Judgment : S. Tamilvanan, J. 1. The appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the appellant/accused under Section 302, I.P.C. and two years’ Rigorous Imprisonment under Section 506 (Part II), I.P.C. in SC. No. 10 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Session Judge, Sivagangai, for having murdered, his wife Udayammai, by inflicting multiple injuries with Sickle (Aruval). The sole accused is the appellant herein. 2. Theprosecution case in brief is as follows: The deceased Udayammai was the wife of the appellant/accused herein. On the fateful day, 8.9.1994, at about 4.00 p.m while the deceased Udayammai and her mother’s younger sister Alangaram were working in the agricultural land belonged to the latter, at Panangudi village, Karaikudi Taluk, the appellant/accused, Sampath came to the paddy field and asked the deceased to come and live with him. As the deceased was not willing to abide by the request of the accused, the accused attacked the deceased with sic kle (Aruval) on the head, stomach and other parts of the body of the deceased Udayammai indiscriminately and as a result of which Udayammai died on the spot. On seeing the attack of the accused by sickle, Alangaram, raised an alarming voice and hence the accused threatened her with the sickle and thereby he committed the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 506 (Part II), I.P.C. After the occurrence, P.W.1 proceeded to her village as instructed by P.W.2, the father of the deceased, to bring some men from their residence to the scene of crime, and while she was going on the way to her residence, the accused who was standing on the road with the sickle threatened P.W.1, and hence due to apprehension of the threat, P.W.1 returned to the scene of crime and after some time, she went and informed the villagers about the occurrence that had taken place at the scene of crime. Then, she went along with P.W.3, to the Kallal Police Station and gave a oral statement about the occurrence, which was reduced into writing as complaint on which she affixed her thumb impression. The said complaint was marked as Ex.P.1, through P.W.1. 3. Then, she went along with P.W.3, to the Kallal Police Station and gave a oral statement about the occurrence, which was reduced into writing as complaint on which she affixed her thumb impression. The said complaint was marked as Ex.P.1, through P.W.1. 3. P.W.14 was the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Kallal Police Station who received the complaint Ex.P-1 from P.W.1 on 8.9.1994 at about 9.00 p.m and registered the case in Crime No. 144 of 1994 under Section 302, I.P.C. and prepared the printed FIR Ex.P-16 and sent the FIR and the complaint to the Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi through P.W.13-Constable and forwarded the copies thereon to his higher officials. P.W.15 is the Inspector attached to Kallal Police Station, who conducted the investigation and laid the final report. 4. On 08.09.1994 after receiving the copy of the FIR from P.W.14, P.W.15-Investigating Officer went to the scene of crime at about 10.30 p.m. As it was a night time, without sufficient light, he deputed constables 746 and 909 as Sentries at the scene of crime. On 9.9.1994 at about 6.30 a.m, he again went to the scene of occurrence issued summons to the Panchayatdars at about 7.00 a.m and in the presence of P.W.10 and village menial Veeriah, P.W.15 recovered the blood stained earth-M.O.22 and sample earth-M.O.23 under mahazar-Ex.P-5 in which P.W.10 and the said Veeriah signed as witnesses, at about 7.30 a.m. P.W.15 prepared the observation mahazar- Ex.P-4 in the presence of the aforesaid witnesses. Then he prepared Ex.P-17, rough sketch which would show the scene of crime. Then P.W.15 conducted inquest on the dead body of Udayammai between 8.00 a.m and 11.00 a.m., in the presence of witnesses and Panchayatdars. The inquest report, prepared by him was marked as Ex.P.18. After the inquest, he sent the dead body of Udayammai to the Government Hospital, Karaikudi, through the constable P.W.12 with the request letter-Ex.P-2. After the post mortem, M.O.24 blood stained sarry and M.O.25-blood stained blows, removed from the dead body of Udayammai were recovered by P.W.15 under the mahazar Ex.P-6, in the presence of P.W.10 and the village menial Veeriah. 5. P.W.8, the Medical Officer attached to Government Hospital, Karaikudi, conducted the post mortem on the body of the deceased Udayammai, on the request letter Ex.P-2 given by the investigating officer P.W.15. 