Judgment :- M. THANIKACHALAM, J. The appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.209/93, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore dated 31.3.1994. 2. The respondent/complainant had filed a final report, against the accused appellant, seeking appropriate punishment, under Section 302 I.P.C., alleging that he committed the murder of one Ramamurthy on 9.3.1993 at about 7.30 a.m., in his barber shop, with an intention to commit the same, due to suspicion that the deceased had illicit intimacy with his wife. 3. Upon consideration of the materials, the learned Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, framing charge under Section 302 I.P.C., questioned the accused, for which the accused refused to plead guilty, thereby compelling the prosecution, to prove the offence, beyond all reasonable doubt. 4. The prosecution, in order to discharge the burden of proof, as mandated under law, examined 11 witnesses and also exhibited 18 documents and 9 material objects. 5. The assessment of the above materials, on the basis of the established principle of law, brought to surface, the guilt of the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. and in this view, the learned Sessions Judge, convicted and sentenced the accused, to undergo life imprisonment, for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., which is impugned on many grounds, before us. 6. Necessary allegations giving birth to prosecution are under, in brief: (a) Thiru Ramamurthy (deceased) was having a barber shop at Door No.1283 in Thadagam Road, Coimbatore. The accused, who is the brother in law of Dharmaraj (PW3) was having a mutton stall in the same street. In the shop of P.W.3, Thiru Rangasamy, P.W.2 was working at the time of the incident. The accused suspected the fidelity of his wife, under presumption, that she must be having illicit intimacy with Ramamurthy. On report, Panchayatdars and P.W.4 intervened to settle the dispute amicably, but it ended in vain, thereby the accused continued to entertain the doubt, which led his mind to commit murder of Ramamurthy, in order to eradicate the illicit intimacy of his wife. (b) On 9.3.1993 at about 7.00 a.m, the deceased was in his barber shop. The accused, who had the intention to assault the deceased, went to the shop of P.W.3 and declared in the presence of P.W.2, that he is going to finish of a person to day, requesting P.W.2 further to inform P.W.3 to look after his family. (b) On 9.3.1993 at about 7.00 a.m, the deceased was in his barber shop. The accused, who had the intention to assault the deceased, went to the shop of P.W.3 and declared in the presence of P.W.2, that he is going to finish of a person to day, requesting P.W.2 further to inform P.W.3 to look after his family. Thus declaring, the accused went to the barber shop of the deceased, and picked up quarrel by catching hold of his shirt. (c) Thiru Manimaran (P.W.1), who is owning a lottery agency nearby Ramamurthy Barber Shop, entered into the shop of Ramamurthy at about 7.30 a.m., as usual, to read newspaper, where he had noticed the accused catching hold of Ramamurthy. When the wordy altercation was going on, all of a sudden, the accused took the knife, M.O.1 and stabbed Ramamurthy, on the left side of his chest, causing a deep stab injury. The attempt to catch the accused by P.W.1 and others was thwarted by the criminal intimidation, committed by the deceased and thereafter, he left the scene of crime along with the weapon, which was noticed by Thirumurthy (P.W.4), who came there for taking tea. The accused also declared that he had finished off a man. P.W.4 suspecting that something had happened, entered the shop of Ramamurthy and found him with stab injury. After the arrival of P.W.3 to his shop, P.W.2 informed him about the passion or the declaration made by the accused to him and P.W.3 being the close relative of the accused, suspecting that something would have happened, requested P.W.2 to go and see the accused. (d) P.W.2 on entering the shop of Ramamurthy also noticed that he was stabbed, which was in turn informed to P.W.3. (e) P.W.1, informing the others to take the injured to the hospital, went to the police station, informed the incident to P.W.11, the then Inspector of Police, R.S. Puram Circle, Coimbatore. He reduced the complaint into writing (Ex.P.1). On that basis, he registered a case under Section 307 I.P.C. in Cr.No.302/93, for which printed F.I.R. (Ex.P.15) was submitted to the Court concerned. (f) Commencing the investigation, when P.W.11 went to the scene of crime, a message reached him about the death of Ramamurthy and on receipt of Ex.P.6, he altered the case from 307 I.P.C. to 302 I.P.C., under Ex.P.16. (f) Commencing the investigation, when P.W.11 went to the scene of crime, a message reached him about the death of Ramamurthy and on receipt of Ex.P.6, he altered the case from 307 I.P.C. to 302 I.P.C., under Ex.P.16. Immediately rushing to the hospital on the same day viz., 9.3.1993, he conducted inquest over the body of Ramamurthy, between 10.30 a.m. and 1.30 p.m, in the presence of Panchayatdars and the result is Ex.P.17. Thereafter, he examined the eye witnesses and recovered the dresses M.O.3 and M.O.4 from P.W.3 as well as the shirt of the deceased M.O.2. P.W.11 in continuation of the investigation made an arrangement for autopsy through P.W.9, giving requisition, Ex.P.7. (g) Dr. Natarajan, P.W.8 on receipt of Ex.P.7, conducted autopsy over the body of Ramamurthy, on identification by P.W.9 on the same day at about 2.15 p.m., which revealed the following injuries. 