Judgment :- M.Chockalingam, J. The sole accused, who stood charged, tried and found guilty under Sec.302 of I.P.C. and awarded a life sentence along with a fine of Rs.2,000/- by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karaikal, has brought forth this appeal. 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus: (a) The appellant/accused along with his wife Anjammal, since deceased, and P.W.1 Paramasivam, P.W.2 Bagatsingh, P.W.3 Jeevanantham and P.W.4 Perumal, the children, was living at his residence at Chinna Kovil Pathupet, Karaikal. The accused was suspecting the fidelity of his wife, and he would further doubt that she had illicit intimacy with his first son P.W.4. On 11.6.1999 at about 8.00 P.M., the accused came in a drunken mood and quarrelled with his wife. He was pacified by the children, and even then, he continued to abuse his wife, the deceased, in filthy language. The children were sleeping in the other house belonging to them situated in opposite. At about 3.00 A.M. on 12.6.1999, they heard the cry of the mother "Iiaa;nah Fj;jptpl;lhnd". On hearing this, all of them woke up, came out and saw the accused with the knife in hand. P.W.3 made an attempt to catch him; but, the accused intimidated him. P.W.10 Mohan, who is a neighbour, on seeing the accused, went nearby, and P.Ws.1 to 3 caught hold of him. P.W.10 plucked the aruval from his hand and placed it in his house. Immediately, the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. The injured Anjammal was taken to the Government Hospital, Karaikal. One Dr.Suresh, who was in the hospital, admitted her. Later, she was treated by P.W.7 Dr.Sivakumar at 3.45 A.M. Since she was unconscious, no further statement could be recorded from her. (b) When P.W.15 Ranganathan, the Sub Inspector of Police, Karaikal Police Station, was on duty at 4.00 A.M., P.W.1 gave a written complaint to him, on the basis of which a case was registered in Crime No.182/99 under Sections 307 and 324 I.P.C. The First Information Report Ex.P16 was despatched to the Court. P.W.15 proceeded to the spot, made an observation in the presence of two witnesses and prepared Ex.P2 observation mahazar and Ex.P3 rough sketch. Photos were caused to be taken through a photographer. M.O.2 bloodstained mat, M.O.3 bloodstained bed-sheet and M.O.4 bloodstained earth were recovered under Exs.P4 and P5 mahazars respectively. P.W.15 proceeded to the spot, made an observation in the presence of two witnesses and prepared Ex.P2 observation mahazar and Ex.P3 rough sketch. Photos were caused to be taken through a photographer. M.O.2 bloodstained mat, M.O.3 bloodstained bed-sheet and M.O.4 bloodstained earth were recovered under Exs.P4 and P5 mahazars respectively. At about 7.00 P.M., the injured Anjammal who was under treatment, died. An intimation was sent to the concerned police station. On receipt of the same, P.W.15, the Sub Inspector, converted the case into one under Sec.302 I.P.C. The altered report Ex.P17 was despatched to the Court. An intimation was sent to P.W.16 Padmanabhan, the Inspector of Police. (c) P.W.16, the Investigating Officer, received a copy of the F.I.R. He immediately proceeded to the spot and made an observation. He called a photographer to take photos of the dead body. The photos and their negatives are marked as Exs.P18 and P19 respectively. Then, he proceeded to the General Hospital and conducted inquest on the dead body of Anjammal in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses. Ex.P14 is the inquest report. A requisition was forwarded to the hospital for conduct of postmortem on the dead body. (d) P.W.8 Dr.Narasimha Murthy, Assistant Surgeon, Department of Forensic Medicine, General Hospital, Karaikal, on receipt of the requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Anjammal and found the following external injuries. 1. A spindle shaped stab injury 5 cm x 3 cm x abdominal cavity deep seen situated over right side of abdomen in right anterior axillary line 6 cms. below costal margin directed obliquely upward and medially. 2. Stab injury 2 x 0.5 cm x cavity deep seen on right chest on anterior axillary line at the level of 5th rib. 3. Incised injury 4 x 1 cm x skin deep seen over lateral aspect of right elbow. 4. Incised injury 3 x 1.0 cm x skin deep seen on medial aspect of right elbow. 5. Stab injury 0.75 cm x 0.5 cm x skin deep seen below injury No.1. 6. 7 cm x 2 cm x skin deep incised injury seen on left forearm on its lower 1/3 on posterior aspect. The Doctor has issued Ex.P8 postmortem certificate recording his opinion that the death is due to Hypovolaemic shock as a result of injuries sustained. (e) During the investigation, the accused was arrested at 5.30 P.M. by P.W.16 the Inspector. 