Judgment :- P. DEVADASS, J. The sole accused, who was convicted by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, in S.C.No.111 of 2005 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life, is the appellant before us. For convenience sake, in this Judgment, let us call him the accused. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, runs as under:- (i) P.W.1, Indira, is the wife of one Jayakannan. They have 3 children. Long back, the spouses have separated. She started living in her mother's house in Nattan Thottam in Mylapore, Chennai. Her children are living in her sister's house. P.W.1 developed intimacy with the accused, her neighbour. There were frequent quarrels between them. She was selling flower, near Chithrai Tank, in Mylapore. Nearby, deceased Munusamy, a cobbler was doing his job. She developed intimacy with him. Enraged by this, the accused beaten her. In the circumstances, Munusamy, shifted to the Sub-way, opposite to Anna Statue, in Anna Salai, Chennai. P.W.1 also came to assist him. On a day, the accused quarreled with Munusamy for he having keeping his mistress. The accused also complained to P.W.9, Durga, wife of Munusamy. (ii) On 07.02.2005, at about 9.30 a.m. at the said Sub-way, Munusamy was doing his job. P.W.1 was near him. The accused came there, shouted at him for having separated his wife from him and stabbed him on his neck with M.O.3 Knife. Munusamy ran for his life to the nearby Raheja Complex. Accused chased him. P.W.1 followed them. Accused caught hold of him and pushed him down on the steps. Munusamy fell dead. The whole occurrence was also witnessed by P.W.2 Anbazhagan. (iii) At about 10.15 a.m., at F1-Chindatripet Police Station, PW1 gave Ex.P1 complaint to P.W.13, Ramamurthy, Sub-Inspector. He registered the case in Crime No.250 of 2005 under Section 302 IPC. He sent the Express FIR (Ex.P15) through P.W.10, Head Constable, Chokkalingam to XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. (iv) On information, P.W.14, Venkataraman, Inspector, took up his investigation. At about 10.45 a.m., he visited the scene place. Examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and other witnesses and recorded their statement. Till 12.45 p.m., in the presence of Panchayatars, he held Inquest over the dead body. Ex.P16 is his Inquest Report. He sent the dead body through P.W.11, Head Constable, Jayavelu to the Government General Hospital, Chennai, for conducting postmortem. At about 10.45 a.m., he visited the scene place. Examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and other witnesses and recorded their statement. Till 12.45 p.m., in the presence of Panchayatars, he held Inquest over the dead body. Ex.P16 is his Inquest Report. He sent the dead body through P.W.11, Head Constable, Jayavelu to the Government General Hospital, Chennai, for conducting postmortem. In the presence of P.W.3, Purusothaman and Dominic, P.W.14 prepared Ex.P2 Observation Mahazar. Drew Ex.P17 rough sketch of the scene place. From the scene place, he had recovered M.O.9 blood stained wooden box and M.O.7 Chappels. At the Hospital, he had recovered M.O.1 blood stained shirt and M.O.2 blood-stained lungy from the dead body. At about 6.30 p.m., near the Water Tank Market, Mylapore, in the presence of P.W.4, Bhaskar and Settu, P.W.14 arrested the accused. Recorded Ex.P7 confessional statement from him. In pursuance of it, from a place below Raheja Complex, P.W.14 seized M.O.5 blood stained shirt and M.O.6 blood stained lungy of the accused under Ex.P9, Mahazar. Thereafter, at the instance of the accused, from near the entrance to the M.L.A. Hostel, Chepauk, in the presence of said witnesses, P.W.14 seized M.O.3, Knife and M.O.4, a black cap. He returned to his Station with the accused and the case-properties. He sent the accused to Court for judicial custody and produced the case-properties through Court to Lab for examination. (v) On the requisition of P.W.14, at the Mortuary, in the Government General Hospital, Chennai, on 08.02.2005, at about 11.15 a.m., P.W.5, Dr.Sudhir, conducted postmortem on the dead body of Munusamy and noticed the following:- 1. Reddish brown abrasions on the lower part of right back 2 x 1.5 cms. 2. 'Y' shaped laceration seen on back of head in the parito occipital region of scalp. The long limb measures 5cms, short limb measures 3 cms. The depth of the wound is 0.5 cms. On deep dissection dark red contusion 7 x 4 x 0.5 cms seen extending on both parietal and occipital region of scalp. 3. Roughly oval shaped obliquely placed stab wound seen over right side of lower part of neck and upper part of right chest above the middle of collar bone measuring 6 x 3 cms. The outer end of stab wound is acute and inner end is blunt. The margins are clean cut. The inner end lies 12 cm. below the right Mastoid. The outer end of stab wound is acute and inner end is blunt. The margins are clean cut. The inner end lies 12 cm. below the right Mastoid. The outer end lies 14 cms. above the right nipple. On dissection, the muscles of the right neck found to a length of 2.5 cms. The inner surroundings of the stab wound shows extensive bruising and seepage of blood. On further dissection through stab wound seen in the right carotid artery and right subclavian artery. The stab wound enters the right pleural cavity anteriorly measuring 1.5 x 1.0 cms. The stab wound is measuring 1.5 x 1 x 0.5 cm in the anterior part of the upper lobe of right lung. The depth of the stab wound is 10 cms. The direction is backwards, downwards and medially. (vi) P.W.5 opined that the deceased died of shock and hemorrhage due to sharp injury in the neck. (vii) P.W.14 obtained Ex.P11, Postmortem Certificate. Concluding his investigation, he filed the Final Report for an offence under Section 302 IPC. 3. To substantiate the charge under Section 302 IPC, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14, marked Exs.P1 to P17 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 13. 