Judgment :- V. Periya Karuppiah, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in S.C.No.124 of 2003 dated 20.10.2003 convicting the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows: (a) P.Ws.1 to 3 are the colleagues of the deceased. P.W.1 and the deceased Subramaniam were working together in a Cycle Stand at Karpagam Theatre Complex and P.Ws.2 and 3 are working in a Two Wheeler Stand of the said Theatre complex. (b) On 6. 2002 at 00.40 hours, after the second show i.e. night show, was over, the accused came to Cycle Stand to take his cycle. When the deceased Subramaniam asked for the token given by the Cycle Stand Keeper, the accused replied that he did not collect token as he came late to the show. Thereupon, a wordy quarrel ensued between the accused and the deceased and in that wordy quarrel the deceased took a wooden log (M.O.1) and beat the accused. Enraged upon that the accused took a knife (M.O.2) from his hip and chased the deceased Subramaniam up to 4 or 5 ft. and then caught him and stabbed him with knife on his right and left thighs, right axilla, near the right wrist and on his left axilla. When P.Ws.1 to 3 attempted to rescue the deceased, the accused also threatened them with knife. Thereafter, the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence in his cycle. (c) P.W.4, who came to see cinema also witnessed the accused stabbing the deceased on his right thigh. P.W.6 also would depose in his evidence that he saw the deceased and the accused were quarrelling over the issue of token for the cycle. P.W.7, the father of the deceased identified the body of the deceased. (d) Immediately after the occurrence, P.W.5 Bommaiyan came to the spot after the show was over and on his enquiry, P.W.1 narrated the incident. P.W.5 went outside the Theatre to bring an auto. Since no auto was available, he took the injured Subramaniam on his shoulder to C.S.R. Private Hospital. (d) Immediately after the occurrence, P.W.5 Bommaiyan came to the spot after the show was over and on his enquiry, P.W.1 narrated the incident. P.W.5 went outside the Theatre to bring an auto. Since no auto was available, he took the injured Subramaniam on his shoulder to C.S.R. Private Hospital. Since the said hospital refused the admission of the injured Subramaniam, P.W.1, P.W.5, one Ravi and Dharman took the injured Subramaniam in an auto belonging to and driven by P.W.10 to L.N. Hospital where they were advised to take the injured to a Government Hospital. When they took the injured Subramaniam to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore, he was declared dead. (e) On the death intimation-Ex.P.13 received through V.H.F. from the Hospital, P.W.14 came to the Hospital at 2.40 a.m. on 6. 2002 and recorded the statement given by P.W.1 under Ex.P.1. Thereafter, he went to the Station and registered a case in Cr.No.1347 of 2002 under Section 302 I.P.C. and sent the copies of the printed F.I.R. (Ex.P.14) to the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore and to the higher officials. (f) P.W.15 on the receipt of the information, came to the station and took up the investigation of the case. He went to the Karpagam Theatre Complex along with his Assistant at 5.00 a.m. on 6. 2002 where a photorgrapher and experts from Forensic Lab were already present on his request. He prepared observation mahazar – Ex.P.2 and rough sketch-Ex.P.15 in the presence of P.W.8 and one Natarajan. He caused the crime scene to be photographed and the photographs and their negatives are marked as M.O.10 series. He recovered a wrist watch-M.O.3, a pair of slippers-M.O.8, M.O.1, blood stained cement piece-M.O.6, a sample cement piece-M.O.7, blood stained earth-M.O.4 and sample earth-MO.5 and a blood absorbed cotton available near and from the scene of crime under Mahazar Ex.P.3 in the presence of the same witnesses. He also examined P.W.10, P.Ws.3 to 5 and other witnesses and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he went to the Government General Hospital, Coimbatore and held inquest over the body of the deceased Subramaniam in the presence of P.Ws.1 to 5 and in the presence of panchayatdars. The inquest report is Ex.P.6. He sent the body of the deceased Subramanian for postmortem along with requisition Ex.P.9 through a Head Constable. Thereafter, he went to the Government General Hospital, Coimbatore and held inquest over the body of the deceased Subramaniam in the presence of P.Ws.1 to 5 and in the presence of panchayatdars. The inquest report is Ex.P.6. He sent the body of the deceased Subramanian for postmortem along with requisition Ex.P.9 through a Head Constable. (g) On receipt of the requisition, P.W.13, a doctor attached to Coimbatore Medical College and Hospital conducted post mortem on 6. 