5. P.W.8, the Medical Officer attached to Government Hospital, Karaikudi, conducted the post mortem on the body of the deceased Udayammai, on the request letter Ex.P-2 given by the investigating officer P.W.15. The body of the deceased-Udayammai had been handed over to the medical officer-P.W.8 by the constable-P.W.12 for post mortem. The medical officer-P.W.8, who conducted the post mortem found the following external and corresponding internal injuries on the body of the deceased: (1) An incised wound of size 15 cm x 5 cm x bone/(torn) causing fracture of skull Rt parietal bone exposed the brain matter above the Rt ear (2.5 cm above) lobe to the frontal area. (2) An incised wound of size 5 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep on the right lateral and posterior aspect of neck. (3) An incisedwound of size 8 cm x 3 cm x bone deep causing fracture 7th and 8th ribs. (4) Three incised wounds one (torn) the other muscle deep on the right side of the back size 1.5 cm x 2 cm. (5) An incisedwound of size 6 cm x 2 cm x bone deep in the left wrist. (6) An incisedwound 10 cm x 4 cm bone deep in the left cheek. (7) An incisedwound 5 cm x 1 cm above the forehead in frontal area in midline. Hyoid bone intact. Exploring wound No. 3: Fracture of 7th and 8th ribs confirmed. There is no injury to Diaphragm, liver or fight lungs. Heart – empty. Congested. Lungs - congested. Other viscera normal Opening the skull, through fracture line corresponding to injury Nos. 1 & 7 revealed that there was laceration of membrane covering the brain, the brain matter also is lacerated and blood clots are found in the lacerated area. The post mortem certificate issued by P.W.8 was marked as Ex.P.3 through the said medical witness, who has given his opinion in Ex.P.3 and also deposed in his evidence that— “The deceased would appear to have died of multiple injuries and head injuries causing damage to brain matter and also due to shock and haemorrhage about 18 to 24 hours prior to post-mortem.” 6. P.W.12 was the Constable attached to Kallal Police Station who on the instruction of the Investigating Officer P.W.15, had taken the dead body of the deceased Udayammai, to the Government hospital, Karaikudi on 09.09.1994 and handed over the same to P.W.8, the Doctor for conducting the post-mortem. 7. P.W.2, the father of the deceased, Adaikkappan was examined to elicit the facts, after the occurrence at the scene of crime. P.W.3, the brother of the deceased, who accompanied P.W.1 to Kallal Police Station, spoke about the complaint lodged by P.W.1 before P.W.14, and the Sub-Inspector has stated in support of the evidence given by P.W.1. P.W.4 turned hostile, hence he was cross-examined by the prosecution. P.W.5, the minor daughter of the deceased and the accused, aged about 15 would speak about the ill-treatment and cruelty meted out by the deceased Udayammai at the hands of the accused prior to the occurrence. 8. The photographer, who took photographs on the dead body of Udaiyammai at the scene of occurrence on 8.9.1994, was examined as P.W.7 and the photos were marked as M.Os.2 to 11 along with negatives, M.Os.12 to 21. 9. P.W.10, the Village Administrative Officer of Panangudi group has deposed that on 8.9.1994, at about 6.00 p.m., after knowing about the occurrence, went to the scene of occurrence and saw the dead body of Udaiyammai. As he was informed that somebody had gone to the police station for lodging a complaint, he made arrangements only to protect the body of the deceased at the scene of crime, with the assistance of the village menial. On the next day, 9.9.1994, at about 7.00 a.m., when the Inspector of police, Kallal Police Station P.W.15, came with his party and prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P-4 at the scene of crime, P.W.10, along with the village menial signed as witness. M.O.22, Blood stained earth and M.O.23, sample earth were recovered at the scene of occurrence, by P.W.15 under Ex.P-5 mahazar, in which he along with the menial, Veeriah signed as witness. At about 4.30 p.m. on the same day, after post mortem was conducted on the body of the deceased Udaiyammai by P.W.8, at the Government Hospital, Karaikudi, the blood stained sarry, M.O.24 and blouse, M.O.25 which were removed from the body of the deceased were recovered by P.W.15, under Ex.P-6 mahazor, in which he along with the village menial, Veeriah signed as witness. On 15.9.1994, at about 7.00 a.m., when he was in his office, he was asked to accompany the Inspector-P.W.15. He accompanied police party and was also a witness, along with Veeriah, for the arrest of the accused on 15.09.1994 at a place called Kovilpattivilakku and for the confession statement given by him, the admissible portion of the same was marked as Ex.P-7. On the basis of the admissible portion of the confession statement, the accused took the Inspector and others including P.W.10 and Veeirah to a place behind the Kaliammal temple at Panangudi village, where the accused took out M.O.1, Sickle (Aruval) from a bush and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer-P.W.15, the same was recovered by P.W.15 under Ex.P-8 mahazar, in which P.W.10 along with the village menial signed as witness. The Head Clerk of Judicial Magistrate Court, Karaikudi who received Ex.P.9-requisition letter from the Inspector on 3.10.1994 to send M.O.22 to M.O.25 for chemical analysis was examined as P.W.11. The said M.Os.22 to 25 were sent to the Forensic Laboratory for chemical analysis by him. Ex.P-10 is the copy of the requisition letter given by the Judicial Magistrate to the forensic department for chemical analysis of the material objects. The chemical analysis report-Ex.P-11 and serological report-Ex.P-12 relating to this case were received from the concerned departments and marked through him. The requisition letter given by P.W.15 to send M.O.1 for chemical analysis and the copy of the letter addressed by the Judicial Magistrate to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai were marked as Exs.P-13 and P.14 respectively. The report relating to the said M.Os received from the forensic department was marked as Ex.P-15. The Constable who submitted the express FIR to the Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi on 09.09.1994 was examined as P.W.13. 10. As per the evidence available on record, on 15.9.1994 at about 7.30 a.m., P.W.15-the Investigating Officer arrested the accused at Kovilpatti-villakku in the presence of P.W.10 and the village menial. The evidence of P.W.10 would state about the confession statement given by the accused in the presence of P.W.10 and the village menial and the admissible portion was marked as Ex.P-7. The evidence of P.W.10 would state about the confession statement given by the accused in the presence of P.W.10 and the village menial and the admissible portion was marked as Ex.P-7. Based on the confession statement, the accused had taken P.W.15 and other officials to Panangudi Kalliaman Temple, where the accused took out M.O.1, sickle from a bush at the back of the temple and handed over the same to P.W.15 in the presence of P.W.10 and the village menial Veeriah. The same was recovered by the investigating officer under the cover of Ex.P.8, mahazar. The blood-stained cloths and weapon were sent for chemical analysis and serological report through the Court below on the request of the investigating officer-P.W.15. The serological report Ex.P-12 would show that M.Os.22 and 24 contained human blood and the result of grouping test was inconclusive. Ex.P-15 is the chemical analysis report. The investigating officer after completing the investigation laid the final report against the accused under Section 302, I.P.C. 11. The accused was questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances found against him in the evidence which was totally denied by the accused. He also filed a written statement. The accused did not examine any defence witness. 12. The learned Principal Sessions Judge on the basis of the evidence, oral and documentary, found the accused guilty of the charges and convicted the accused under Sections 302 and 506 (Part-II), I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. and two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 506 (Part-II), I.P.C. It is against the judgment of conviction and sentence, the present Appeal has been preferred by the accused. 13. The point for consideration in the Appeal is whether the prosecution has proved the case against the accused and the learned Sessions Judge was correct in sentencing the accused for life imprisonment under Section 302, I.P.C. and two years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 506 (Part-II), I.P.C. The accused before the Trial Court, did not dispute the cause of death of his wife Udayammai. The prosecution also succeeded in establishing the cause of death of Udayammai, by examining P.W.8, the doctor, who conducted autopsy. As per the evidence of the doctor, Udayammai died on account of multiple injuries including head injuries causing damage to brain matter and also due to the shock and haemorrhage. The prosecution also succeeded in establishing the cause of death of Udayammai, by examining P.W.8, the doctor, who conducted autopsy. As per the evidence of the doctor, Udayammai died on account of multiple injuries including head injuries causing damage to brain matter and also due to the shock and haemorrhage. We, on medical evidence, hold that Udayammai, the wife of the accused died on account of homicidal violence. 