7 cm x 2 cm x skin deep incised injury seen on left forearm on its lower 1/3 on posterior aspect. The Doctor has issued Ex.P8 postmortem certificate recording his opinion that the death is due to Hypovolaemic shock as a result of injuries sustained. (e) During the investigation, the accused was arrested at 5.30 P.M. by P.W.16 the Inspector. Then, P.W.16 brought him to the station at 6.15 P.M., when he gave a confessional statement, the admissible part of which is marked as Ex.P15. Pursuant to the confessional statement, he took the Investigating Officer to the place of occurrence, where P.W.10 Mohan took out M.O.1 knife, and the accused identified the same as one used by him at the time of occurrence. The knife has also been recovered under a mahazar. All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead body and M.O.1 knife recovered at the instance of the accused were sent to the Court along with a requisition for chemical analysis. Accordingly, they were placed before the Forensic Sciences Department, as a result of which Ex.P11 Chemical Analyst's report and Ex.P12 Serologist's report were forwarded. Apart from that, a requisition was given to the Judicial Magistrate for recording the confessional statement of the accused. Accordingly, P.W.17 Parthasarathy, Judicial Magistrate, recorded the same. Ex.P26 is the said confessional statement. On completion of the investigation, the final report was laid by the Investigating Officer. 3. In order to substantiate the charge levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses and relied on 30 exhibits and 7 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He denied them flatly as false. No defence witnesses were examined; but, a photo was marked on his side as Ex.D1. The trial Judge on consideration of the rival submissions and on scrutiny of the materials available, found him guilty as per the charge and awarded the sentence referred to above. Hence, this appeal. 4. He denied them flatly as false. No defence witnesses were examined; but, a photo was marked on his side as Ex.D1. The trial Judge on consideration of the rival submissions and on scrutiny of the materials available, found him guilty as per the charge and awarded the sentence referred to above. Hence, this appeal. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant at the time of advancing his arguments would submit that the prosecution though came forward with a case to state that the occurrence was witnessed by number of persons including P.Ws.1 to 4, no one of them has spoken to the fact that it was the accused, who stabbed his wife, and hence, the prosecution was to rely only on the circumstantial evidence; that the prosecution has much relied on the recovery of M.O.1 knife, and the lower Court has also placed reliance on the same, but erroneously; that M.O.1 knife was not recovered from the accused, but from P.W.10; that even as per the evidence of P.W.10, he snatched the knife from the hands of the accused, and he was keeping it in his house, and thus, the recovery was not available to the prosecution, since it was not recovered from him; that apart from that, though all the material objects were placed before the Forensic Sciences Department for chemical analysis, the scientific evidence did not help the prosecution; that the prosecution did not have the direct evidence, and the circumstances also did not clinchingly show that it was the accused, who committed the offence, and in such circumstances, the lower Court should have acquitted the accused outright, but has found him guilty, and hence, he has got to be acquitted by this Court. 5. This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry) on the above contentions. 6. The Court paid its full attention on the rival submissions made and had a thorough scrutiny of the materials available. 7. In the instant case, the specific case of the prosecution was that at the time of occurrence namely 3.00 A.M. on 12.6.1999, it was the accused, who stabbed his wife in his house, as a result of which she, who was under treatment, died in the hospital that day. 7. In the instant case, the specific case of the prosecution was that at the time of occurrence namely 3.00 A.M. on 12.6.1999, it was the accused, who stabbed his wife in his house, as a result of which she, who was under treatment, died in the hospital that day. It is not in controversy that the deceased Anjammal, the wife of the appellant/accused, died out of homicidal violence, which was not disputed by the appellant's side either before the trial Court or before this Court. In order to substantiate the said fact, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of P.W.8, the Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Anjammal, and his report Ex.P8 also. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that Anjamal died on account of homicidal violence as put forth by the prosecution. 