Judgment :- The sole accused in a case of murder, who found guilty under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years by the Sessions Judge, Dindigul, has brought forth this appeal. 2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus: The appellant is the husband of the deceased Jayakodi Pandiammal. Their marriage was solemnized one year prior to the occurrence. The accused is working as a Carpenter. The deceased-wife requested her husband to purchase a fan. The appellant asked the deceased to make a demand of Rs.1000/-from her father, which he will repay in instalments. The deceased answered in negative stating that her father was a sick and poor person. After few days thereafter, the husband and wife had the same quarrel regarding the purchase of a fan. At that time, P.W.1 brother of the deceased intervened their quarrel and stated that he would purchase a fan within a year and requested them not to indulge in quarrel. On 26.5.1993, at about 7.00 a.m., the appellant, the deceased, P.W.1 and another brother of the deceased were returning home after purchasing some groceries and vegetables. Again the accused asked the deceased to make a demand of Rs.1000/- for the purchase of fan. In the wordy quarrel that arose, the deceased uttered @cs; mf;fh. j';if mk;khit Rl;;o bfhLj;J gzk; th';F@/ On hearing this, the appellant suddenly provoked, pushed the deceased down, caught hold of her hands, took a soori knife (M.O.1) from his waist and stabbed the deceased five times on her stomach. He threatened both P.W.1 and the another brother of the deceased and ran away from the scene of occurrence. In that attack, the intensities of the deceased came out. P.W.1 and his brother informed the same to the relatives and took the deceased in a cycle to the hospital. But on the way, she succumbed to the injuries. P.W.1 rushed to Vilampatti Police Station and lodged Ex.P.1 a complaint and on the strength of it, P.W.6, the sub Inspector of Police, Vilampatti Police Station registered a case in Crime No.113/1993 under Section 302 IPC . At about 1.30 p.m. printed FIR Ex.P.9 was despatched to the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court, while copies were sent to the higher officials. P.W.1 rushed to Vilampatti Police Station and lodged Ex.P.1 a complaint and on the strength of it, P.W.6, the sub Inspector of Police, Vilampatti Police Station registered a case in Crime No.113/1993 under Section 302 IPC . At about 1.30 p.m. printed FIR Ex.P.9 was despatched to the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court, while copies were sent to the higher officials. 3.P.W.8, Inspector of Police, Sempati Circle in charge of Batlakundu Police Station on receipt of the copy of the First Information report, took up the investigation and proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar Ex.P.3 and rough sketch EX.P.14 in the presence of P.W.4 and other witnesses . He seized M.O.2-blood stained earth; M.O.3 – Sample Earth and M.O.5- a bag containing groceries under Ex.P.4 in the presence of the said witnesses. He proceeded to the place where he found the dead body and prepared Observation Mahazar Ex,P.5 in the presence of same witnesses. The Investigating Officer conducted a inquest on the dead body in front of the panchayatars and witnesses and prepared inquest report Ex.P.15. He had examined the witnesses and recorded the statements, and at the time of inquest, P.W.1 produced the blood stained shirt M.O.4 which was recovered under Ex.P.6 in front of P.W.4 and another witness. On a request made by P.W.8 the Investigating Officer , P.W.3 Doctor attached to Government Hospital, Nilakkottai conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and has issued Ex.P.2, postmortem certificate and has opined that the deceased would have died of shock and haemorrhage due to abdominal injuries. 4.On 25.7.1993 at about 6.00 a.m. P.W.8, arrested the accused in the presence of P.W.5 Shanmuganathan, Village Administrative Officer and another witness namely Shankar. The confessional statement made by the appellant/accused voluntarily was recorded by the Investigating officer. The admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P.7. In pursuance of the confessional statement,the accused took P.W.8 and other witnesses to E.Koilpatti Aranmanaikulam Canal and produced M.O.1 soori knife in front of those witnesses, which was recovered under mahazar. P.W.8 brought the accused to the Police station and recovered M.O.7 blood stained shirt and M.O.8 blood stained Dhoti worn by him at the time of occurrence under Ex.P.17 in front of the witnesses and sent him for remand. One Ramar (Head Constable)produced M.O.9 to M.O.21 dress and ornaments worn by the deceased . Since he was died,he was not examined. One Ramar (Head Constable)produced M.O.9 to M.O.21 dress and ornaments worn by the deceased . Since he was died,he was not examined. The same was despatched to the Court in Form 95. The Investigating officer examined P.W.3 doctor and recorded his statement. Requisition was made by the concerned Court for sending all the M.Os. for chemical examination. Accordingly, they were sent for chemical analysis. The Chemical analysis report Ex,.P.12 was received by the Court and marked along with the Serologist report. P.W.9, Inspector of Police attached to Batlakundu Police Station took up the case for further investigation and on completion of the investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused. 5.In order to prove the charges levelled against the appellant/accused, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses and marked 18 documents and 21 M.Os. 6.After completion of the evidence on the prosecution side, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which the accused/appellant flatly denied as false. No defence witness was examined. 