2002 at 10.15 a.m. and he found the following injuries, which are incorporated in the postmortem certificate Ex.P.10: "1. Oblique stab injury 1.5 cms x 1 cm x oral cavity deep seen just above the right mandible. The upper blunt end of the wound is 4.5 cms away from the right angle of mouth. 2. Vertically oblique stab injury 1.5 cms x 1 cm x 1 cm muscle deep seen lower part of posterior aspect of right arm. The lower blunt end of the wound is 3 cms above the right elbow joint. 3. (a) Oblique stab injury 1.5 cms x 1 cm x 1 cm muscle deep seen front of middle third of right fore arm. The lower blunt end of the wound is 12 cms above the right wrist. .(b) Another oblique stab injury 1.5 cms x 1 cm x 1 cm muscle deep seen 2 cms left of wound No.3(a). The lower blunt end of the wound is 11 cms above the right wrist. .(c) Abrasion of 2 cms x 1 cm seen front of middle third of right forearm, 1.5cms above the injury No.3 (b) 4. Vertically oblique stab wound 2 cms x 1 cm x 2.5 cms muscle deep seen front of upper part of left chest close to the axilla. The lower sharp end of the wound is 11 cms above the left nipple. 5. Oblique stab injury 1 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm muscle deed seen lower part of lateral aspect of left forearm. The upper blunt and is 5 cms above the left wrist joint. 6. Abrasion 2.5 cms x 1.5 cms seen lower part of posterior aspect of left arm and elbow. 7. Oblique stab injury 4 cms x 1.5 cms x 7 cms muscle deep seen lower part of inner aspect of left thigh. The lower blunt end of the wound is 9 cms above and inner to the left knee joint. 6. Abrasion 2.5 cms x 1.5 cms seen lower part of posterior aspect of left arm and elbow. 7. Oblique stab injury 4 cms x 1.5 cms x 7 cms muscle deep seen lower part of inner aspect of left thigh. The lower blunt end of the wound is 9 cms above and inner to the left knee joint. The wound passes obliquely downwards and forewards, cutting the underlying muscles, vessels and nerves on the line of the injury. 8. Vertically oblique stab wound 2 cms x 1 cm x 3 cms muscle deep seen over the lateral aspect of middle third of right thigh. The blunt end of the wound is 18 cms above and lateral to the right knee joint. 9. Oblique stab wound of 1 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm muscle deep seen over the front of upper part of right leg. The sharp end of the wound is 2.5 cms below the right knee joint." He has opined in the postmortem certificate that the deceased would appear to have died of multiple stab injuries sustained by him. (h) In continuation of the investigation, P.W.15 arrested the accused on 6. 2002 at 2.00 p.m. near Saraswathi Theatre, Rathnapuri 7th Street in the presence of P.W.9 and one Siva. He recorded the confession statement given by the accused in the presence of the witnesses. He recovered the cycle-M.O.9, which the accused was riding under the mahazar Ex.P.6. He also recovered the knife-M.O.2 pursuant to the confession given by the accused under the Mahazar Ex.P.5 and the admissible portion of the confession statement is marked as Ex.P.4. As the accused also sustained injury, he sent the accused for treatment with medical memo to Coimbatore Government Hospital, where he was treated by P.W.12, who issued Accident Register Copy-Ex.P.8. Thereafter, P.W.15 sent the accused for remand. (i) P.W.15 also gave requisition for conducting test identification parade to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore and accordingly identification parade was conducted by P.W.11, the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Coimbatore on 16. 2002. The collective identification parade proceedings are marked as Ex.P.7. He also recovered the personal apparels-M.Os.12 and 13 of the deceased produced under Ex.P.17 after postmortem. He also gave requisition to Court to send the recovered objects for chemical examination under Ex.P.18, which was complied with under Ex.P.19 and the reports received are chemical examination report-Ex.P.20 and serologists report Ex.P.21. 2002. The collective identification parade proceedings are marked as Ex.P.7. He also recovered the personal apparels-M.Os.12 and 13 of the deceased produced under Ex.P.17 after postmortem. He also gave requisition to Court to send the recovered objects for chemical examination under Ex.P.18, which was complied with under Ex.P.19 and the reports received are chemical examination report-Ex.P.20 and serologists report Ex.P.21. On receipt of the viscera report Ex.P.11, P.W.13 further opined in his final opinion-Ex.P.12 that the deceased would appear to have died of multiple injuries and their complications chemical analysis of viscera does not reveal any poison. Thus, collecting all the relevant materials and examining the witnesses and recording their statements, P.W.15 concluded his investigation and filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 3. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating materials available against, he denied the same and did not plead guilty. 4. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge had gone through the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution numbering P.Ws.1 to 15 and Exs.P.1 to P.21 and M.Os.1 to 13 and had come to the conclusion of convicting and sentencing the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. Hence the appeal. 5. Heard Mr. G. Karthikeyan, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. V.R. Balasubramaniam, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused would submit in his argument that the learned Sessions Judge, Coimbatore has not thoroughly scrutinised the evidence produced by the prosecution; but had come to the conclusion of convicting the appellant laying reliability on the ocular evidence, even though they did not attempt to prevent the incident. He would further submit that though the eye witnesses said to have been present at the scene of occurrence were said to be known to the accused, the name of the accused was not mentioned in the F.I.R., which would loom large to create a suspicion over the presence of the accused and therefore, the lower Court ought to have given the benefit of doubt to the accused. Further, he would submit in his argument that the identification parade conducted by the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Coimbatore was not true and genuine since the witnesses were shown with the photos of the accused before they attended the test identification parade and the reliability based upon the test identification parade should not have been made by the lower Court. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the injuries said to have been sustained by the deceased were not grave and therefore, the conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. is not sustainable and even if the occurrence is deemed to have been proved against the accused, the Sessions Judge ought to have come to the conclusion of convicting the accused to lesser offence. He would, therefore, pray for the setting aside of the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge and to allow the appeal. 7. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit in his reply that the evidence of ocular witnesses viz., P.W.1 to P.W.4 and the chance witness P.W.5 would go a long way to show that the accused was involved in the occurrence on 6. 2002 late night (6. 2002 early morning) by 00.45 a.m. in which he had stabbed the said Subramaniam, who was in charge of the cycle stand of Karpagam Theatre Complex, on all over his body and caused his death. He would further submit in his argument that the eye witnesses even though know the accused having come to the theatre often, they did not know the name of the accused and therefore, the name of the accused was not mentioned in the F.I.R. and since the accused was not familiar to the eye witnesses, test identification parade was conducted in abundant caution and in the said test identification parade also, they have identified the accused and therefore, the ocular evidence clearly proved the guilt of the accused. He would further submit in his argument that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 and the injuries spoken by them on the body of the deceased Subramaniam are corroborated by the medical evidence given by P.W.13 and the injuries sustained by the accused at the hands of the deceased immediately prior to the occurrence with the reaper was also corroborated by the medical evidence given by P.W.12 and therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the lower Court against the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. is proper. He would further submit in his argument that the weapon has been seized on the confession of the accused leading to recovery in the presence of independent witnesses and the said weapon M.O.2 contained blood stain and the blood stain corresponded to the blood stains found in the clothes worn by the deceased and therefore, the ocular evidence supported by scientific evidence would clinchingly hold the accused guilty and therefore, the lower Court is correct in coming to the conclusion of convicting the accused under Section 302 I.P.C., and therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the lower Court need not be set aside. 8. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced on either side and also perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record. 9. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 6. 2002 late night (6. 2002) by 00.45 a.m. at Karpagam Theatre Complex Cycle Stand, Coimbatore, where the deceased was working as the cycle stand keeper. When the deceased demanded for the token issued for the cycle of the accused when the accused came to take his cycle after the night show was over, the accused was altercating with the deceased that he came late and therefore, he could not get token and enraged upon the said answer, there was heated exchange of words between the accused and the deceased and in the said quarrel, the deceased had taken a reaper and hit on the head of the accused and the accused had immediately taken the knife from his hip and with an intention to kill the deceased Subramaniam, he had chased him and caused stab injuries on his right left thighs, hands, jaws and on his left thoracic region and due to that injuries the said Subramaniam died. 10. 10. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 as produced by the prosecution would show that the accused had indulged in a wordy quarrel with the deceased Subramaniam when he was taking cycle without handing over the token and the accused was hit by a wooden log by the deceased and enraged upon that the accused had taken the knife and chased him and stabbed him at several places. The witnesses have also told that they were threatened by the accused, in the event of their interference. It is also found from the evidence of the ocular witnesses that the accused had taken away not only the cycle, but also the weapon used for stabbing the deceased Subramaniam. 11. The evidence of P.W.5 would show that he had seen the deceased lying down with injuries and blood was oozing out from those injuries at the cycle stand when he had come out from the bathroom after the show was over. He had also spoken to the effect that he had taken the injured Subramaniam along with P.W.1 and one Ravi, Dharman to CSR Hospital at Gandhipuram 7th Road and he had taken the injured Subramaniam on his shoulder as there was no auto rickshaw available in the said area. He would further speak to the effect that the hospital authorities in C.S.R. Hospital had told them to take him to L.N. Hospital. Therefore, they took the injured Subramaniam in the Auto Rickshaw to L.N. Hospital and there also they were told that they could not admit the injured Subramaniam in the said hospital and they were advised to take the injured to Government Hospital, Coimbatore and accordingly when they took the injured Subramaniam to Government Hospital, Coimbatore, the doctor examined the injured Subramaniam and found him already dead. 12. The evidence of P.W.13, the postmortem doctor had found nine injuries on the body of the deceased Subramaniam and the postmortem certificate produced by him in Ex.P.10 would also sow the same. P.W.13 had also spoken to the effect that M.O.2 knife was shown to him by the investigating officer and he was also examined by him. .13. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Subramaniam had hit on the head of the accused first when the wordy quarrel erupted in between them. P.W.13 had also spoken to the effect that M.O.2 knife was shown to him by the investigating officer and he was also examined by him. .13. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Subramaniam had hit on the head of the accused first when the wordy quarrel erupted in between them. The said wooden log is produced as M.O.1 and the evidence of the doctor who had examined the accused for the injuries sustained by him was examined as P.W.12. In his evidence, he had spoken to the effect that the accused had informed him that the person who was in charge of the cycle stand at Karpagam Theatre Complex at Coimbatore had hit him on his head with a wooden log on 6. 2002 by 00.45 a.m. and on the examination he was found to have sustained two lacerated injuries on the left parietal region of his head and they are simple injuries. The accident register produced as Ex.P.8 would show the name of the accused and the particulars of the incident were also clearly mentioned as spoken to by P.W.12. When we couple the evidence of P.W.12 and the Accident Register Copy - Ex.P8 with that of the evidence of P.W.13 and the ocular evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, we could see that the oral evidence adduced by P.Ws. 1 to 4 are perfectly corroborated by the medical evidence. The name of the accused found in Ex.P.8 and in the evidence of P.W.12 would go a long way to show that the accused had nexus in the incident. 14. Further, the test identification parade conducted by P.W.11 would also go a long way to show that the accused was identified by P.Ws.1 to 3 and one Subramaniam, who were working in the Karpagam Theatre complex, clearly without any hesitation. The documents relating to the test identification parade were produced as Ex.P.7, which would show that the identification of the accused was clearly done by the witnesses. The objection of the accused that his photos were shown to the witnesses before the test identification parade by the police is without any evidence or support. Therefore, we could see that the evidence of eyewitnesses viz., P.Ws.1 to 4 could be safely relied upon. .15. The objection of the accused that his photos were shown to the witnesses before the test identification parade by the police is without any evidence or support. Therefore, we could see that