JUDGMENT S. NAGAMUTHU, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No. 37 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Tuticorin. By judgment dated 20.5.2011, the trial Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: (i) The deceased in this case was one Narayanaperumal. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the wife and daughter respectively of the deceased. The accused is the brother of the deceased. The deceased was a fruit vendor by profession. The deceased had borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the accused for the purpose of constructing a house. The deceased did not repay the same. Therefore, the accused gave a complaint against the deceased at Thattarmadam Police Station. In the Police Station, during enquiry, the deceased agreed to repay the same also. The house of the accused was getting electricity supply from the house of the deceased. Since electricity charges were not properly paid by the accused, the deceased disconnected electricity supply to the house of the accused. This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence. (ii) On 10.7.2010 at 8.00 p.m., after finishing his business, the deceased came to his house in his M.80 Motor Cycle. His house is situated on the South of Thisayanvilai to Idaichivilai road. On stopping the motor cycle in front of his house, the deceased was just getting down from the motor cycle. At that time, the accused came to the place of occurrence armed with Aruval and attempted to attack the deceased. This was witnessed by P.Ws.1 and 2. The deceased tried to escape. He ran towards West; he took a turn on Thisayanvilai Road towards North. While he was running so, the accused chased him with the weapon. When the deceased was running just in front of the house of P.W.3 Sivalinganadar, the accused reached and started mounting attack with Aruval. P.W.1 and P.W.2 also rushed following the accused and they witnessed the entire occurrence. The deceased sustained as many as 15 injuries and fell down in a pool of blood. When the deceased was running just in front of the house of P.W.3 Sivalinganadar, the accused reached and started mounting attack with Aruval. P.W.1 and P.W.2 also rushed following the accused and they witnessed the entire occurrence. The deceased sustained as many as 15 injuries and fell down in a pool of blood. According to P.W.1 and P.W.2, the occurrence was witnessed by them in the street light. The occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.3 to 5 also (P.Ws.3 to 5 have turned hostile during the trial). (iii) P.W.1, along with P.W.6, went to Thattarmadam Police Station at 9.30 p.m., and preferred Exhibit P-1 complaint. P.W.6 also signed the said complaint as a witness. Exhibit P—1 is the said complaint. P.W.10, the then Sub Inspector of Police, attached to Thattarmadam Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 80 of 2010 under Section 302 IPC. Exhibit P-10 is the F.I.R. Then, he forwarded Exhibits P-1 and P-10 to the Court through P.W.9. He handed over the Case Diary to P.W.11 for investigation. Taking up the case for investigation, P.W.11 reached the place of occurrence at 11.15 p.m., on 10.7.2010 and prepared an Observation Mahazar in the presence of P.W.6 and another witness. From the place of occurrence, he recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth. He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased. On 11.7.2010, between 00.30 a.m., and 3.00 a.m. Exhibit P-13 is the Inquest Report. During the inquest, he examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and other witnesses. Then, he forwarded the dead body for post-mortem. (iv) P.W.8, Dr.Mohammad Isthiriyas conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased at 12.00 p.m., on 11.7.2010. He found the following injuries: A deep cut injury on the back of the upper part of neck of size 13 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm. A deep cut injury on the left side of face extending from back of left ear to the centre of back of the neck of size 12 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm. A deep cut injury on the left side of face extending from back of left ear to the occipital region on the same side of size 8 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm. A deep cut injury below the left ear of size 5 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm. A deep cut injury on the left side of face extending from back of left ear to the occipital region on the same side of size 8 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm. A deep cut injury below the left ear of size 5 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm. A superficial cut injury on the back of right side of abdomen of size 7 cm x 0.25 cm x 0.1 cm. A deep cut injury on the left shoulder of size 5 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm. A deep cut injury of size 5 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm on the left side of forehead. A deep cut injury of size 5 cm x 3 cm x 1 cm on the left side of face extending from near the nose to below the left ear. A deep cut injury on the posterior aspect of left elbow of size 10 cm x 5 cm x 1 cm. A deep cut injury just below the left elbow on the posterior aspect of left forearm of size 7 cm x 3 cm x 1 cm. A deep cut injury on the left hand extending from base of the middle finger to the base of the thumb. A deep cut injury of size 3 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on the palm of left hand. A deep cut injury of size 12 cm x 5 cm x 2 cm on the antero lateral aspect of left knee. Left knee joint open. A deep cut injury on the lateral aspect of left leg of size 7 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm. A deep cut injury on the scalp of size 7 cm x 1 cm x 4 cm on the vertex involving fracture of the underlying bone of the same size. Exhibit P-8 is the Post-Mortem Certificate. He opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to shock and haemorrhage due to grievous injury to skull bone and vital organ (brain) and multiple injuries. (v) Continuing the investigation P.W.11 recovered the dress materials found on the body of the deceased. Then, he sent the Material Objects to the Court with a requisition to send them for chemical examination. He collected Post-Mortem Certificate and recorded the statement of Doctors. Exhibit P-17 is the Chemical Analysis Report and Exhibit P-18 is the Serology Report. (v) Continuing the investigation P.W.11 recovered the dress materials found on the body of the deceased. Then, he sent the Material Objects to the Court with a requisition to send them for chemical examination. He collected Post-Mortem Certificate and recorded the statement of Doctors. Exhibit P-17 is the Chemical Analysis Report and Exhibit P-18 is the Serology Report. As per Exhibit P-17, bloodstain was found on M.O.1 Aruval. As per the Serology Report, the blood group found on the Aruval could not be ascertained. On completing the investigation, P.W.11 laid charge sheet against the accused. 3. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused. He denied the same. Therefore, he was put on trial. On the side of the prosecution, as many as 11 witnesses were examined and 18 documents were exhibited besides 8 MOs. P.Ws.3 to 5 though examined to speak about the occurrence as eye-witness, have turned hostile. P.W.1 and P.W.2 had spoken about the motive as well as the occurrence. P.W.7 has spoken to about the arrest of the accused and the consequential recovery of the weapon from his possession. P.W.8 has spoken to about the cause of the death. Others are official witnesses. 4. When the above incriminating evidence were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the same as false. However, he did not choose to examine any witness nor to mark any document as exhibit to prove his version of the case. Having considered the above, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the charge under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him. That is how the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully. 6. In this appeal, according to the learned counsel, the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 cannot be believed. In order to substantiate the said contention, the learned counsel would submit that there is material contradiction in respect of the place of occurrence as spoken to by P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the rough sketch prepared by P.W.10. He would further submit that the medical evidence also does not corroborate eye-witness account insofar as injuries 1, 2 and 8 are concerned. 7. He would further submit that the medical evidence also does not corroborate eye-witness account insofar as injuries 1, 2 and 8 are concerned. 7. The learned counsel would further contend that though the occurrence had taken place in a busy locality, no independent witness has been examined, which also creates doubt in the case of the prosecution. The learned counsel would further add that the motive also has not been clearly established by the prosecution. Insofar as the arrest of the accused is concerned, though it is the case of the prosecution that the accused was allegedly arrested on 12.7.2010, P.W.1 had admitted during the examination that the accused was in the Police Station under custody from 10.7.2010 onwards. He would further submit that P.W.8 Doctor, who conducted autopsy, has stated that M.O.1 Aruval was shown to him even at the time of Post-Mortem. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the arrest and consequential recovery of M.O.1 Aruval from the custody of the accused cannot be believed. 8. The learned counsel would finally contend that even though assuming that the death of the deceased was caused by the accused, still offence would fall only under Section 304(1) of the IPC since the act of the accused would fall under first exception to Section 300 IPC. 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently oppose this appeal. He would submit that there is nothing to discredit the evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that in respect of the place of occurrence, absolutely, there is no contradiction between the prosecution case and that of the evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2. He would further add that it is not as though no independent witness was examined from that locality. In respect of the arrest of the accused and consequential recovery, he would submit that the evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.7 have clearly established the same. He would further contend that the act of the accused does not fall within the first exception to Section 300 IPC and it would fall only under Section 302 IPC. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused/appellant does not require interference at the hands of this Court. 10. We have considered the above submissions. 11. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused/appellant does not require interference at the hands of this Court. 10. We have considered the above submissions. 11. As we have already narrated, P.W.1 and P.W.2 have spoken to the entire occurrence as well as the motive. According to them, the deceased had just returned to his house by his motor cycle after completing his day’s work. When he was getting down from the motor cycle, the accused suddenly emerged at the place of occurrence with the formidable weapon, namely, Aruval. When he attempted to attack, the deceased, with a view to escape, ran towards the house of P.W.3. The accused chased him. P.W.1 and P.W.2 followed them. When the deceased had just reached in front of the house of P.W.3, the accused reached him and attacked him indiscriminately. Their presence at the time of occurrence has been clearly spoken to by P.W.1 and P.W.2 as they also followed the accused and the deceased. Thus, in our considered opinion, the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 cannot be doubted at all. As a matter of fact, in our considered view, their presence at the place of occurrence is quite natural. 12. In respect of the place of occurrence, the learned counsel would submit that there is contradiction, which is material. According to him, as per the Rough Sketch Exhibit P-12, the occurrence had taken place not exactly in front of the house of P.W.3 but at a distance from the house of P.W.3. 13. We have perused Exhibit P-12 Rough Sketch carefully together with the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have spoken to about the place of occurrence. Though it is not exactly in front of the house of P.W.3, it is just a few feet away from the house of P.W.3. There appears to be a slight difference. In our considered opinion, it is not a matter at all which would go into the very root of the matter so as to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. 14. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the medical evidence does not corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. According to him, P.W.1 and P.W.2 have stated that the accused attacked the deceased when the deceased was lying on his face facing down. 14. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the medical evidence does not corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. According to him, P.W.1 and P.W.2 have stated that the accused attacked the deceased when the deceased was lying on his face facing down. Therefore, according to him, there would not have been caused any injury on the anterior part of the body. Injury Nos. 1, 2 and 8 are on anterior part of the body and thus, according to the counsel, the medical evidence contradicts the eye-witness account of P.W.1 and P.W.2. This argument, in our considered opinion, does not have any force at all. When a person is attacked indiscriminately with a formidable weapon resulting in 15 injuries, the close relatives like wife and daughter cannot be expected to meticulously and closely watch as to how the deceased was lying and also about the order of injuries caused on the deceased. Therefore, this argument of the learned counsel also deserves to be rejected. 15. The next contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that though the occurrence had taken place in the business locality, no independent witness was examined. In this regard, we may state that P.Ws.3 to 5 are independent witnesses. The occurrence had taken place in front of the house of P.W.3. But, unfortunately, these 3 witnesses have turned hostile. They have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. Thus, it is not a case where no independent witness was examined. As a matter of fact, independent witnesses were examined but they have not supported the case of the prosecution. In criminal trials, it is not the number of eye-witness that counts but it is only the quality of the evidence that counts. Therefore, this argument is rejected. 16. The next contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the motive has not been established by the prosecution. The learned counsel would submit that money was borrowed only by P.W.1 from the deceased. Therefore, according to him, there could have been motive only against P.W.1 and not against the deceased. But, a close scrutiny of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 would go to show that this is not the motive. As per the evidence of P.W.1, the deceased borrowed a sum of Rs. Therefore, according to him, there could have been motive only against P.W.1 and not against the deceased. But, a close scrutiny of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 would go to show that this is not the motive. As per the evidence of P.W.1, the deceased borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the accused and the same was not repaid by the accused. A complaint was lodged before Thattarmadam Police Station and in the Police Station, the deceased agreed to repay the amount and accordingly repaid the amount within 3 months. Therefore, in respect of money transaction, there could have been no further motive. But, the real motive alleged by the prosecution is that the deceased had disconnected the electricity supply connection to the house of the accused. This motive has been clearly spoken to by P.W.1 and P.W.2 and thus, the prosecution has established the motive. 17. The next contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the arrest of the accused on 12.7.2010 cannot be true. We find every force in this argument of the learned counsel. P.W.1 has admitted, during examination that the accused was found in the custody of police even on 10.7.2010. P.W.8 has stated that, at that time, when he conducted post-mortem, M.O.1 Aruval was shown to him by the police and he offered his opinion. Thus from these two evidences, the defence has probablised that the arrest of the accused on 12.7.2010 and the consequential recovery of the weapon of M.O.1 from his possession cannot be believed. Therefore, the case of the prosecution that the accused was arrested on 12.7.2010 is rejected and consequential recovery of M.O.1 Aruval from the possession of the accused is also rejected. However, on this issue, the entire case of the prosecution cannot be discarded. 18. As we have already pointed out, the prosecution has clearly established its case from the eye-witness account of P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.8 Doctor, who conducted autopsy has spoken to about the injuries and the cause of death. A perusal of the post-mortem certificate and that of the evidence of the doctor would go to show that as many as 15 injuries were caused by the accused. As a matter of fact, there was a deep cut on the skull which resulted injury to brain also. Most of these injuries are on vital parts. A perusal of the post-mortem certificate and that of the evidence of the doctor would go to show that as many as 15 injuries were caused by the accused. As a matter of fact, there was a deep cut on the skull which resulted injury to brain also. Most of these injuries are on vital parts. The Weapon – M.O.1 is also a formidable weapon. The motive has been clinchingly proved from all these facts. From all these established facts, it is clearly established that the accused came to the place of occurrence with a determination to do away with the deceased. When the deceased attempted to escape, the accused did not leave him. He chased him, and then at a considerable distance, he reached him and cut him. This also further establishes the clear intention of the accused to cause the death of the deceased. Thus, the act of the accused squarely falls within first limb of Section 300 IPC. 19. Now, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the act of the accused would fall within the first exception to Section 300 IPC. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused would have acted due to sustained provocation. In our considered opinion, absolutely, there is no evidence even to infere that the accused would have acted either due to grave and sudden provocation or due to sustained provocation. The facts placed before us clearly go to show that the accused came to the spot with a determination to kill the deceased and thus, he could not have done the act either due to sustained or grave and sudden provocation. 20. In view of the foregoing discussions, we hold that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and the conviction of the accused under Section 302 IPC by the trial Court does not warrant interference of this Court. In respect of the quantum of sentence also, there is no infirmity. Thus, we do not find any merit in this Appeal. 21. In the result, the criminal appeal fails and the same is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is hereby confirmed. Appeal dismissed.