N. Dhinakar, J.: The appellant, who hereinafter will be referred to as the accused for the sake of convenience, was tried before the learned Sessions Judge, Pudukottai, in Sessions Case No.40 of 1993, on a charge of murder with an allegation that at 6.00 p.m. on 24.5.1992, he caused the death of his wife, Kamatachi, by cutting her indiscriminately with an aruval, M.O.1. The learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused to imprisonment for life. Hence, the present appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution can be briefly summarised as follows: The accused is the husband of the deceased and they were married ten years prior to the date of incident. An year and six months prior to the date of incident, the accused developed intimacy with one Selvi and thereafter, there were quarrels between the accused and the deceased. A Panchayat was convened and though the accused was advised, the quarrels continued. A month prior to the date of incident, the deceased left the house of her husband, the accused, and went away to Kodikkulam, where her brother was staying. The accused used to go to Kodikkulam and request the deceased to return to her matrimonial home; but the deceased was refusing to go to the house of the accused. 3. On 24.5.1992 at about 6.00 p.m., P.W.1, P.W.2 and the deceased were sitting in front of the house of P.W.1. The daughter of P.W.1 was also present. The accused went there armed with an aruval, M.O.1. On seeing the accused coming with an aruval, the deceased started running chased by the accused. The deceased covered a distance of 15 feet and the accused caught-hold of her. Thereafter, the accused inflicted several cuts on various parts of her body. The incident was witnessed by P.W.1, P.W.2 and the daughter of P.W.1. They raised alarm and on hearing the cries, the Talayairi and others rushed to the scene. The accused ran away from the place towards north carrying the aruval with him. The deceased, who was injured, was placed in a bullock-cart and taken to Kottaipattinam Police Station, where she gave a complaint to P.W.7, the Sub-Inspector of Police, which was reduced into writing. The said complaint is Ex.P-1. The accused ran away from the place towards north carrying the aruval with him. The deceased, who was injured, was placed in a bullock-cart and taken to Kottaipattinam Police Station, where she gave a complaint to P.W.7, the Sub-Inspector of Police, which was reduced into writing. The said complaint is Ex.P-1. P.W.7, on the basis of the complaint, registered a case in Crime No. 391 of 1992 against the accused by preparing express reports and Ex.P-13 is a copy of the printed First Information Report. He took up investigation in the case. He referred the deceased Kamatachi to the hospital for treatment. 4. On being referred, P.W.4, the duty medical officer attached to Pudukottai Government Hospital, examined Kamatchi at about 11.10 p.m. and found several cut injuries on her person and thereafter, admitted her into the hospital. Inspite of the treatment, Kamatchi breathed her last at about 6.00 a.m. on 25.5.1992 and the doctor issued Ex.P-6, the death intimation, to the police authorities. 5. Meanwhile, P.W.7, who was conducting the investigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P-4, in the presence of P.W.3. He seized M.O.2 bloodstained earth and M.O.3 sample earth under a mahazar Ex.P-5. He examined P.Ws.2 and 3 and recorded their statements. On receipt of the death intimation, Ex.P-6, the crime was altered to one under Sec. 302, I.P.C. and Ex.P-15 is the express report in the altered crime. Investigation was thereafter taken up by P.W.8, Inspector of Police, Kottaipattinam. 6. On taking up investigation, P.W.8 went to Government Hospital, Pudukottai, where he conducted inquest over the dead body of Kamatchi between 1.00 p.m. and 3.00 p.m. in the presence of panchayatdars during which, P.Ws.1 and 2 were questioned and their statements were recorded. Ex.P-16 is the inquest report. After the inquest was over, a requisition was issued for conducting autopsy. 7. On receipt of the requisition, P.W.5., Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Pudukottai, conducted autopsy on the body of Kamatachi at 3.45 p.m. on 25.5.1992 and she found the following external injuries: (1) A cut injury on the right shoulder to a length of 15 cm. (2) A ‘V’ shaped cut injury measuring 7 cm x 2 cm extending from dorsum of the hand to the middle of the palm. (3) Fracture of metacarpal bone. (4) A bone-depth cut injury to a length of 7 cm on the left scapel. (2) A ‘V’ shaped cut injury measuring 7 cm x 2 cm extending from dorsum of the hand to the middle of the palm. (3) Fracture of metacarpal bone. (4) A bone-depth cut injury to a length of 7 cm on the left scapel. (5) A linear cut injury to a length of 2 cm on the tibia. (6) Foot amputated at the level of tibia and metatarsal joint. The doctor found the hyoid bone intact. She issued Ex.P-7, the post-mortem certificate, with her opinion that the deceased Kamatachi died on account of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries about 9 to 10 hours prior to postmortem. 8. P.W.8, in the meantime, searched for the accused and at 4.00 p.m. on 29.5.1992, arrested him near a bus-stand in the presence of P.W.2. When questioned, the accused gave a statement and in pursuance of the admissible portion of the said statement, Ex.P-2, the police party was seized under a mahazar Ex.P-3 attested by P.W.2. The material objects seized in the case were sent to the Court with a request to forward them for analysis. The Court, by forwarding the material objects, obtained Ex.P-11, the report of the Chemical analyst, and M.O.12, the report of the serologist, which are to the effect that M.O.1 contain human blood. Further investigation was taken up by the successor-in-office to P.W.8 and he, after verifying the investigation conducted by P.W.8 and completing the investigation, filed the final report against the accused on 7.7.1992. 