Judgment S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.261 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi. By judgment dated 8.8.2011, the learned Principal Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 201 IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentences, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- (i) The deceased in this case was one Athiananthammal. She was the wife of the accused. After the marriage, the accused and the deceased were living happily, initially, for 3 years. Thereafter, frequent quarrels occurred between the accused and his father. Therefore, he took the deceased and started residing at Thittankulam Village in a rented house. The accused and the deceased were then working in two different match factories. During that time, the deceased developed illicit intimacy with one Murugan. The deceased along with Murugan used to roam around joyfully to various places. The conduct of the deceased, thus, became worse. This came to the knowledge of most of the villagers including the accused. Since the accused was not able to contain the deceased, he took her to her parental home and left her there itself. This was objected to by the brothers of the deceased. They insisted that the accused should take back the deceased and live with her. But, the accused left for Kerala leaving behind the deceased at the house of her parents. Thereafter, one month prior to the occurrence, the accused came to his village and took back his wife to his house at Jakkammapuram. Again, he went to Kerala. On 26.7.2008, he returned to his house from Kerala. He was waiting for the chance to do away with the deceased. On 30.7.2008, at 4.30 p.m., the deceased was sitting just in front of her house. Due to the above motive, it is alleged that the accused attacked the deceased with aruval indiscriminately. The deceased succumbed to the injuries instantaneously. On 26.7.2008, he returned to his house from Kerala. He was waiting for the chance to do away with the deceased. On 30.7.2008, at 4.30 p.m., the deceased was sitting just in front of her house. Due to the above motive, it is alleged that the accused attacked the deceased with aruval indiscriminately. The deceased succumbed to the injuries instantaneously. Then, with a view to screen the offence, the accused poured kerosene on the body of the deceased and set it on fire. But the body was not fully burnt. With a view to further screen the offence, the accused attempted to burry the half burnt body. In that attempt also, he could only partically succeed. Then, he proceeded to the office of PW.1, who was the then Village Administrative Officer of Sangampatti Village. (ii) At 6.30 p.m., on 30.7.2008, the accused gave a voluntary confession to PW.1. PW.1 reduced the same into writing and obtained the signature of the accused. Ex.P1 is the said confession. Then, he prepared a report under Ex.P2. At 9.30 p.m.,. he took the accused to the Police Station and presented Exs.P1 and P2 to PW.17. (iii) PW.17, then Sub Inspector of Police, attached to Tharuvaikulam Police Station, on receipt of the above, registered a case in Crime No.118 of 2008 under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P20 is the FIR. Then, he forwarded Exs.P1, P2 and P20 to the Court through PW.16. (iv) PW.16 was the then Grade I Constable attached to Tharuvaikulam Police Station. He received the cover containing Exs.P1, P2 and P20 at 11.00 p.m. on 30.07.2008. Since there was no bus facility to go to Vilathikulam immediately, he waited till 4.00 a.m. for the first bus to go to Vilathikulam. Accordingly, when he reached Vilathikulam, he found that the learned Judicial Magistrate was on leave and the learned Judicial Magistrate at Kovilpatti was incharge. Therefore, from Vilathikulam, he proceeded to Kovilpatti and handed over the above documents to the learned Judicial Magistrate at 10.00 a.m., on 31.7.2008. (v) PW.18 took up the case for investigation. At 11.30 p.m., on 30.07.2008, he proceeded to the place of occurrence. In the presence of PW.1 and another witness, he prepared an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch and then, he recovered a plastic can, which was found near the dead body. On returning to the Police Station, he recovered the dress materials on the accused. At 11.30 p.m., on 30.07.2008, he proceeded to the place of occurrence. In the presence of PW.1 and another witness, he prepared an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch and then, he recovered a plastic can, which was found near the dead body. On returning to the Police Station, he recovered the dress materials on the accused. At that time, the accused again gave a voluntary confession to PW.18 in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden the aruval. Accordingly, he took the police and the witnesses to the said place and took out the aruval and procuced the same from the hide out. It was recovered by PW.18 on 31.7.2008. PW.18 gave a request to the Revenue Divisional Officer to exhume the body. On 31.07.2008, at 4.00 p.m., PW.15, the then Revenue Divisional Officer exhumed the body. PW.15 conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and submitted Ex.P18 report. Then, the body was sent for post-mortem. (vi) PW.12, Doctor Manoharan, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, during which, he found the following injuries:- (1) An oblique grapping heavy cut injury of size 19 cms x 3 cms x brain deep seen over the left side of head extends from the left side of forehead to the occipital region of scalp. It cuts the underlying muscles, vessels, nerves and left temporal bone. (2) An Oblique gapping heavy cut injury of size 20 cms x 2cms x oral cavity deep seen over the left side of face extends from the left cheek to the occipital region of scalp. It cuts the left ear, underlying muscles, vessels, nerves and the maxilla. (3) An oblique gapping heavy cut injury of size 16 cms x 2 cms x oral cavity deep seen 1 cm below and parallel to the injury No.2. It cuts the underlying muscles, vessels, nerves, masilla and the lower jaw bone. (4) An