Judgment :- M. Thankichalam, J. The accused, who suffered conviction in the hands of the lower Court for the offences under Sections 307 and 302 I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo further R.I. for six months and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo further R.I. for six months, respectively, for the above said offences, is the appellant. 2. On 16.6.2001 at about 10.30 a.m., the accused had some dispute with Mayavelu (P.W.1) and Ilayaraja (the deceased). The accused not only assaulted P.W.1 aiming his life, but also stabbed Ilayaraja, taking away his life prematurely. On complaint, after investigation, since the offences had been made out, the respondent police had filed a final report against the accused under Sections 307 and 302 I.P.C. 3. The accused/appellant when questioned after framing charges, as per the offences disclosed by the materials, he refused to plead guilty, which resulted a full-fledged trial, leading to conviction. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam having satisfied himself, that the offences charged against the accused are all proved beyond all reasonable doubt, found him guilty under Sections 307 and 302 I.P.C. and slapped the conviction and sentence as aforementioned, which is under challenge in this appeal. 4. The prosecution case leading to conviction in brief may be stated as follows: (a) Thiru Mayavelu (P.W.1), Ilayaraja (deceased), Senthil (P.W.3) and Govindaraj (P.W.2) who are all residents of Keezhai, Mayiladuthurai Taluk, were doing catering business. Ilayaraja took the role of leadership. In sharing the remuneration, there was a dispute between Ilayaraja and the accused, since Ilayaraja paid lesser amount to the accused, than the amount, which he is eligible, as agreed. (b) On 16.6.2001, at about 10.00 a.m., when P.Ws.1, 2, 3 & Ilayaraja were coming through the road near a tea stall, the accused who came there, questioned the conduct of Ilayaraja in paying lesser amount, which caused grievance to P.W.1 and Ilayaraja, who in turn beat the accused with hands. The accused, aggrieved by the conduct of P.W.1 and Ilayaraja, challenged them that he will finish off both of them. Thus declaring, he went to his house, took M.O.1, returned to the place, where P.Ws.1 to 3 & Ilayaraja were proceeding i.e. opposite to Ananda Clinic. The accused, aggrieved by the conduct of P.W.1 and Ilayaraja, challenged them that he will finish off both of them. Thus declaring, he went to his house, took M.O.1, returned to the place, where P.Ws.1 to 3 & Ilayaraja were proceeding i.e. opposite to Ananda Clinic. Immediately, the accused declaring ",j;njhL xHpe;Jnghlh" stabbed P.W.1 over his left lateral chest. On seeing this, when Ilayaraja attempted to prevent the accused, he stabbed Ilayaraja also over the left intercostal space, causing deep injury, which was also witnessed by P.Ws.2 & 3. Thereafter, the accused left the scene of crime and confessed to P.W.8 about the incident, which had taken place, and the crime committed by him. (c) P.Ws.2 & 3 with the help of P.W.7, took the injured to the hospital. When they reached hospital at about 12.20 p.m. or so, the doctor, who attended on them viz., P.W.10, declared that Ilayaraja died. He had also treated P.W.1, advising him to go to Tanjore Hospital for further treatment. P.Ws.10 & 11 who treated P.W.1, issued Exs.P.6, 8 & 9 revealing that the injury sustained by P.W.1 was grievous in nature. (d) On information, the Inspector of Police, (P.W.14) went to Mayiladuthurai Government Hospital, examined P.W.1, recorded Ex.P.1 statement. On that basis, a case has been registered under Sections 307 and 302 I.P.C. in Cr.No.329/2001, for which the printed F.I.R., Ex.P.18 was submitted to the court concerned. (e) In continuation of the investigation, P.W.14 inspected the scene of crime, prepared observation mahazar, sketch and examined the witnesses also, recording their statements then and there. On the same day, between 4.00 p.m. and 6.00 p.m., P.W.14 conducted inquest over the body of Ilayaraja, resulting the preparation of Ex.P.20. Thereafter, he had made arrangement, for conducting autopsy, by giving requisition. (f) P.W.9 on receipt of Ex.P4 conducted autopsy over the body of Ilayaraja, which revealed the following external and internal injuries: External Injury: "A cut injury 3 « cm x 3 cm over left intercostal space at the midclavicular line (left), 1 cm below left aureola." Internal Injuries: "Third Lt. Rib at midclavicular luie level cut. The injury further goes deep piercing pleura through and through left lower lung lobe, pericardium. Rib at midclavicular luie level cut. The injury further goes deep piercing pleura through and through left lower lung lobe, pericardium. The injury has opened the left ventricle 3 cm in length, « cm breadth." (g) The investigating officer, P.W.14 on information arrested the accused on 17.6.2001 and on enquiry, he volunteered to give a confession, disclosing the place where certain material objects had been concealed, informing that he will take out and hand over the same, under Ex.P.3. In pursuance of the same, P.W.14 recovered M.Os.1,6 & 7 under the cover of Mahazar Ex.P.21. In the course of the investigation, he had examined number of witnesses, recorded their statements then and there and thereafter, he was transferred. (h) After P.W.14, P.W.15 who took the investigation, examined some of the witnesses, perused the previous investigation, which disclosed the facts, that the accused had not only aimed the life of P.W.1, but also committed murder of Ilayaraja. Thus taking the view, a final report has been filed for appropriate punishment, which ended in conviction, as mentioned supra. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. S. Saravanakumar and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), Mr. A.N. Thambithurai. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, (i) the previous first information recorded and received by the police is suppressed in this case, which was lost sight of by the trial Court, which should create doubt about the origin of the case, (ii) the injury sustained by the accused has not been properly explained, (iii) there is no acceptable proof for the recovery of M.O.1, since the witnesses have not supported the recovery, (iv) no independent and uninterested witnesses have been examined, though available at the time of the alleged incident, (v) the blood stained cloth from P.W.1 has not been recovered and (vi) that the death intimation has not been produced by the prosecution to prove the actual time and death and the place of incident, etc. On the above grounds, the learned counsel for the appellant contended, that the trial Court has not properly considered the above points, which resulted erroneous decision, warranting interference by this Court. On the above grounds, the learned counsel for the appellant contended, that the trial Court has not properly considered the above points, which resulted erroneous decision, warranting interference by this Court. It is the further and main submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that even assuming that the accused had caused injury to P.W.1 and caused the death of Ilayaraja, the act of the accused, certainly would not come within the meaning of murder and therefore, the conviction slapped upon the accused has to be scaled down, since it is a case of grave and sudden provocation, coming within the meaning of Section 300 Exception (I) of I.P.C., leading to conviction only under Section 304 I.P.C. 7. The learned Government Advocate, opposing the above arguments submitted, that there is no material to indicate, that the previous first information report has been suppressed, which should follow, no doubt would arise, regarding the genesis of the case. It is the further submission of the learned Government Advocate, that the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 are cogent, convincing and in fact, one of the witnesses is an independent witness and to ignore the oral testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3, nothing has been brought out during cross-examination, which should follow, the evidence should be accepted as such, as rightly did by the trial Court. He further argued, that the accused has not sustained any injury and therefore, the non explanation for the imaginary injury is not fatal to the prosecution. In this way, supporting the reasonings given by the trial Court and opposing the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, he pleaded for confirmation of the findings of the trial Court. 8. In the incident, which took place on 16.6.2001 at about 10.30 a.m., P.W.1 sustained serious injury along with Ilayaraja, who succumbed to the same, is not very much disputed. P.W.10 Dr. Maruddaiyan, who examined P.W.1 had noticed a stab injury on the left lateral chest in the left intercostal space in the mid axillary line of P.W.1, measuring 5 cm x 3 cm with a gaping through the space, which is evidenced by Ex.P.6. He referred P.W.1, for further treatment to Tanjore on the same day and P.W.1 was treated by P.W.11. P.W.11 had deposed that P.W.1, who was admitted in the hospital for treatment, was discharged on 23.6.2001. He referred P.W.1, for further treatment to Tanjore on the same day and P.W.1 was treated by P.W.11. P.W.11 had deposed that P.W.1, who was admitted in the hospital for treatment, was discharged on 23.6.2001. It is the further evidence of P.W.11, that the injury caused some damage to the lungs, for which treatment was given. As per the opinion given by the doctor in Ex.P.8, the injury sustained by P.W.1, was grievous in nature. When the doctor had spoken about the nature of injury sustained by P.W.1, the same was not challenged. P.W.11 has also stated categorically, that this injury is sufficient enough to endanger the human life. When he had opined on the above said basis, regarding the nature of injury, the same is not challenged. P.W.1 has also spoken about the injuries sustained by him over his left chest, which caused him to stay in the hospital as inpatient. From the attending circumstances, it is clear, that if the injury was not treated properly, it would have caused the death of P.W.1 also. In this view, it should be held that P.W.1 sustained a grievous injury, which was capable of taking his life also, in the ordinary course, if timely treatment had not been given. If it is proved, that injury had been caused by the accused, there is nothing wrong, in convicting the accused under Section 307 I.P.C. 9. Dr. Sampath Kumar, who conducted autopsy over the body of Ilayaraja, opined that Ilayaraja died of shock and hemorrhage due to penetrating stab injury, which is strengthened by Ex.P.5/postmortem certificate. Though the external injury was 3 « cm x 3 cm, the scan revealed that the injury pierced through left lower lung lobe, pericardium, causing injuries to the left ventricle 3 cm x « cm, though it is a single injury, which proved to be very very fatal, terminating the life of Ilayaraja. The opinion given by the doctor, regarding the cause of death, as well as the nature of injury, is not questioned and in fact, the doctor has not been cross examined also. Therefore, safely it could be concluded, that Ilayaraja died due to stab injury, which he received over the left intercostal space, in the incident described in the final report. Therefore, safely it could be concluded, that Ilayaraja died due to stab injury, which he received over the left intercostal space, in the incident described in the final report. The only thing, the prosecution has to make out, to rope in the accused under Section 302 I.P.C., is that he alone inflicted those injuries by using M.O.1. 10. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that there is suppression of the original or previous first information report given by P.W.1, fails to persuade us, because of lack of materials. None had accepted about the availability of the previous first information report, other than Ex.P.1. P.W.1 during the cross examination appears to have stated, that they had been to the police station, preferred a complaint, then went to Mayiladuthurai Government Hospital. Except the above said stray answer, there is no other material to show that P.W.1 went to the police station and preferred a complaint. In fact, during the examination in chief, he has categorically stated that at about 12.30 p.m. when he was in the hospital at Mayiladuthurai, Police came, enquired and recorded Ex.P.1 statement, in which he had subscribed the signature, which is the case of the Inspector of Police, P.W.14 also, who recorded the statement. P.W.2 has also categorically stated when P.W.1 was in the Mayiladuthurai Hospital, Inspector of Manalmedu came there, recorded the statement. To buttress the answer elicited from P.W.1, nothing is suggested to P.W.2 or P.W.3 or P.W.4 also, as if P.W.1 had given a complaint to the police, then proceeded to the hospital. In the absence of any such suggestion, taking the stray answer elicited from P.W.1, which appears to be factually incorrect, an argument is sought to be built up, as if the first information report given by P.W.1 was suppressed, which we are unable to agree. By the suppression of the alleged first information report, the prosecution is not going to gain anything in this case, because of certain admitted position. The dispute between P.W.1, deceased and the accused, is admitted, as seen from the cross examination. The presence of P.Ws.1 to 3 as well as the deceased is also admitted at the time of the incident, whether the incident had taken place, as described by the prosecution or as claimed by the accused. The dispute between P.W.1, deceased and the accused, is admitted, as seen from the cross examination. The presence of P.Ws.1 to 3 as well as the deceased is also admitted at the time of the incident, whether the incident had taken place, as described by the prosecution or as claimed by the accused. In this view, there is no need for the prosecution to suppress the first information report and prepare Ex.P.1, after deliberation, so as to implicate the accused. In this view, we conclude there is no suppression of any first information report, in this case, so as to say that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the case. 11. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the injury sustained by the accused is not explained by the police, appears to be a myth, invented for the purpose of this case, probably to escape from the seriousness of the offence. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he had stated that when he was in his house, Mayavelu, Ilayaraja, Senthil, Govindaraju came to his house assaulted him with iron pipe, causing head injury, for which he took treatment. In support of the above contention, D.W.1 was examined seeking aid from Ex.D1. As seen from Ex.D1, though originally the name of the accused was written, it was scored out and one Vadivelu name is described as patient, giving father's name also differently. Therefore, Ex.D.1 fails to support the case of the defence that the accused sustained injury. D.W.1 also failed to identify the accused, informing the Court the injuries said to have been sustained by him or treated by her. P.W.14 has deposed that though the accused informed him that he was assaulted by P.W.1 and others, he had not noticed any injury. Immediately after the arrest, he was produced before the Magistrate concerned, for remand. The learned Judicial Magistrate had not noticed any external injury over the body of the accused. The above facts would go to show, that the accused had not sustained any injury, in the incident narrated in the final report, in the hands of P.W.1 or the deceased. Therefore, the question of non explanation of the injury sustained by the accused does not arise for consideration. The above facts would go to show, that the accused had not sustained any injury, in the incident narrated in the final report, in the hands of P.W.1 or the deceased. Therefore, the question of non explanation of the injury sustained by the accused does not arise for consideration. According to P.Ws.1 to 3, they have assaulted the accused with hands, when he questioned them, uttering provoking words, thereby explaining the assault, which is sufficient in this case. Under the above said circumstances, we are unable to entertain any doubt for the imaginary injury sustained by the accused. 12. In the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that death intimation has not been produced and there is no acceptable evidence for the recovery of M.O.1, we are unable to find any substance and in fact, these defences are not pressed at later point of time. 13. Ex.P.1 set the law in motion, which came into existence at about 3.00 p.m. on 16.6.2001 i.e. on the date of occurrence itself. The incident took place at about 10.30 a.m. In the incident, two persons sustained injuries and therefore, the people were interested and keen in taking the injured persons to the hospital to save their life. Only in this process, if at all, any delay had occurred, it would not affect the case of the prosecution. In Ex.P.1, P.W.1 has picturised the incident, the act of the accused and his role previous to the incident, etc. In accordance with the averments available in Ex.P.1 alone, P.Ws.1 to 3 have deposed cogently, naturally, convincingly before the trial Court. Though P.Ws.1 and 2 are brothers, we do not find any reason, to discard their oral testimony, P.W.1 being the injured witness and P.W.2 being the eye witness. Law does not say that interested oral testimony should be eschewed always. P.W.1 identifying M.O.1 has stated, how the accused caused injury over his left chest, aiming his life also. The evidence so given by P.W.1 is fully corroborated and supported by the oral evidence of P.Ws.2 & 3. The trial Court, properly analysing the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, has come to an unerring conclusion, that the accused aimed the life of P.W.1, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 307 I.P.C., in which we do not find any error, either on facts or on law, warranting our interference. The trial Court, properly analysing the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, has come to an unerring conclusion, that the accused aimed the life of P.W.1, thereby attracting the provisions of Section 307 I.P.C., in which we do not find any error, either on facts or on law, warranting our interference. No argument was also advanced, as if, no offence had been made out under Section 307 I.P.C., whereas any lesser offence, if at all could have been made out. In this view, the conviction and sentence slapped by the trial Court against the accused under Section 307 I.P.C. are to be confirmed. 14. P.Ws.1 to 3 have spoken about the act of the accused in stabbing Ilayaraja over his left chest, which took away his life, as we have already concluded. The cross examination of P.Ws.1 to 3 would suggest that Ilayaraja and Mayavelu sustained injuries in the same incident. Though an attempt was made during the cross examination, to shift the scene of crime just in front of the house of the accused, we find no material to accept the same. It is not the case of the accused that on his side, there were number of persons defending the action of P.W.1 and the deceased, whereas it appears, it is his case that he was alone. Therefore, there is no possibility for P.W.1 and the deceased to sustain injuries by attacking each other, that too during day time. Since the incident had taken place at about 10.30 a.m., considering the defence taken by the accused, as well as the convincing evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, we would conclude unhesitatingly that the accused alone had stabbed Ilayaraja over his left intercostal space, which pierced through the lung causing injury to pericardium, taking his life also. Since the injuries inflicted by the accused is the cause for the death of Ilayaraja, the accused should be held responsible and the offence must be murder, as rightly concluded by the trial Court, not warranting any other conclusion. 15. Since the injuries inflicted by the accused is the cause for the death of Ilayaraja, the accused should be held responsible and the offence must be murder, as rightly concluded by the trial Court, not warranting any other conclusion. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted, that there was no motive or intention for the accused to commit murder of Ilayaraja and therefore, the act of stabbing, which caused the death will not come within the meaning of murder and if at all, it should come within the purview of Exception (1) of 300 I.P.C., leading to conviction under Section 304 I.P.C. 16. Exception (I) to Section 300 reads: "Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident." In order to attract this exception, it should be established that there was grave and sudden provocation, which deprived the power of self control of the accused. The follow up action on the basis of sudden provocation must be immediate act and should have nexus with the subsequent action, coupled with, the sudden provocation causing deprivation of the power of one's self control. If there was sufficient, or enough time, between the alleged sudden provocation and the act under question, one cannot claim, he had lost the self control, acted only by the impulsion, motivated or propelled by the provocation, having no time to think the consequences. On the other hand, if the so called grave and sudden provocation has nothing to do with the actual stabbing of the deceased forthwith, the so called grave and sudden provocation may not come to the aid of the accused, to claim benefit on the ground, that the culpable homicide is not a murder. In order to find out whether Exception (1) to Section 300 I.P.C. is applicable to this case, we have to remember the facts and circumstance of the case. 17. In Ex.P.1 itself, it is said that when the accused picked up quarrel and attempted to assault them, they beat the accused. P.Ws.1 to 3 have also deposed, that they assaulted the accused, since he scolded them for lesser payment. 