Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. Challenging the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram made in S.C.No.39 of 2004, the sole accused/appellant, on being found guilty under Section 302 IPC and awarded life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo six months RI, has brought forth this criminal appeal. 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: a) P.W.1 is the son of the deceased Kamala. The accused is the brother of the deceased. They are the residents of Velanoor. In respect of an enjoyment of poramboke land, there has been all along quarrel and tussle between the accused and the deceased. P.W.1 was actually employed in Madras. During the relevant time, he came to his native place and on the date of occurrence, he was available in his native place. b) On 35. 2003 at about 4.15 p.m., P.W.1 and his mother had travelled in a mini bus to Keelakarai and in the same bus, the accused was also travelling and they were sitting apart. When the bus was nearing the house of one Selvakumar, the accused suddenly sprang on the deceased with aruval and attacked her indiscriminately and she died instantaneously inside the bus itself. Immediately, the accused got down from the bus and ran away. The occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.1 to 6. c) P.W.1 immediately proceeded to the respondent police station and gave Ex.P.1, the report to P.W.16, the Sub Inspector of Police at about 17.30 hours on 35. 2003, on the basis of which, a case came to be registered by the respondent police in Crime No.191 of 2003 under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P.12, the FIR was despatched to the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court. d) P.W.17, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the FIR, took up the investigation, proceeded to the spot and made an inspection in the presence of the witnesses. He prepared Ex.P.3, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.14, the rough sketch. He recovered material objects from the place of occurrence under a cover of mahazar. Then, he conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.13, the inquest report. Following the same, the dead body of the deceased was sent to the Government Hospital, Keelakarai for the purpose of autopsy along with a requisition. Then, he conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.13, the inquest report. Following the same, the dead body of the deceased was sent to the Government Hospital, Keelakarai for the purpose of autopsy along with a requisition. e) P.W.8, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Keelakarai, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. He has issued Ex.P.5, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of injury to spinal cord and injury to major blood vessels of neck 12 to 18 hours prior to autopsy. f) Pending investigation, the Investigator came to know that the accused surrendered before the court on 6. 2003. He filed an application for police custody and the same was ordered. On 16. 2003, the accused voluntarily gave a confessional statement, which was marked as Ex.P.8. Pursuant to the same, the accused produced M.O.1 aruval, which was recovered in the presence of the witnesses under a cover of mahazar. All the M.Os recovered from the place of occurrence, from the dead body of the deceased and the material object recovered from the accused pursuant to the confessional statement were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Science Department, which resulted in two reports. Ex.P.6 is the Chemical Examiners report and Ex.P.7 is the Serologists report. g) P.W.18, the Inspector of Police took up further investigation of the case. On completion of the investigation, he filed the final report before the Court. 3. The case was committed to the court of sessions and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution has marched 18 witnesses and relied on 14 exhibits and 9 M.Os. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned procedurally under Section 313 Cr.P.C as to the incriminating circumstance found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which he flatly denied as false. No defence witness was examined. The trial court heard the arguments advanced on either side and took a view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and found the accused guilty under Section 302 IPC and awarded life imprisonment, which is the subject matter of challenging before this Court. 4. No defence witness was examined. The trial court heard the arguments advanced on either side and took a view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and found the accused guilty under Section 302 IPC and awarded life imprisonment, which is the subject matter of challenging before this Court. 4. Advancing his arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution rested its case on direct evidence of 6 witnesses, which according to the prosecution are the eyewitnesses, out of 6 eyewitnesses, P.Ws.2 to 6 have turned hostile; that the only evidence available for the prosecution was the evidence of P.W.1; that insofar as P.W.1 was concerned, he is none else than the son of the deceased; that when the test of careful scrutiny was applied, his evidence did not stand the test; that the lower court has accepted the test, which was thoroughly in deviation of the prosecution case; that the occurrence has taken place in a running bus; and that if to be so, at least one of the independent witnesses would have come forward to speak the prosecution case, but all of them have turned hostile, which would clearly indicate that they have not witnessed the occurrence and they have been added as witnesses by the Investigator in order to make believe the case. 5. Added further the learned counsel that in the instant case, the ocular testimony did not support the medical evidence; that in the instant case, actually the accused surrendered before the court; that the police custody was ordered; that the fact that the accused came forward to give confessional statement and on the basis of the confessional statement, M.O.1, aruval was recovered were nothing but an invented story to suit the prosecution case, if possible, but it is highly unbelievable and hence, the lower court should have rejected the case of prosecution. 