9. When questioned under Sec. 313, Crl.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, the accused, while denying the circumstances, filed a written statement in which, he has started that the deceased, before she left her matrimonial home, complained to him frequently that his second wife Selvi was in illicit intimacy with one Subbiah and that there used to be frequent quarrels and on account of these quarrels between him and the deceased, the deceased left her matrimonial home for Kodikkulam. He has further averred that he went to the house of the brother of the deceased at Kodikkulam to bring her back to matrimonial home and she not only refused to go along with him but, on the contrary, abused him in filthy language by telling him that his second wife Selvi is in illicit intimacy with another person and that she will not permit him to make her also sleep with the paramour of his second wife and an account of such words uttered by her, he lost his bearings and cut her. In short, he pleaded grave and sudden provocation. 10. The fact that the deceased Kamatachi died on account of homicidal violence stands proved through the evidence of P.W.5, who conducted autopsy and issued Ex.P-7, the post-mortem certificate. The accused also did not dispute the fact that Kamatachi died on account of the injuries suffered by her. We, therefore, hold that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that Kamatachi died on account of homicidal violence. 11. P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined to speak about the incident. Both are independent witnesses. They have, in their evidence, stated that on the date of incident when the deceased was sitting in front of the house of P.W.1. the accused went there armed with an aruval, M.O.1, and that he cut her on several parts of the body after chasing her to a distance of 15 feet. The defence did not succeed on eliciting any answer in their favour except to make a suggestion to P.W.1. that because the deceased used a language provoking the accused, she was cut. Except for the above suggestion, which is not probabilised by any material, there is nothing in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 for this Court to hold that the deceased was not cut by the accused. In fact, in the written statement filed by the accused under Sec. 313, Crl.P.C. the accused has also admitted that he has cur the deceased. We, therefore, hold that the deceased suffered injuries at the hands of the accused. 12. The final question, that is to be decided by us, is whether the accused cut the deceased on account of grave sudden provocation. As we have already stated that except for making a suggestion to P.W.1. no material was produced by the defence to say that the deceased used provocative language. 12. The final question, that is to be decided by us, is whether the accused cut the deceased on account of grave sudden provocation. As we have already stated that except for making a suggestion to P.W.1. no material was produced by the defence to say that the deceased used provocative language. In his written statement filed under Sec. 313, Crl.P.C, the accused has stated that the deceased Kamatachi, who is his wife, left her matrimonial home after picking up quarrels with him, by saying that his second wife is in illicit intimacy with a person called Subbiah. It is his further averment in the written statement that on the date of incident, when he went to Kodikkulam Village and requested her to return to her matrimonial home, she refused to go along with him and that she abused him and also told him that she will not permit him to make her sleep with Subbiah. As this statement of the accused is not supported by any material, the written statement of the accused filed under Sec. 313, Crl.P.C. is, in our view, only an afterthought and must have been made on advice. Mere suggestion to a witness is not sufficient for us to hold that the accused cut the deceased on account of grave and sudden provocation. 13. Sec. 105 of the Evidence Act contemplates that when a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the general exceptions in the Indian Penal Code or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. The words, “...the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances”, are significant, in that, unless the accused establishes that his act fails within any of the exceptions, the Court shall presume the absence of circumstances. In the present case, the accused did not produce any material and has not substantiated the accused did not produce any material and has not substantiated the averments made in his written statement filed under Sec. 313, Crl.P.C. that the deceased was cut by him due to grave and sudden provocation. In the present case, the accused did not produce any material and has not substantiated the accused did not produce any material and has not substantiated the averments made in his written statement filed under Sec. 313, Crl.P.C. that the deceased was cut by him due to grave and sudden provocation. Therefore, the Court cannot but hold that the accused has committed the offence of murder and he is not entitled to the benefit of any of the exceptions. 14. On the discussion made above, we feel that the learned Sessions Judge was justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused as stated above. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed.