Judgment :- P.D. Dinakaran, J. Challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/sole accused in Sessions Case No.132 of 2006 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, the present appeal has been brought forth before this Court. On being tried for an offence of murder, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life and was also directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. 2. The prosecution had put in the challan against the appellant/accused before the Court charging that on 4. 2006 at about 6.30 p.m., in a wordy quarrel with regard to a dispute in using a cart track at Pullankattu Kavuru channel situated between the lands of the appellant and the deceased Palanisamy Gounder, the appellant, with an intention to cause death, hit the deceased Palanisamy Gounder on his right hand with a weeding spade and after Palanisamy Gounder fell down, with an aruval, inflicted indiscriminate cut injuries on the head and face, due to which, the deceased died and thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. 3. When initially questioned as to the charge, the appellant/accused denied his complicity and hence, the case was committed to Court of Sessions, where charge was framed and on denial of the same by the accused, case was taken up for trial. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution marched 15 witnesses, produced 24 exhibits and marked 16 material objects. 4. The case of the prosecution, as culled out from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, both oral and documentary, is stated thus: (a) P.W.1 is the son, P.W.3 is the brothers son and P.W.4 is the son-in-law of the deceased Palanisamy Gounder. All the three witnesses are projected as eye witnesses to the occurrence. According to their evidence, about six months prior to the occurrence, a dispute arose between the deceased and the accused with regard to a cart track situated in the Pullankattu Kavuru channel, while the deceased used the same to go to his field, which is adjacent to the land of the accused, the accused objected to the same stating that the said cart track runs through his land and hence, the deceased has no right to trespass into the same. The matter was taken before the Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, who after inspecting the spot, directed both of them not to create further problem and informed the accused not to prevent the deceased to use the said cart track, as the same runs only on the poramboke land and not on the land of the accused. (b) While so, on the date of occurrence, the deceased, in order to transport his tractor to his field for the purpose of ploughing, was clearing the cart track with the help of a spade. At that time, the accused came in a cycle and on seeing the deceased clearing the cart track, he shouted at the deceased by using filthy words and asked him to stop doing; but the deceased did not heed to the words of the accused and continued to do the work. Annoyed by that, the accused, with the weeding spade, which he was having in his cycle, inflicted a blow on the right hand of the deceased, on receipt of which, the deceased fell down and the weeding spade also had fallen into the water channel. The accused, thereafter, took out the billhook from the bicycle and inflicted indiscriminate cut injuries on the head and face of the deceased. On noticing the attack on the deceased, the witnesses, who were standing at the land of the deceased and talking to each other, rushed to the spot by shouting not to cut the deceased. On seeing the witnesses, the accused swirled the billhook and ran away from the place. The witnesses placed the injured in a car and took him to a private hospital, where P.W.2, doctor, on examining him, found him dead. Thereafter, the body was brought back to the house of the deceased. (c) P.W.1 along with P.W.3 proceeded to Dharapuram police station and lodged a complaint, Ex.P.1, based on which, P.W.13, Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.216 of 2006 against the accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. at about 11.00 p.m. He prepared printed F.I.R., Ex.P.21 and sent the same to Court and copies to higher-ups. (c) P.W.1 along with P.W.3 proceeded to Dharapuram police station and lodged a complaint, Ex.P.1, based on which, P.W.13, Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.216 of 2006 against the accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. at about 11.00 p.m. He prepared printed F.I.R., Ex.P.21 and sent the same to Court and copies to higher-ups. (d) P.W.5 is the brothers son of the deceased and according to him, on the date of occurrence at about 5.00 p.m., he saw the deceased going in a bicycle towards his field with a crow bar kept at the carrier of the cycle and within half-an-hour, he also saw the accused going towards the field with a weeding spade and aruval kept in the bicycle. (e) P.W.6 is another son-in-law of the deceased and he is a witness who attested the observation mahazar and seizure mahazar at the scene of occurrence. (f) P.W.7 is a witness, who speaks about the dispute that existed between the accused and the deceased. He has stated in his evidence that the accused complained to him and the Assistant Engineer, P.W.D., that the deceased drove his tractor on the cart track, due to which, the channel gets damaged, and that he and the Assistant Engineer went to the spot and inspected the same and directed