the evidence of eyewitnesses viz., P.Ws.1 to 4 could be safely relied upon. .15. Further, the weapon said to have been used to commit the offence by the accused on the deceased Subramaniam was produced as MO.2 and the said weapon was recovered in pursuance of the confession made by the accused in the presence of PW.7. The admissible portion of the confession in Ex.P4 and the seizure of MO.2 on the confession of the accused through Ex.P5 and the cycle used by the accused for fleeing from the scene of occurrence produced as MO.9 and the seizure made through Ex.P6 would show that the accused had used the weapon to commit the offence on the deceased Subramaniam by causing several injuries on his body. Apart from that the blood stain in MO.2 was sent for chemical examination along with the clothes worn by the deceased Subramaniam at the time of occurrence and the chemical examination would go a long way to show that the blood was detected in both MO.2 and MOs.12 & 13 - the clothes worn by the deceased as we could see from Ex.P.20-chemical examination report. In the serology report Ex.P.21; we could see that MO.2 knife and the shirt and trousers worn by the deceased MOs.12 & 13 contained the human blood of B group. 16. The learned counsel for the accused/appellant would further submit in his argument that the opinion of the expert cannot be relied upon without the examination of the expert and therefore, chemical examination report and serology report viz., Exs.P.20 & 21 cannot be relied upon since the scientist who examined the samples was not examined and it cannot be considered as conclusive proof for the occurrence. He would cite an authority reported in 2007 1 SCC Criminal 54 (Subash Maruti Avasare v. State of Maharashtra) in support of his contention. The relevant passage runs in the said judgment reads as follows: "By mere filing a document, its contents are not proved. He would cite an authority reported in 2007 1 SCC Criminal 54 (Subash Maruti Avasare v. State of Maharashtra) in support of his contention. The relevant passage runs in the said judgment reads as follows: "By mere filing a document, its contents are not proved. A certificate issued by an expert should be brought on record by examining him." In the above-cited judgment, it has been found that the document itself was not produced for want of examination of the doctor who has issued the certificate. Whereas in this case, the chemical examination report Ex.P.20 and Serologists Report Ex.P.21 were produced through the investigating officer and the same were not objected to by the defence side at the time of examination of P.W.15. In the aforesaid circumstances, the facts of the present case are different to the facts mentioned in the judgment of our Supreme Court. Therefore, it could be found that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused through scientific evidence also. 17. The test identification of the accused by the eye witnesses in the test identification parade and the nexus of the accused with the occurrence as proved by the evidence of P.W.12 and Ex.P.8 would confirm the evidence of eye witnesses and the recovery of the weapon M.O.2 on the confession of the accused would also further confirm the guilt of the accused. Therefore, the over all evidence adduced by the prosecution would clearly prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 18. Therefore, the over all evidence adduced by the prosecution would clearly prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 18. Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit in his argument that the accused had stabbed due to the sudden provocation made by the deceased Subramaniam by hitting on his head with the wooden log and therefore, the act of the accused would not be attracted under the definition of murder, but it would attract the definition as to exception to "murder" and therefore, the accused ought to have been convicted for a lesser offence under Section 304 I.P.C. The injuries as inflicted on the body of the deceased are numbering 9 and the way in which they were inflicted by the accused by chasing the deceased from the cycle stand to two wheeler stand would go a long way to show that the intention of the accused was to cause death of the deceased and the said action of the accused cannot be classified as a culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the accused with the intention to cause death, had caused injuries on the deceased Subramaniam with M.O.2 and thereby the said Subramaniam was done to death by the accused. Therefore, the lower Court is quite correct in coming to the conclusion of convicting the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. and the sentence passed there on is also perfect. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in S.C.No.124 of 2003 is confirmed thereby finding the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C.