Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. Challenge is made to the judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Dharmapurai made in S.C.No.37 of 2005, whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sections 302 and 506(2) IPC, tried, found guilty under Section 302 IPC and awarded life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-in default to undergo 3 months R.I. and was found not guilty under Section 506(ii) IPC. 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal could be stated thus: a) The accused is the husband of deceased Govindammal. Their marriage took place 1-1/2 years back and the accused had already got married one Sakki and begotten children. Thereafter, he married the deceased Govindammal. He suspected her fidelity that she was having illicit intimacy with his co-brother Muniraj. Hence he decided to finish her off. b) On 1. 2004 at about 3.00 p.m., when the deceased and P.W.1 was in the land of Subramani, the accused came over and took the stone weighing 20 Kgs. and attacked on her head and the deceased succumbed to the injuries instantaneously. The accused also intimidated P.W.1. P.W.1 proceeded to her house and informed the matter to her husband P.W.2. Immediately, they tried to meet the Village Administrative Officer, but they could not meet him, since he went for collection. P.W.6, the Village Administrative Officer returned at 6.30 p.m. and went to the spot. P.W.1 gave a report, which was reduced into writing and the same was marked as Ex.P.1. Along with P.W.1 and Ex.P.1, the report, P.W.6 went to the respondent police station and handed over Ex.P.1, the report to P.W.13, the Sub Inspector of Police, who on receipt of the report, registered the case in Crime No.6 of 2004 under Sections 302 and 506(2) IPC. Ex.P.15, the F.I.R. was despatched to the Court. c) P.W.14, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the F.I.R., took up the investigation, proceeded to the spot and made an inspection in the presence of the witnesses. He prepared Ex.P.5, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.16, the rough sketch. The place of occurrence was photographed through P.W.5, the photographer. Ex.P.2 (series) photos and Ex.P.3 (series) negatives were marked. Then, P.W.14 conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.17, the inquest report. He prepared Ex.P.5, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.16, the rough sketch. The place of occurrence was photographed through P.W.5, the photographer. Ex.P.2 (series) photos and Ex.P.3 (series) negatives were marked. Then, P.W.14 conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.17, the inquest report. Then the dead body was sent to the hospital for the purpose of autopsy. d) P.W.8, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Pennagaram, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased and has issued Ex.P.10, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injury to vital organ, brain about 18 to 24 hours prior to autopsy. e) Pending investigation, on 1. 2004, P.W.14 arrested the accused on 1. 2004 and the accused came forward to give confessional statement, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses. The accused was sent for judicial remand. The material objects recovered were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Science Department, which resulted in two reports, namely Ex.P.13, the Chemical Report and Ex.P.14, the Serologists report. On completion of the investigation, the Investigator has filed the final report. 3. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and also relied on 17 exhibits and 7 M.Os. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which he flatly denied as false. No defence witness was examined. The trial court, after hearing the learned counsel on either side and looking into the materials available, took the view that the prosecution has proved the first charge of murder and has awarded life imprisonment. Hence this appeal at the instance of the appellant. 4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel would submit that the occurrence has taken place, according to the prosecution, on 1. Hence this appeal at the instance of the appellant. 4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel would submit that the occurrence has taken place, according to the prosecution, on 1. 2004 at 3.00 p.m. in the land of one Subramani; that the entire case is rested on the evidence of P.W.1, the mother of the deceased; that her evidence should have been rejected by the trial court for the reasons that the deceased is the daughter of P.W.1 and hence P.W.1 was interested; that actually, the case of the prosecution was that the accused suspected the fidelity of his wife and hence P.W.1 would have naturally been aggrieved over the same; that apart from that, the prosecution rested its case on the uncorroborated and solitary testimony of P.W.1 and hence it has got to be subjected to careful scrutiny; and that if this test is applied, her evidence should have been rejected. 5. Added further the learned counsel that it is highly doubtful whether Ex.P.1, the statement could have come into existence as put forth by the prosecution; that according to P.W.1, first she went to her house and informed to her husband P.W.2 and P.W.2 went to the place of Village Administrative Officer, but P.W.1 did not accompany him; that apart from that, she has further deposed that the accused has actually went to the police station on the very day; that if really the accused involved in the crime, he would not have been available at the place of occurrence and he could not have gone to the police station, but he has gone to the police station on the very day; that the claim of the Investigator was that the accused was arrested on the next day that was on 1. 2004 and gave confessional statement, which were nothing but false and hence the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 6. 