1. Small irregular abrasions - a) 2 x 1/4 cm three such abrasions on the back of left forearm. b) 1 x 1/2 cm medial aspect of left elbow c) 2 x 2 cm medial aspect of upper most part of left forearm d) 1/2 x 1/2 on the left side of forehead. 2) An oblique stab injury 2 x 0.75 cm thoracic cavity deep seen on the left side of the chest 1 cm below the medial end of the clavicle and 4 cm from the mid line of the chest in the 2nd intercostal space, with fluid blood oozing from the wound. The above external injuries and the corresponding internal injuries, revealed that Ramamurthy would have died of hemorrhage, as a result of the stab injuries sustained by him, which were essentially fatal. To the above said effect, he issued Ex.P8, postmortem certificate. (h) P.W.11 inspected the scene of crime, prepared observation mahazar, Ex.P.2, as well as the sketch, Ex.P.18 in the presence of P.W.5 and another witness. From the scene of crime, at about 4.30 p.m. on the same day, he recovered M.Os.5 & 6, under the cover of Ex.P.3. On information, he arrested the accused, on the same day at about 7.30 p.m., in the presence of P.W.6 and one Sundararajan, near TNCSC Godown at Sundapalayam Road. The accused voluntarily gave confession Ex.P.4 on which basis, M.O.1 was recovered under Ex.P.5. He had also recovered, the dress owned by the accused M.O.9 under Form 95. On information, he arrested the accused, on the same day at about 7.30 p.m., in the presence of P.W.6 and one Sundararajan, near TNCSC Godown at Sundapalayam Road. The accused voluntarily gave confession Ex.P.4 on which basis, M.O.1 was recovered under Ex.P.5. He had also recovered, the dress owned by the accused M.O.9 under Form 95. The examination of the witnesses as supra, recovery of material objects and preparation of other documents, revealed an unquestionable offence of 302 I.P.C. according to P.W.11 and the result was the final report, leading to trial, ending in conviction. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. R.Karthikeyan and the learned counsel Mr. S. Sivakumar appearing on behalf of the Public Prosecutor. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant submits, that the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 has not disclosed the alleged act said to have been committed by the deceased, since it contains many contradictions and therefore, placing reliance on the said evidence, is unsafe. He has further submitted, that even if the act of the accused is proved, if at all the same would come under Section 304 (II) I.P.C. and certainly not under Section 302 I.P.C. 9. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the fact of stabbing the deceased by the accused, which took away the life of Ramamurthy prematurely, is proved by unchallenged evidence, including the close relative of the accused and there is no reason of any kind, to ignore this natural evidence, which should follow, conviction cannot be erased. He further pointed out, that the oral evidence of P.Ws.2 & 3 would indicate the pre planned idea of the accused, in committing the offence. That being the case, though the accused had caused single injury, certainly that should attract 302 I.P.C. and not 304 (ii) I.P.C. 10. The motive alleged for the offence is that the accused suspected some kind of illicit intimacy between the deceased and his wife. This is sought to be proved by the oral evidence of P.W.4. P.W.4 appears to be an independent witness and he has no animosity against the accused or affinity towards the deceased. He would state, that the accused on seeing his wife, chatting with the accused with smiling, doubted her integrity, for which there was a panchayat, in which he and Dharmaraj also participated. P.W.4 appears to be an independent witness and he has no animosity against the accused or affinity towards the deceased. He would state, that the accused on seeing his wife, chatting with the accused with smiling, doubted her integrity, for which there was a panchayat, in which he and Dharmaraj also participated. He has further deposed, despite the fact that there was conciliation, the accused continued to entertain the same doubt. This evidence is not erased by cross examination, but we should say that it is confirmed, since specific answers were elicited from P.W.4, that this kind of animosity followed by problems continued for 2 or 3 years. Thus, accepting the oral evidence of P.W.4, we would confirm the motive alleged for the murder. Even ignoring the motive also, if the actual commission of the offence is made out by unimpeachable clinching evidence, the accused could be made answerable for the act, according to the penal provisions. 