8. Now, the case of the prosecution was that it was the accused, who committed the crime by stabbing her and caused her death. It is not disputed by the accused either before the lower Court or before this Court that he was present at the place and at the time of occurrence as put forth by the prosecution. According to the prosecution, the appellant/accused was living along with his wife in the house, which was the place of occurrence, and the same is not disputed by the accused. The occurrence has taken place at 3.00 A.M., and the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 are in one voice that all of them were living in the opposite house with their parents; that the deceased and the appellant were living in the other house; that they heard the cry of the deceased at 3.00 A.M.; that they woke up and saw the accused standing with M.O.1 weapon of crime. According to P.W.3, he made an attempt to snatch the weapon; but, he could not. P.W.10, who is the neighbour and an independent witness, has spoken to the fact that he came out and saw the accused with aruval, and while P.Ws.1 to 3 held him, it was he who snatched the aruval from his hands. Even from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses coupled with the fact that the accused was available at the place of occurrence, it is quite evident that it was none else except the accused has committed the offence. 9. Even from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses coupled with the fact that the accused was available at the place of occurrence, it is quite evident that it was none else except the accused has committed the offence. 9. It is pertinent to point out that the said Anjammal was taken to the General Hospital, Karaikal, within a short time. According to P.W.7, the Doctor, she was unconscious, and hence, her statement could not be recorded. But, it remains to be stated that when P.W.15, the Sub Inspector of Police, who was on duty at 4.00 A.M. i.e. within an hour, P.W.1 has given the complaint, wherein he has specifically mentioned that it was the accused, who committed the crime by attacking his mother. P.W.1 is none else the son of the deceased and the appellant. No circumstance was brought forth by the appellant's side why his own son should come forward to the Police Station to give a complaint in the instant case within an hour from the time of occurrence. This itself is a strong circumstance in favour of the prosecution. It is also pertinent to note that the accused has also been arrested during investigation by the Inspector of Police the very day. 10. The contention of the appellant's side that M.O.1 knife has not been recovered from the accused was of no avail to the defence side, since he has given a confessional statement in the presence of two witnesses, and one of the witnesses to the confessional statement has been examined as P.W.13. His evidence is in tact, despite full cross-examination. Pursuant to the confessional statement, it was the accused, who took the police officials to the place of occurrence, and M.O.1 has been recovered. The evidence of P.W.10 in this context has got to be borne in mind. According to him, he snatched the weapon of murder from the accused at the place of occurrence and kept it in his house. At this juncture, it can be well stated that that in the instant case, no fact is suppressed by the prosecution. Thus, the recovery pursuant to the confessional statement made by the accused, is a strong circumstance in favour of the prosecution. At this juncture, it can be well stated that that in the instant case, no fact is suppressed by the prosecution. Thus, the recovery pursuant to the confessional statement made by the accused, is a strong circumstance in favour of the prosecution. Thus, the fact that there is direct evidence adduced through P.Ws.1 to 4 and P.W.10 who have all spoken to the fact that the accused was found with the bloodstained weapon of crime at the place and at the time of occurrence; that the First Information Report has come into existence within a short span of time; and that M.O.1 knife has been recovered at the instance of the accused, all would be indicative of the fact that it was the accused, who committed the crime. The lower Court has not only discussed, but also marshalled the evidence and arrived at a proper conclusion finding him guilty under Sec.302 of I.P.C. 11. It is a case, where the accused came with a defence before the trial Court that he suspected the fidelity of his wife, and the same has resulted in the occurrence. The Court is of the view that the said defence would be of no avail, since at the time of occurrence, there was nothing to provoke him so as to bring the act of the accused under any one of the exceptions to Sec.300 of I.P.C. Hence, there is nothing to interfere in the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, and they have got to be sustained. 12. In the result, this criminal appeal fails, and the same is dismissed.