both of them to resolve the dispute amicably and also informed them that as the cart track runs on the poramboke land, the accused need not prevent the deceased to use the same. (g) P.W.15, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of copy of printed F.I.R. at 11.30 p.m., proceeded to the spot and conducted inquest in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses. The inquest report is Ex.P.23. At about 6.00 a.m., he examined witnesses present at the scene and recorded their statements. He observed the spot and prepared observation mahazar, Ex.P.2 and rough sketch, Ex.P.24 attested by witnesses. He recovered M.O.1 - blood-stained weeding spade, M.O.3 - crow bar, M.O.4 - spade with handle, M.O.5 - blood-stained towel, M.O.6 - pair of chappel, M.Os.7 and 8 -two bicycles and M.Os.11 and 12 - blood-stained earth and sample earth under a mahazar, Ex.P.3, attested by witnesses. Thereafter, he sent the dead body to the hospital for post-mortem. (h) P.W.8 is the photographer who took photographs of the dead body of the deceased and the scene of occurrence. Thereafter, he sent the dead body to the hospital for post-mortem. (h) P.W.8 is the photographer who took photographs of the dead body of the deceased and the scene of occurrence. M.O.13 series are the photographs and M.O.14 series are the negatives. P.W.9 is the Village Administrative Officer and on request, he accompanied the police officer, who caused the arrest of the accused and recoveries at his instance. P.W.9 attested the mahazars prepared by the police officers. (i) P.W.10 is the medical officer, who, on receipt of the dead body, conducted postmortem and noticed as many as eight external injuries, of which six were incised injuries and he issued Ex.P.8, post-mortem certificate opining as to the cause of death that the deceased would appear to have died of injury to head and brain due to shock and haemorrhage about 16 to 24 hours prior to autopsy. (j) P.W.15, continuing with his investigation, arrested the accused near Dharapuram bus stop and recorded the voluntary confession statement given by him. The admissible portion of the said statement is marked as Ex.P.4, pursuant to which, M.O.2 - bloodstained billhook and M.Os.15 and 16, blood-stained shirt and lungi were recovered under a mahazar, Ex.P.5, attested by witnesses. On being produced by P.W.14, the constable who was present at the time of post-mortem, under a report, Ex.P.22, M.Os.9 and 10 - dhoti and waist cord, were recovered. A requisition was issued to Court to forward the material objects to laboratory for chemical examination. P.W.11 is the magisterial clerk who forwarded the material objects to laboratory on being requested by the investigating officer and he received Exs.P.13 to P.16, chemical examiners reports and serologists reports. (k) P.W.12 is the successor of the Assistant Engineer, who inspected the lands of the accused and deceased and resolved the dispute. Through him, the documents relating to the cart track dispute, viz., Exs.P.17 to P.19, petitions given by the accused to the Assistant Engineer and Ex.P.20, the order passed on the said petitions, were marked. (l) P.W.15, after examining the official witnesses and recording their statements, completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. on 15. 2006. (m) On completion of the examination of prosecution witnesses, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating evidence put forth against him and he denied them as false. 2006. (m) On completion of the examination of prosecution witnesses, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating evidence put forth against him and he denied them as false. He neither examined any witness nor marked any document on his side. (n) The trial Court, on the basis of the evidence adduced, both oral and documentary, and on hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, found the appellant guilty of the charge of murder and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as referred to earlier. Exasperated over the same, the accused has brought forth this appeal. 5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the evidence of eye witnesses, P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 cannot be believed, since they are related to the deceased and hence, interested witnesses and that even if the entire facts of the case are taken to be true, the offence committed by the appellant will not fall within the ambit of Section 302 I.P.C. and he is entitled for the benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300 I.P.C. 6. On the above contention, we have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who submits that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt through eye witnesses and the motive part of the occurrence has also been established and hence, there is no question of bringing down the offence under Exception 1 to Section 300 I.P.C. and the judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 302 I.P.C. is well-founded, warranting no intereference at the hands of this Court. 7. We heard the rival submissions of both sides and perused the entire recorded evidence. 8. The cause of death of Palanisamy Gounder stands established through the evidence of the doctor, P.W.10, who conducted autopsy. According to the doctor, on account of shock and haemorrhage due to injuries to neck, head and brain, the death would have occurred and that injuries 1 and 2 could have been caused with a weapon like M.O.1 and other injuries could have been caused with a weapon like M.O.2. On the medical evidence, we hold that death was on account of homicidal violence, which fact stands unrebutted by the defence. 