watching the movements of deceased and executed his designed plan by inflicting heavy blows on the head of the deceased. 18. 17. But, in this case, the accused had kept quiet and after half-an-hour, he took the rice pounder from his house with a view to kill the deceased and went to grocery shop after watching the movements of deceased and executed his designed plan by inflicting heavy blows on the head of the deceased. 18. Ex.P-13, post-mortem certificate shows that there is fracture was seen over the parietal area of skull extending to the right occipital bone. Another fracture was seen right temporal bone extending to temporal bone upto the right mastoid process. Sub dural Haemotoma present over the parietal area, base to skull. Multiple fractures present in middle and posterior cranial fossa. 19. As indicated above, the length of the rice pounder is 85 cms. Due to the beating the rice pounder broke into two pieces. These factors would make it clear that the accused with an intention to murder the deceased used the heavy weapon namely rice pounder by using heavy force and had caused fatal injures on the head of the deceased who died at the spot. 20. Therefore, this Court finds it difficult to accept the contention of the counsel for the appellant with reference to the nature of offence. Consequently, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court are liable to be confirmed and accordingly confirmed. The appeal is dismissed.