6. 6. Added further the learned counsel that even assuming that the prosecution has proved the case that it was the accused, who attacked the deceased in a running bus and caused her death, the act of the accused would not attract the penal provisions of murder; that admittedly, there was a quarrel with regard to the enjoyment of the poramboke land; that there was a rival claim and tussle between the accused and the deceased; that even as per the confessional statement relied on by the prosecution and accepted by the lower court, the accused has categorically mentioned that the deceased was often abusing him and he could not tolerate the same and that due to provocation, he has acted so and hence, the act of the accused would not attract the penal provisions of murder, but it would fall within one of the exceptions to Section 300 IPC and it has got to be considered by the Court. 7. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and the Court has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 8. It is not the fact in controversy that the mother of P.W.1 was done to death in the running bus at the time and place as put forth by the prosecution. Following the inquest conducted by the Investigator, the dead body of the deceased was subjected to postmortem by P.W.8, the Doctor. He has issued Ex.P.5, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of injury to spinal cord and injury to major blood vessels of neck 12 to 18 hours prior to autopsy. The fact that she died out of homicidal violence was never questioned by the appellant/accused at any stage of proceedings and hence, it has got to be safely recorded so. .9. In order to substantiate the fact that it was the accused, who attacked the deceased with aruval in a running mini bus, the prosecution examined 6 witnesses, but P.Ws.2 to 6 have turned hostile and the only evidence available was the evidence of P.W.1. It is true, P.W.1 is the son of the deceased and it cannot by itself be the reason to discard his testimony, since it stood the test of careful scrutiny. P.W.1 has clearly narrated the entire incident. It is true, P.W.1 is the son of the deceased and it cannot by itself be the reason to discard his testimony, since it stood the test of careful scrutiny. P.W.1 has clearly narrated the entire incident. P.W.1 was travelling in the bus, in which both the deceased and the accused were also travelling. When the bus nearing the place of occurrence, the accused suddenly sprang on the deceased with aruval and attacked her and caused her death. Immediately, P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent police station and a case came to be registered within a short span of time. The FIR has also reached the Judicial Magistrate concerned within a reasonable time and thus, he has spoken the act of the accused in a clear and candid manner and his evidence has inspired the confidence of the Court. Hence, the lower court has accepted the same and rightly too. The medical evidence through post-mortem Doctor was also fully corroborated by the ocular testimony. Yet another circumstance is the recovery of M.O.1 aruval, pursuant to the confessional statement. The witness was examined to that effect. The Court is of the considered opinion that the evidence in this regard remained unshaken and hence, the lower court has accepted the case of prosecution and rightly too. 10. Coming to the question of nature of the act of the accused, the Court is of the considered opinion that the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant has got to be discountenanced. It is true, there was a poramboke land and there was a rival claim and tussle between the accused and the deceased as to the enjoyment of the same. The learned counsel took the court to the part of the confessional statement to state that the deceased was in practice of abusing the accused and that was the reason for provocation. A reading of the confessional statement, which was relied on by the prosecution and accepted by the lower court, would indicate that the deceased was in practice of abusing the accused. The object of the accused at that time was to do away the deceased, so that he can enjoy the land and not because of provocation he has acted, since the deceased abused him. Thus, there is distinction between both of them. There was neither quarrel nor provocation, which was sudden as expected one in law. The object of the accused at that time was to do away the deceased, so that he can enjoy the land and not because of provocation he has acted, since the deceased abused him. Thus, there is distinction between both of them. There was neither quarrel nor provocation, which was sudden as expected one in law. Apart from that, in order to attract the sudden provocation, the accused should not take undue advantage of the situation. In the instant case, the deceased was a womenfolk and when she was travelling in the minibus unarmed, the accused suddenly sprang on her and attacked her with aruval and thus, he has taken undue advantage of the situation. Hence, no question of applying sudden provocation would arise as one envisaged in the exceptions to S.300 IPC. Hence, the act of the accused should be termed as murder. The lower court was perfectly correct in finding the accused guilty Under Section 302 IPC and awarding life imprisonment and nothing requires for interference either factually or legally. 11. In the result, the criminal appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 12. Mr.M.Suri, Amicus Curiae counsel is entitled to get remuneration from the Legal Aid, Madurai.