7.On consideration of the rival submissions made and scrutiny of the materials,the trial court do not found the accused guilty under Section 302 IPC, but found guilty under Section 304(i) IPC and and sentenced him as stated supra. Hence this appeal. 8.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant inter alia made the following submissions: The lower court has found the accused guilty under Section 304(i) when there is absolutely no evidence for the prosecution side. The prosecution has relied on the evidence of P.W.1 and no independent witness was examined to support the case of the prosecution. Admittedly, P.W.1 was the brother of the deceased and he is not only related to the deceased but also interested in the deceased. The medical evidence through P.W.3 cannot be said to be fully corroborated the case of the prosecution. The evidence of P.W.5, Village Administrative Officer, through him, the prosecution attempted to prove the confessional statement of the arrested accused and recovered M.O.1 soori knife, does not stand beyond doubts and thus it can be well stated that there was lack of evidence on the part of the prosecution and the lower court without proper appreciation of evidence found that the accused has caused the death of his wife. Adding further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even assuming the prosecution has proved the case, the act committed by the appellant which would fall under Section 326 IPC and does not fall under Section 304(i) IPC and in so far as the sentence is concerned, the Court has to consider the said aspect and to reduce the sentence. 10. Opposing strongly the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Government Advocate on the criminal Side would submit that the prosecution has brought forth the guilty of the accused by examining the eye witnesses, the medical evidence and recovery of M..O.1 viz. soori knife through proper evidence and hence though the lower court found not guilty under Section 302 IPC but found guilty under Section 304(i) IPC as award of punishment and it has to be confirmed. 11.A careful perusal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the trial court would lead to the irresistable conclusion that the prosecution side was clearly proved by ample and acceptable evidence that it was the appellant who caused the death by stabbing her with M.O.1 soori knife. P.W.1 the brother of the deceased is not only spoken to the fact as to the quarrel between them which preceded on the date of occurrence, but he also spoken to the act of the accused in attacking his wife, the deceased by soori knife on her stomach five or six times. It is true that the evidence of P.W.1, the brother of the deceased on the sole ground of relationship, cannot be rejected. In the absence of any circumstances disbelieving his evidence inspires the confidence of the Court and this Court is of the view that it is an acceptable evidence. The medical evidence adduced through P.W.3, doctor who conducted autopsy has stood a good piece of corroboration to the ocular testimony adduced through P.W.1 and the post-mortem certificate has also been marked by the prosecution, wherein the external and internal injuries found to have been clearly narrated. The strong adding circumstance was that the arrested accused, when he gave a confessional statement voluntarily which was recorded by the Investigation Officer in the presence of P.W.5, the Village Administrative Officer and pursuant to which M.O.1 wife was recovered and the evidence of Village Administrative Officer is in tact and complete despite the full cross examination. The strong adding circumstance was that the arrested accused, when he gave a confessional statement voluntarily which was recorded by the Investigation Officer in the presence of P.W.5, the Village Administrative Officer and pursuant to which M.O.1 wife was recovered and the evidence of Village Administrative Officer is in tact and complete despite the full cross examination. This piece of evidence would speak as to the nexus of the appellant/accused with the crime in question. Apart from all the above Material objects. Viz. clothes worn by the deceased at the time of occurrence were sent for chemical examination and found to have tallied with the blood group of the deceased and in view of all the above, this Court is unable to appreciate or accept any one or all the contentions put forward by the appellant. The trial court is perfectly correct in recording the statement that it was the appellant who is responsible for the death of his wife by attacking with soori knife and caused her death. 12.Coming to the question of sentence, the Court has found him guilty under Section 304(1) IPC. The words uttered by the deceased wife, immediately before the occurrence has given him a sudden provocation and words that were spoken to by her has also been recorded in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 13.Taking into consideration the nature of the wordings uttered by the deceased and the sudden provocation would naturally cause the death of the deceased and it cannot be stated that there was any intention for the accused to stab her to cause death. Therefore, it cannot be well stated that by that act, he should not have got the necessary knowledge that it would likely to cause the death. Hence, it is a fit case which would fall under Section 304(i) IPC. In the circumstances, this Court finds him guilty under Section 304(i) IPC and awarding punishment of four years rigorous imprisonment 14.With this modification as seen above, the criminal appeal is dismissed.