2004 and gave confessional statement, which were nothing but false and hence the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. 6. The learned counsel, in his second line of argument, would submit that the claim of the Investigator was that the accused gave confessional statement and the same was recorded in the presence of the witnesses; that in the confessional statement, the accused has stated that he has asked his wife that she should stop the illicit intimacy with Muniraj, but she answered that she would continue the same and hence he got provoked and due to provocation, he took the stone and attacked on the head of the deceased and under these circumstances, the act of the accused would not attract the penal provision of murder, but it would be one culpable homicide not amounting to murder and hence it has got to be considered by this court. 7. The court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 8. It is not in controversy that Govindammal, the wife of the accused was done to death at the place and time of occurrence as put forth by the prosecution. Following the inquest made by the Investigating Officer and the preparation of Ex.P.17, the inquest report, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem by P.W.8, the Doctor, who has given his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injury to vital organ, namely brain. P.W.8 has also issued Ex.P.10, the post-mortem certificate to that effect. Hence the prosecution was able to show that Govindammal died out of homicidal violence. This fact was also never disputed by the appellant and hence it has got to be recorded so. .9. In the instant case, in order to prove that the accused attacked the said Govindammal with stone and caused her death instantaneously, the prosecution examined P.W.1, the solitary witness. It is true, P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased. But on that ground, her evidence cannot be rejected. The court, before accepting her evidence, has to apply the test of careful scrutiny. It is true, P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased. But on that ground, her evidence cannot be rejected. The court, before accepting her evidence, has to apply the test of careful scrutiny. In the instant case, even after application of the said test, the court is satisfied that her evidence has got to be accepted, since it is cogent and convincing and has also inspired the confidence of the court. According to P.W.1, when she along with her daughter Govindammal was in the land at 3.00 p.m. on the date of occurrence, the accused came over there and attacked her with stone on her head, as a result of which she had bleeding injuries on her skull and died at the spot. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that despite cross examination, her evidence remained unshaken. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant brought to the notice of the court that P.W.1 went to her house and informed to P.W.2, her husband and P.W.2 went over to the place of the Village Administrative Officer to give report, but she did not follow him. This circumstance cannot be taken in favour of the defence or against the prosecution for the simple reason that both P.Ws.1 and 2 have categorically deposed that the Village Administrative Officer was not available at that time in the village and he went for collection and when he returned, he went to the place of occurrence at about 6.30 p.m., where he has taken the report of P.W.1 and P.W.1 has also signed the report. Thus, it would be quite clear that Ex.P.1 has come into existence as put forth by the prosecution at about 6.30 p.m. on 1. 2004. 11. The next contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W.1 has stated that the accused went to the police station the very day, cannot be taken into consideration, since even the arrest of the accused on the next day and the confessional statement made by him did not lead to the discovery of any information or any relevant fact or any material objects and hence it is of no consequence at all. Though the prosecution had examined only P.W.1 as eyewitness, that direct evidence stood in corroboration with the medical opinion canvassed through the post-mortem Doctor and thus, her evidence, in the considered opinion of the court, would be sufficient pointing to the guilt of the accused and that it was he who attacked the deceased with stone on her head and caused her death. Hence the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused. .12. So far as the second line of argument put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, this court is unable to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel wanted to take the court to the confessional statement recorded from the accused that there was quarrel preceding the occurrence and the accused got provoked and attacked his wife with stone on her head and caused her death. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that when P.W.1 was examined, not even one suggestion was put to her in this regard. Under these circumstances, even if it was found to be so in the confessional statement, it has no foundation at all and hence the own making of the accused, in the considered opinion of the court, cannot be given any consideration at all. Under these circumstances, there is nothing to infer that there was quarrel or provocation, which impelled the accused to act so. Hence the second line of argument has got to be rejected. From the evidence, it would be clear that it was the accused who has attacked his wife with stone, weighing 20 Kgs. and caused her death instantaneously. Hence the act of the accused would attract the penal provision of murder as termed by the trial court. Hence the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant do not carry any merit whatsoever. 13. Accordingly, this criminal appeal fails and the same is dismissed.