11. P.W.1 claims that he is owning a lottery agency adjacent to the shop of Ramamurthy, not challenged. P.W.3 is the brother in law of the accused, an admitted fact. He is also owning a barber shop at Coimbatore Thadagam Road, not contradicted. In the shop of P.W.3, P.W.2 was working at the time of the incident, is also not challenged, though other part of the evidence given by him is questioned. No motive of any kind, whether it is acceptable or not, was even suggested to these witnesses, why they should go against the accused, supporting the deceased, who is not going to be of any help in future. In this background, if we analyse the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, they should take the place of trustworthy, credibility and acceptability, without any shadow of doubt, the further fact being they have picturised the incident naturally, even fitting with attending circumstances. 12. Manimaran, P.W.1 has categorically testified before the trial Court, about the actual involvement of the accused, in stabbing the deceased. He would state that after opening his shop on 9.3.1993 at about 7.00 a.m., he went to the shop of Ramamurthy, to read the news paper. It is the common scene everywhere, people use to go to barber shop to read newspaper, whether they have work or not, that too being the neighbouring shop owner. He would state that after opening his shop on 9.3.1993 at about 7.00 a.m., he went to the shop of Ramamurthy, to read the news paper. It is the common scene everywhere, people use to go to barber shop to read newspaper, whether they have work or not, that too being the neighbouring shop owner. In this case, the evidence of P.W.1, that he had been to the shop of the deceased, is quite natural and acceptable. It is the case of P.W.1, that when he entered into the shop, he had seen the accuse, catching hold of the shirt of Ramamurthy having M.O.1 in his right hand. It is the further submission by P.W.1, that when Ramamurthy attempted to get relief from the holding of the accused, the accused uttering "jhnahHp vd; FLk;gj;ij bfLj;j eP. capnuhL ,Uf;ff; TlhJ" stabbed Ramamurthy on his left side of the chest, which caused the fall of Ramamurthy. He has further testified, that at that time, P.W.2 was also present and their attempt to catch the accused, ended in vain. The above said evidence is not shattered, during the cross examination and in fact, we would say, no attempt was also made to contradict the evidence effectively, thereby compelling the Court, not to believe the same. 13. The oral evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by P.W.2, who was working in the barber shop P.W.3. He would state, that at the request of P.W.3, on his information about the challenge made by the accused, he went in search of the accused, where he had noticed the incident in the shop of Ramamurthy, as spoken by P.W.1. P.W.2 also without any variation or giving room for doubting his evidence, confirmed the evidence of P.W.1, which need not be reiterated here. After the incident, when the accused ran away from the scene of crime, P.W.4 claims that he had seen the accused with blood stained knife, identifying M.O.1 also. Except bare denial, we find no reason to suspect his evidence as unworthy of credence. Thus, it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt from the natural evidence, tendered by P.Ws.1 to 4, that the accused alone had stabbed Ramamurthy over his left side of the chest, thereby causing a deep stab injury. 14. Except bare denial, we find no reason to suspect his evidence as unworthy of credence. Thus, it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt from the natural evidence, tendered by P.Ws.1 to 4, that the accused alone had stabbed Ramamurthy over his left side of the chest, thereby causing a deep stab injury. 14. The previous conduct of the accused also would emphasis, that the accused had the intention to commit the murder of Ramamurthy and that is why, he had declared so also, before P.W.2. P.W.2 has stated that on 9.3.1993 at about 6.30 a.m. when he opened the shop of P.W.3, the accused came there and declared that he is going to finish off a man and the owner of the shop should take care of his wife and children. This declaration of the accused or challenge of the accused, was informed by P.W.2 to P.W.3, confirmed by him also. 15. P.W.3 is none else than the brother in law of the accused and no strained relationship is attributed between these two. On the information furnished by P.W.2, when P.W.3 requested to search the accused, P.W.2 went to the shop of the deceased, as said above, noticed the incident, which fits in with all probability and naturality. The subsequent conduct of the accused as spoken by P.W.4 also, strengthens the above case, because he has seen the accused coming out of the shop of deceased Ramamurthy with blood stained M.O.1. Thus, reading the direct evidence available on record as well as the previous act of the accused, as well as the subsequent act of the accused, the irresistible conclusion that could be drawn by any legal forum, is that the accused alone should have committed the murder of the deceased Ramamurthy, by stabbing him with M.O.1, which we will discuss infra i.e. regarding the cause of death and recovery of M.O.1. 