4. On the incriminating aspects appearing in the prosecution evidence when the Trail Court examined the accused, he came forward with the version that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He did not examine any witness nor file any document. 5. Analysing the evidence, the Trial Court accepted the evidence of the ocular witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 and the recovery evidence projected through P.Ws.4 and 14, convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there are inconsistency in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. Prosecution has not established the case beyond all reasonable doubts. Without prejudice to his said contention, the learned counsel also contended that since the deceased had taken away his mistress, due to sustained provocation, he had killed the deceased. In the circumstances, it would not be murder, at the most culpable homicide not amounting to murder, warranting imposition of lesser degree of sentence. 7. On the other hand, Mr.V.M.R.Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the accused having assaulted the deceased with M.O.3 Knife and killed him has been very clearly spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 2. Their evidence does not suffer from any infirmity. 7. On the other hand, Mr.V.M.R.Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the accused having assaulted the deceased with M.O.3 Knife and killed him has been very clearly spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 2. Their evidence does not suffer from any infirmity. They can be believed. P.W.1 is another man's wife and the accused had no claim over her. The accused induced provocation to himself and killed the deceased. The accused committed a deliberate act. He came to the scene place with M.O.3, Knife and stabbed the deceased on a vital part of his body. In the circumstances, it is out and out murder. Thus, the Trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced him. 8. We have anxiously considered the arguments of both sides, carefully perused the entire evidence and went through the impugned Judgment of the Trail Court. 9. The evidence of P.W.5, Dr.Sudhir, who conducted post-mortem on the death body of Munusamy reveals that Munusamy died on 07.02.2005 due to homicidal violence (see Ex.P.11, Post-Mortem certificate). 10. The prosecution version is that the accused stabbed Munusamy to death. This case is mainly based on the evidence of eye witnesses, namely, P.Ws.1 and 2 Indira and Anbalagan. 11. P.W.1, since already had affair with the accused is well known to her. On the occurrence day, at about 9.30 a.m., in the subway, near the Anna Statue, in the Anna Salai, Chennai she was near Munusamy, who was then repairing slippers. She had clearly spoken in her evidence that at that time, the accused came there, frisked out a knife and stabbed him on the right side of his neck, who bleeding profusely ran for his life but the accused chased him and in the nearby Raheja Complex, pushed him down, who fell dead. P.W.2, a watchman also clearly deposed that the accused had stabbed the deceased with knife and he had corroborated P.W.1. These aspects were also stated in Ex.P.1, complaint filed by P.W.1. There is no inconsistency in their evidence. 12. Dr.Sudhir (P.W.5) noticed injury on the right side of the neck of the deceased, which proved him fatal and the doctor also opined that the injury is possible by a knife. Thus, the oral testimony has been corroborated by the medical evidence. 13. There is no inconsistency in their evidence. 12. Dr.Sudhir (P.W.5) noticed injury on the right side of the neck of the deceased, which proved him fatal and the doctor also opined that the injury is possible by a knife. Thus, the oral testimony has been corroborated by the medical evidence. 13. The recovery of the weapon of offence viz., Knife (M.O.3) at the instance of the accused on the basis of his confessional statement viz., Ex.P.7 (admissible portion) has been established by the evidence of the recovery mahazar witness, P.W.4, Bhaskar. 14. On scientific examination, the blood stains recovered from the scene place at the Subway, on the steps of Raheja complex and the blood stains in M.O.3 knife, shirt and lungi worn by the deceased and the accused, were found to be human blood and are same 'B' group. (See Ex.P.12 to P.14 scientific reports). 15. Thus, it is seen that the evidence of the ocular witnesses viz., P.Ws.1 and 2 stand corroborated by the medical evidence, Section 27 Evidence Act Recovery (M.O.3 knife) and the serologist findings. The evidence of the eye witnesses is cogent, consistent, natural and they inspire confidence in them. Thus, they can be believed. Based on their evidence, a conviction can be safely recorded. Thus, it has been established beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused had stabbed the deceased to death. 16. Now, let us see what offence is made out. 17. P.W.1 is not the wife of the accused. They were having affair. Long ago, prior to the occurrence, she had left him. The accused came to the scene place hiding M.O.3, knife. He stabbed the deceased on a vital part of his body viz., right neck. He died of mortal wound inflicted upon him. The accused deliberately planned to kill him and killed him. In the facts and circumstances, the accused has committed the offence under Section 302 of IPC. Thus, the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced him. 18. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction recorded under Section 302 of I.P.C, and the life sentence awarded to the appellant by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, in S.C.No.111 of 2003.