17. In Ex.P.1 itself, it is said that when the accused picked up quarrel and attempted to assault them, they beat the accused. P.Ws.1 to 3 have also deposed, that they assaulted the accused, since he scolded them for lesser payment. From the above evidence, it is seen that the accused was a victim in the hands of P.W.1 and the deceased to some extent. On this basis, it was urged, that by the grave and sudden provocation caused by P.W.1 and the deceased by assaulting, the accused took the knife and stabbed P.W.1 and the deceased, without any intention or motive to commit murder and therefore, it should be held that it is a culpable homicide not amounting to murder. If stabbing incident had taken place, forthwith at the same place, when the accused was beaten by P.W.1 and Ilayaraja, this argument will certainly have the base, deserving acceptance, but it is not the case. It is in evidence that after the first incident at about 10.00 a.m., the accused went to his house, took the knife, returned to the place, where P.W.1 and the deceased were walking and stabbed them at about 10.30 a.m. All the eye witnesses have unanimously spoken, convincingly also, that the accused aggrieved by their assault, declared at once, that he will finish these two. Declaring so, to achieve this end, he had been to his house, and returned with knife, is the unerasable evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. The very fact, that the accused went to his house, declaring that he will kill the two, returned with deadly weapon, would undoubtedly suggests that there was clear intention on the part of the accused, to commit murder including P.W.1, who fortunately escaped with grievous hurt alone, whereas unfortunately, Ilayaraja died. This act of the accused, in our considered opinion, will not come within the meaning of "grave and sudden provocation", in view of the fact, the accused had not acted immediately, by taking any weapon available in and around, whereas planning to commit murder and in order to execute the same, he went to the house, returned with weapon and stabbed the two, which would go to show, not only the intention, but also the motive to commit murder, with preparation. 18. 18. The learned counsel for the accused/appellant submitted, that even as per the case of the prosecution, the accused attacked the deceased, as well as P.W.1, immediately after P.W.1 and the deceased assaulted him and therefore, the act of the accused should be construed or presumed as one coming under "grave and sudden provocation", losing the power of self control. By going through the materials available on record, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the said contention. It is not the case of a sustained provocation, based on previous and continuous motives. The accused, P.W.1 and the deceased were admittedly friends and were working jointly. The secular incident had taken place at the first instance only, due to lesser payment, for the work performed by the accused. Previously or subsequently no quarrel took place or no animosity has been entertained by P.W.1 or the deceased. Therefore, there is no continuity of animosity, in order to say, that the accused might have provoked by sustained or continuous activities of the deceased and P.W.1. As repeatedly said, the accused/appellant, declaring that he will finish off these two, had been to his house with determined mind to assault these people, in order to commit murder and in that process, he took the knife of his father, who is a butcher and thereafter, without any provocation by P.W.1 or the deceased, attacked both, aiming the life of P.W.1 and causing the death of the deceased. The first provocation caused by the deceased and P.W.1 near a tea stall, cannot be stretched too long, under the facts and circumstances, so as to say, this alone had caused sudden provocation, in this case, compelling the accused to lose his self control, at later point of time. The fact that in the F.I.R, it is said immediately thereafter, the accused came and attacked, could not eclipse the time consumed by the accused, in preparation of this act, by consuming 30 minutes as spoken by P.W.1 or at least 10 minutes as spoken by P.W.2, as the case may be. After all, the witnesses are not so educated, who can say precisely the time of occurrence and the time is approximately spoken. After all, the witnesses are not so educated, who can say precisely the time of occurrence and the time is approximately spoken. Whether it is 10 minutes or 30 minutes, as the case may be, the fact remains that the accused had made preparation, by taking some time, after the first incident, which is not so grave in nature, so as to say that one would lose his self control. But here, for the reasons best known to the accused, for petty matter, probably aggrieved by the conduct of the co-worker, he took a serious view, then mentally prepared to assault and to execute the same, went to the house, took the knife, stabbed two. Fortunately, P.W.1 sustained only grievous injury, otherwise the accused/appellant ought to have faced the trial for double murder, which was avoided. 19. The trial Court, considering these facts, has correctly convicted the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. also, not warranting our interference. For the reasons assigned by us supra, the appeal is devoid of merits, deserving rejection. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence passed under Sections 307 and 302 I.P.C., by the trial Court in S.C.NO.61/2002.