16. The doctor, P.W.8 would state that he had noticed an oblique stab injury measuring 2 x .7 cm. over thoracic cavity. On exploration it revealed piercing through the second intercostal space, cutting intercostal muscles. The total depth of the stab wound from the skin to the Aorta is 7 cm. Thus, the injury proved to be very very fatal and that alone caused the hemorrhage, is the opinion of the doctor, leading to the termination of the life, as incorporated in Ex.P.8. The total depth of the stab wound from the skin to the Aorta is 7 cm. Thus, the injury proved to be very very fatal and that alone caused the hemorrhage, is the opinion of the doctor, leading to the termination of the life, as incorporated in Ex.P.8. When the doctor has spoken about the injury and the cause of death of Ramamurthy, they are not challenged. We have already noticed and concluded that this stab injury was caused by the accused, and it would have been caused by a weapon like M.O.1 also, is the opinion of the doctor. Thus, concluding that the stab injury caused by M.O.1, is the cause of death, we have to see the arrest and recovery. 17. According to P.W.11, he arrested the accused on 9.3.1993 at about 7.30 p.m. near TNCSC Godown at Sundapalayam Road in the presence of P.W.6 and on the basis of the confession Ex.P.4., M.O.1 was recovered under the cover of mahazar Ex.P.5. The case so spoken by P.W.11 is fully corroborated and confirmed by P.W.6. From the cross examination of P.W.6 also, we are unable to doubt about the veracity of the evidence given by him. Accepting the oral evidence of P.Ws.6 and 11 in this regard, we conclude, as did by the learned trial Judge, that on arrest and on the basis of the confession alone, M.O.1 was recovered, which was deployed for stabbing the deceased, as concluded earlier. It is the further case of the investigating officer that he recovered the blood stained dress worn by the accused. As per the case of the prosecution all the material objects recovered were subjected to chemical examination. Ex.P.13, Serologist's Report reveals that the shirt recovered from the accused, does contain the human 'A' Group blood, as that of the deceased. The doctor, who conducted postmortem, preserved the blood of the deceased and on examination it revealed that the blood belongs to 'A' Group. Though the knife does contain human blood, because of the inconclusiveness, the scientific authorities were unable to group the blood. But the shirt recovered from the accused does contain human 'A' Group blood as that of the deceased, is well established by P.W.14 and we find no reason to discard the same. Though the knife does contain human blood, because of the inconclusiveness, the scientific authorities were unable to group the blood. But the shirt recovered from the accused does contain human 'A' Group blood as that of the deceased, is well established by P.W.14 and we find no reason to discard the same. The fact that the shirt worn by the deceased at the time of the incident, does contain the blood group of the deceased would indicate, clinchingly also that because of the crime committed by the accused, his dress stained with the blood of the deceased. The investigation was done so swiftly, without giving any chance for the accused to escape and all the witnesses were examined then and there, without causing any delay. 18. The complaint, which set the law in motion viz., Ex.P.1 was given forthwith and we find no delay of any kind. In Ex.P.1, P.W.1 has narrated the incident, as spoken by witnesses and at any stretch of imagination, it could not be said that the accused was implicated as culprit, after deliberation, wantonly or otherwise. There is no chance for the same, since Ex.P.1 and the printed F.I.R. reached the Court in time. It is not the case of the defence also, that there was delay, causing any abrasion over the prosecution case. Looking the case from this angle also, we are constrained to confirm the findings of the trial Court, since the entire evidence is in accordance with Ex.P1., fitting in with all probabilities and circumstances. 19. By way of final submission, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the offence should come under Section 304 (II) I.P.C. is not acceptable to us. As aforementioned, it is crystal clear that before entering into the shop of the deceased, the accused declared that he is going to finish off a man and so finished off immediately. There are unquestionable motive also, as spoken by P.W.4. because of the suspicion entertained by the accused. After the incident also, as spoken by P.W.4, he left the place declaring, he finished the job. The above facts, undoubtedly would show, that the accused had the clear and unquestionable intention to commit the murder of Ramamurthy and that is why, though he attacked the deceased once, he had chosen a vital part and inflicted a deep injury, that to using M.O.1, being a butcher. The above facts, undoubtedly would show, that the accused had the clear and unquestionable intention to commit the murder of Ramamurthy and that is why, though he attacked the deceased once, he had chosen a vital part and inflicted a deep injury, that to using M.O.1, being a butcher. In this view, we find no ground to convert the case or modify the offence from 302 to 304 (ii) I.P.C. 20. The learned Principal Sessions Judge very lucidly and elaborately considering the oral and documentary evidence, consistently fitting with law and probability, had come to an unerring conclusion, in holding that the accused had committed the murder of the deceased Ramamurthy, thereby inflicted proper punishment also, not warranting any kind of interference by us.