14. The first submission of Mr. D. Veerasekaran, the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was a delay in handing over the FIR to the Judicial Magistrate which would vitiate the trial. It is seen from the evidence of P.W.14 that a complaint Ex.P-1 was lodged by P.W.1 on 8.9.1994 at about 9.00 p.m. while he was the Sub-Inspector of Police at Kallal Police Station. Based on the complaint, he registered the case in Crime No. 144 of 1994, under Section 302, I.P.C. and he sent the complaint Ex.P-1 and the printed FIR-Ex.P-16 to the Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi. P.W.13, the Constable attached to the said Police Station received the cover containing the complaint and FIR with Kadavu chit at 10.00 p.m on 8.9.1994. He could not proceed to Karaikudi and submit the same to the Judicial Magistrate, on the night itself as there was no bus facility after 10.00 p.m to Karaikudi from Kallal village. As per his evidence, he could hand over the cover containing the complaint and the printed FIR only on 9.9.1994 at about 8.00 a.m. As there was no transport facility, P.W.13-constable could not submit the cover containing the complaint-Ex.P-1 and FIR-Ex.P-16 on the same day. 15. We are of the considered view that since the occurrence took place in the remote village and the complaint was lodged by P.W.1 at 9.00 p.m., due to non-availability of bus facilities, P.W.13 could submit the cover containing the FIR and the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi only on the next day morning at about 8.00 a.m. and the delay has been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution case and that the delay would not vitiate the trial. 16. The second point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/ accused, is as per the evidence, there was small spade (Kalaikottu) and a tiffin box found at the scene of occurrence which were not recovered and marked as material objects. 16. The second point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/ accused, is as per the evidence, there was small spade (Kalaikottu) and a tiffin box found at the scene of occurrence which were not recovered and marked as material objects. But, it is not the prosecution case that the spade and the tiffin box were used for committing the crime. Therefore the alleged items found at the scene of occurrence are only non-incriminating materials. Therefore, in our view, the non-incriminating materials need not be seized by the investigating officer from the scene of crime, when there is eye witness for the occurrence. 17. The learned counsel would contend that it could not be possible for the accused to inflict indiscriminate cut injuries by M.O.1 on the body of the deceased, since he was suffering from leprosy and could not use his right hand. But the Trial Court has found the physical appearance of the accused and also M.O.1 and it has correctly come to the conclusion that it could be possible for the accused to use M.O.1 and cause the injuries. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused could not have inflicted the cut injuries with M.O.1 sickle, on the deceased, hold no water. 18. Finally, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even if this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution case is proved, the offence alleged by the prosecution would not attract Section 302, I.P.C. and it would come under Exception 4 of Section 300, I.P.C. 19. Mr. K. Chellapandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that there are clinching evidence to prove the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and that the accused was capable of committing the offence and the alleged incapacity attributed in favour of the accused cannot be accepted. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that in the facts and circumstances, the provisions under Section 302, I.P.C. is directly applicable to convict the accused. We could see cogent and convincing evidence of P.W.1 though she is an illiterate witness, P.W.1 has adduced the evidence in a very natural way so as to clinch and prove the occurrence. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that in the facts and circumstances, the provisions under Section 302, I.P.C. is directly applicable to convict the accused. We could see cogent and convincing evidence of P.W.1 though she is an illiterate witness, P.W.1 has adduced the evidence in a very natural way so as to clinch and prove the occurrence. Further, the evidence of P.W.7 and photographs taken by him on the dead body of the deceased Udayammai and marked as M.O.2 to M.O.11 would clearly show that the occurrence had taken place only at the scene of occurrence, an agricultural paddy field. It would probablise the evidence of P.W.1 that during the occurrence the deceased was doing agricultural cooly work along with P.W.1. The injuries found on the body of the deceased by the Doctor-P.W.8, as described in the post mortem certificate-Ex.P-3, would clearly establish that the accused had knowledge that his indiscriminate act of cutting with sickle-M.O.1 on the body of the deceased would likely to cause the death. It is seen from the evidence that the accused went to the scene of occurrence with M.O.1-sickle, a deadly weapon. The photographs marked as M.O.2 to M.O.11 would show that multiple cut injuries were inflicted on the deceased. The deadly weapon used by the accused and the indiscriminate cut injuries caused on the head and other vital parts of the deceased would clearly show that the accused had intention to commit the murder. The theory of alleged sudden provocation cannot be considered on the facts and circumstances of the case. 20. In the decision in Suyambukkani v. State of Tamil Nadu , 1989 L.W (Crl.) 86, wherein this Court has held as follows: “Therefore though technically the Exceptions to Section 300, I.P.C., appear to be limitative they can no longer be considered so, after the efflux of time. In fact, Courts have added one more exception known as ‘sustained provocation’.” 21. The Honourable Supreme Court in a decision rendered in State of U.P. v. Premi and Others, 2003 (9) SCC 12 , has held as follows: “The mere fact that only a single blow was inflicted on the head by itself is not enough to alter the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304, I.P.C.” 22. The Honourable Supreme Court in a decision rendered in State of U.P. v. Premi and Others, 2003 (9) SCC 12 , has held as follows: “The mere fact that only a single blow was inflicted on the head by itself is not enough to alter the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304, I.P.C.” 22. In Hukam Chand v. State of Haryana , 2002 (8) SCC 421 , it has been held by the Honourable Apex Court that infliction of single blow on vital part of the body by the appellant (accused) caused the death. According to the Doctor’s opinion, death was due to cranio-cerebral damage consequent upon being hit by a sharp-cutting weapon and the said head injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased. In the circumstances, the Supreme Court rejected the plea for conversion of conviction under Section 304(1) instead of Secti on 302, I.P.C. and justified the conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. 23. Inthe present case on hand, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has established the case against the accused by oral and documentary evidence that the appellant/accused had inflicted indiscriminate cut injuries on the body of the deceased by a deadly weapon, M.O.1 due to which the victim died on the spot. It is seen from the evidence that there could be no sudden provocation to cut the deceased indiscriminately with the deadly weapon-M.O.1. Therefore, we are of the clear and considered view that the plea raised on the side of the appellant/accused to consider the provision under Exception to Section 300, I.P.C. cannot be invoked on the facts and circumstances of the case, as it is a brutal murder. 24. On a careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Principal Sessions Judge has correctly come to a conclusion that the guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. We could find no illegality or infirmity in the Judgment rendered by the learned Principal Session Judge so as to interfere with the same. 25. In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is hereby confirmed and the Appeal stands dismissed. The bail bond if any executed by the appellant shall stand terminated forthwith. We could find no illegality or infirmity in the Judgment rendered by the learned Principal Session Judge so as to interfere with the same. 25. In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is hereby confirmed and the Appeal stands dismissed. The bail bond if any executed by the appellant shall stand terminated forthwith. The learned Principal Sessions Judge is directed to take steps to secure the accused who is shown to be on bail and remit him to the prison to serve the rest of the imprisonment.