9. The points for consideration are: (i) Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts? On the medical evidence, we hold that death was on account of homicidal violence, which fact stands unrebutted by the defence. 9. The points for consideration are: (i) Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts? And (ii) Whether the offence committed by the appellant/ accused would attract Exception 1 to Section 300 I.P.C.? 10. P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 were examined to speak about the incident, as they witnessed the same. All of them are not only related to the deceased but also to the accused. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant/accused was nurturing a grievance against the deceased with regard to a cart track situated near their respective lands. According to the witnesses, the accused filed petitions before the Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, who, after inspecting the spot, found that the said cart track runs on the poramboke land and not on the accused land and accordingly, directed both of them to resolve the dispute amicably. Even thereafter, the accused continued his animosity against the deceased and used to pick up quarrel with him. The evidence of the witnesses with regard to the intervention of the officials of P.W.D. is also corroborated with the evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.12. Thus, it is evident that there was a clear-cut motive behind the crime. 11. Further, according to the eye witnesses, on the date of incident at about 6.30 p.m., when the deceased was clearing the cart track in order to take his tractor to his field for the purpose of ploughing, the accused came there in a bicycle and shouted at the deceased as to his conduct by uttering filthy words and when the deceased did not respond and continued with his work, the accused took out the weeding spade and attacked on his right hand. Again, he inflicted cut injuries with a billhook which he had in his bicycle and on seeing the witnesses raising alarm, he fled from the scene. The evidence of the witnesses, P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 stands unshaken by the lengthy cross-examination. Their evidence is also supported by the medical evidence. That apart, the presence of the accused at the scene is also fortified by the evidence of P.W.5 who saw the accused going in a bicycle towards his field immediately after the deceased went there around 5.30 p.m. on the date of incident. Their evidence is also supported by the medical evidence. That apart, the presence of the accused at the scene is also fortified by the evidence of P.W.5 who saw the accused going in a bicycle towards his field immediately after the deceased went there around 5.30 p.m. on the date of incident. On going through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we find no infirmity to reject their evidence. In fact, the eye witnesses, P.Ws.1, 3 and 4, as already stated, are related not only to the deceased but also to the appellant and they had no reason to give false evidence against the appellant. We, on going through their evidence, are satisfied that their evidence is cogent, convincing and trustworthy and accordingly, we hold that it was the appellant who inflicted the injuries on the deceased, which resulted in his death. 12. The only question that is to be decided is whether the offence committed by the accused will fall within the ambit of Section 302 I.P.C. or will only attract Exception 1 to Section 300 I.P.C. As already observed, the accused was harboring a grudge against the deceased with regard to the cart track dispute. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 3, 4, 7 and 12 clearly establishes the motive part of the occurrence. On the date of occurrence also, as per the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4, eye witnesses, when the deceased was cleaning the cart track in order to take his tractor to his field for ploughing, the accused came in a bicycle having weeding spade and billhook in the carrier and on seeing the deceased cleaning the cart track, got annoyed and shouted at him by using unparliamentary words. He questioned the deceased as to why he is tilling his field, for which there was no response from the deceased. Enraged by the action of the deceased, the accused, in the momentary face of insanity, attacked the deceased on his right hand with the weeding spade which he had in his hand, pursuant to which, the weeding spade fell into the water and the accused, thereafter, took the billhook from the cycle and inflicted indiscriminate cut injuries on the deceased, which resulted in his death. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused, only in order to commit the murder of the deceased, had brought the weapons; on the contrary, he being an agriculturist, billhook and weeding spade are his tools and there is nothing unnatural in his carrying them. 13. It is to be noted that even though the witnesses had not clearly spoken to the exact manner in which the wordy quarrel took place at the spot, as they were at a distance of 250 feet away, the confession statement given by the accused to the police officer after his arrest, discloses that the accused asked the deceased as to why he was tilling in his land, but the deceased, without responding to the same, continued to do the work and thus, piqued at the act of the deceased, the accused committed the crime. We are aware that only such portion of the confession statement given by the accused to the police which led to the recovery of a material object is admissible in evidence as per Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. But, the Apex Court by a catena of decisions held that in the interest of justice it is permissible to look into the confession recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act from the accused in order to decide the nature of offence committed by the accused. 11. In Aghnoo Nagesia V. State of Bihar ( AIR 1966 SC 119 ) it has been observed:- “Now, a confession may consist of several parts and may reveal not only the actual commission of the crime but also the motive, the preparation, the opportunity, the provocation, the weapons used, the intention, the concealment of the weapon and the subsequent conduct of the accused. If the confession is tainted, the taint attaches to each part of it. It is not permissible in law to separate one part and to admit it in evidence as a non-confessional statement. Each part discloses some incriminating fact, i.e., some fact which by itself or along with other admitted or proved facts suggests the inference that the accused committed the crime, and though each part taken singly may not amount to a confession, each of them being part of a confessional statement, partakes of the character of a confession. Each part discloses some incriminating fact, i.e., some fact which by itself or along with other admitted or proved facts suggests the inference that the accused committed the crime, and though each part taken singly may not amount to a confession, each of them being part of a confessional statement, partakes of the character of a confession. If a statement contains an admission of an offence, not only that admission but also every other admission of an incriminating fact contained in the statement is part of the confession”. …………… Little substance and content would be left in Ss.24, 25 and 26, if proof of admissions of incriminating facts in a confessional statement is permitted. “Some of the decided cases took the view that if a part of the report is properly severable from the strict confessional part, then the severable part could be tendered in evidence. We think that the separability test is misleading, and the entire confessional statement is hit by S.25, and save and except as provided by S.27, and save and except the formal part identifying the accused as the maker of the report, no part of it could be tendered in evidence.” The above decision has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Khatri Hemraj Amulkah V. State of Gujarat (AIR 1972 SC 929). 12. This Court also by placing reliance on the decisions cited supra, has taken a similar view in the following decisions:- 1. Ganesan, In re (1973 L.W.(Cri.) 42); 2. CHANDRAN, IN RE reported in 1988 L.W.[Crl.] 113; 3. MUTHUSWAMY V. STATE reported in 1994 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 44 ; and 4. VAIRAMUTHU V. STATE reported in 1996 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 9. 13. According to the above decisions (of this Court and the Honble Apex Court), the only portion of the statement, which could be admitted is the initial portion that the accused was making, which would not be of any use to the prosecution; but there is no bar to the accused using the statement in his favour – see also Mottai Theva, In re [ (1951) 2 M.L.J. 605 ]. 14. 14. It is also apt to refer the decision in SANKARLAL ALIAS SANKARAYEE V. STATE reported in (1989 L.W. (Crl.) 468), wherein a Division Bench of this Court has held that the term self-control in Section 300 I.P.C. is a subjective phenomenon and it can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances of a given case. In order to find out whether the last act of provocation upon which the offender caused the death was sufficiently grave as to deprive him of the power of self-control, we have to take into consideration the previous act of provocation caused by the deceased person. 15. As already stated, from the above evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4, eye witnesses, it can be inferred that only on getting annoyed by the non-response of the deceased when the accused shouted at him, the accused, in the momentary face of insanity, lost his self-control and in a fit of anger, committed the crime. But, at the same time, we find that the accused had an intention to commit the murder of the deceased, as he was having a grudge against him with respect to the using of cart track by the deceased. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that in view of the above said admitted facts, the accused is liable to be convicted only for the offence under section 304 Part-I I.P.C. and accordingly, he is convicted and for the said conviction, we impose a sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment. In the result, (i) the conviction of the appellant/accused under Section 302 I.P.C. is set aside and instead, he is convicted under Section 304 Part-I I.P.C.; (ii) for the said conviction, he is sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment; and (iii) the appeal is, accordingly, allowed in part.