oblique gapping heavy cut injury of size 15cms x 3cms x brain deep seen at the nape of neck. (5) An oblique gapping heavy cut injury of size 6cms x 2cms x bone deep seen at the back of right shoulder. (6) All the fingers except the little finger of right hand found severed at their roots. The cut end anatomically matches each other and the margins are clean cut. (7) Left forearm found severed from the left arm. (5) An oblique gapping heavy cut injury of size 6cms x 2cms x bone deep seen at the back of right shoulder. (6) All the fingers except the little finger of right hand found severed at their roots. The cut end anatomically matches each other and the margins are clean cut. (7) Left forearm found severed from the left arm. The cut ends anatomically match each other and the margins are clean cut. (8) Head found almost decapitated from the trunk and hanging with a skin flap. On dissection of Scalp, skull and dura: The layers of brain torn in the occipital region and two cut injuries noted in the occipital lobe of brain. Ex.P11 is the Post-Mortem Certificate. He had preserved viscera for examination and forwarded the same for chemical analysis. Ex.P12 is the report which reveals that there was no poison detected in the visceral organs. Ex.P13 is the final opinion offered by PW.12 wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to heavy cut injuries over the head and neck and the death would have occurred 18 to 36 hours prior to autopsy. 3. Continuing the investigation, PW.18 examined Doctor and collected medical records and examined a few more witnesses. Finally, he laid a final report against the accused. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The accused pleaded innocence and therefore, he was put on trial. On the side of the prosecution, as many as 18 witnesses were examined and 24 documents were marked besides 11 Material Objects. 4. Out of the above witnesses, PW.5, PW.6, PW.7, PW.9 and PW.10 have turned hostile. PW.1 has vividly spoken to about the extra judicial confession given to him by the accused. PW.2 is the brother of the deceased; PW.3 is the wife of PW.2 and PW.4 is the father of the deceased. They have spoken to about the motive. 5. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused, he denied the same as false. However, he did not choose to examine any witness on his side nor to mark any document. Having considered the above, the trial Court found him guilty under both the charges and accordingly, punished him. That is how the accused is before this Court with this appeal. 6. In this appeal, originally, one Mr. However, he did not choose to examine any witness on his side nor to mark any document. Having considered the above, the trial Court found him guilty under both the charges and accordingly, punished him. That is how the accused is before this Court with this appeal. 6. In this appeal, originally, one Mr. V. Bharathidasan, was the counsel on record. When the appeal was listed for final hearing on 12.12.2012, the learned counsel withdrew his appearance stating that he had no instructions from the appellant. He has further stated that he has already informed the appellant about his withdrawal from appearance. In those circumstances, this Court found it fit to appoint a State Brief Counsel. Accordingly, Mr. M. Jagadeesh Pandian was appointed as the State Brief Counsel. 7. When this appeal was taken up on 07.01.2013, Mr. Jagadeesh Pandian submitted before this Court that he had already informed the appellant about this appeal and the appellant had contacted him. Today, when the appeal was taken up, Mr. Jagadeesh Pandian, the learned counsel, submitted that he has got instructions from the appellant to argue the matter. Accordingly, we heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and we have also perused the records carefully. 8. As we have extracted above, the entire case of the prosecution is based only on the extra-judicial confession (Ex.P1) allegedly given by the accused to PW.1 (V.A.O) at 6.30 p.m., on 30.07.2008. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the alleged confession would not have been voluntarily made by the accused and therefore, the same is not admissible in evidence. The learned counsel would further submit that there was no close acquaintance for the accused with PW.1 and therefore, the accused would not have reposed confidence in PW.1 so as to go to him to make confession. He would nextly contend that the confession runs to a number of pages containing every detail, which according to the learned counsel, would not have been made by the accused at all. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that there is inordinate delay in forwarding the FIR to the Court. The said delay has not been explained. This, according to the learned counsel, creates enormous doubts in the veracity of evidence of PW.1. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that there is inordinate delay in forwarding the FIR to the Court. The said delay has not been explained. This, according to the learned counsel, creates enormous doubts in the veracity of evidence of PW.1. The learned counsel would nextly contend that assuming that Ex.P1 was given by the accused to PW.1, still in view of the surrounding suspicious circumstances, Ex.P1 cannot be the sole foundation for conviction. The learned counsel would further submit that even if this Court is inclined to believe PW.1 and Ex.P1, still the act of the accused would not fall within the ambit of Section 302 IPC but, instead it would fall only under Section 304 (II) IPC. 10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently oppose the appeal. According to him, during cross-examination, PW.1 has stated that the accused was known to him and his family members were also known to him. Therefore, there would have been every reason for the accused to repose confidence in PW.1. In respect of delay, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that PW.16 has explained the delay in respect of handing over Ex.P1 to the learned Judicial Magistrate. The said explanation, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, is plausible. In respect of sustained provocation, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that a reading of Ex.P1 would go to show that the accused had pre-determined to commit the murder and there are no circumstances available on record, even remotely to infer that there was sustained provocation. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the accused had a definite determination to do away with the deceased. On going by the number of injuries caused, the weapon used and attending circumstances, the lower Court has convicted him under Section 302 IPC, which does not require any interference at the hands of this Court, he contended. 11. We have considered the above submissions carefully. 12. As we have already pointed out, admittedly, Ex.P1 -the extra judicial confession said to have been given by the accused to PW.1 is the only piece of evidence available against the accused which is incriminating. It is not the law that extra judicial confession cannot be the sole foundation for conviction. 11. We have considered the above submissions carefully. 12. As we have already pointed out, admittedly, Ex.P1 -the extra judicial confession said to have been given by the accused to PW.1 is the only piece of evidence available against the accused which is incriminating. It is not the law that extra judicial confession cannot be the sole foundation for conviction. On the contrary, it is the law that if the extra judicial confession inspires the fullest confidence of the Court, the same can be the sole foundation for conviction. Thus, the question is whether the extra judicial confession inspires the confidence of the Court leaving no doubt in the mind of the Court about its veracity. In this case, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was no occasion for the accused to repose confidence in PW.1 and therefore, the accused would not have gone to PW.1 to give confession at all. Though attractive, we do not find any force in the said argument for the simple reason that during the cross-examination, PW.1 has categorically stated that the accused was known to him and his family members were also known to him. Therefore, there would have been every reason for the accused to go over to the office of PW.1 to make the confession. 13. Nextly, the learned counsel would submit that the confession is a lengthy one containing various details, which would not have been made by the accused. In our considered opinion, it depends upon the mental frame of the accused at the time when he made the confession. In this case, the accused has given an elaborate account of the occurrence and such elaboration cannot lead to the inference that the said confession would not have been made by the accused voluntarily. Therefore, this the argument is also rejected. 14. Nextly, with regard to delay aspect, FIR was registered at 9.30 p.m., on 30.7.2008 and it has reached the Court only at 10.00 a.m. on the next day. PW.16 has explained the delay. It has been pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that after receiving cover containing FIR and the complaint, PW.16, had gone to Vilathikulam and since he came to know that the learned Judicial Magistrate was on leave, he had gone to Kovilpatti where he handed over the documents to the learned Judicial Magistrate. This explanation deserves acceptance. It has been pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that after receiving cover containing FIR and the complaint, PW.16, had gone to Vilathikulam and since he came to know that the learned Judicial Magistrate was on leave, he had gone to Kovilpatti where he handed over the documents to the learned Judicial Magistrate. This explanation deserves acceptance. It is plausible. Thus, on the ground of so-called delay also, the accused cannot succeed. 15. Now, let us consider the conduct of the accused, which is yet another circumstance, which should be weighed while we are considering the confession. The deceased is not a stranger to the accused. The entire occurrence had not taken place anywhere at a far off place from the house of the accused. The deceased was the wife of the accused. The occurrence had taken place just in front of the house of the accused. It is not the positive plea of the accused that at the time of occurrence, he was not at home. Quite naturally, the accused would have been at home. If that be so, he would have come to know as to how his wife sustained injuries. Assuming that he was not aware of the occurrence, after having seen the dead body, his natural conduct would have been to go to the Police Station. He did not do either. This conduct of the accused will give an adverse inference against the accused. This adverse inference coupled with the evidence of PW.1 would go to show that Ex.P1 is the voluntary confession made by the accused to PW.1. It squarely falls within the ambit of Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is relevant and so admissible in evidence. There is no reason to disbelieve the veracity of the evidence of PW.1 as well as Ex.P1. 16. In Ex.P1, the accused has clearly stated that it was he who cut the deceased indiscriminately. PW.12 Dr. Manoharan has found as many as 8 cut injuries on the body of the deceased. The left forearm was actually severed. Similarly, all the fingers except small finger in the right hand were severed. The Doctor has opined that the death was due to cumulative effect of all these injuries instantaneously. Thus, the prosecution has proved that the death of the deceased was caused only by the accused and the same is a homicide. 17. The left forearm was actually severed. Similarly, all the fingers except small finger in the right hand were severed. The Doctor has opined that the death was due to cumulative effect of all these injuries instantaneously. Thus, the prosecution has proved that the death of the deceased was caused only by the accused and the same is a homicide. 17. Now, coming to the nature of the offence committed by the accused, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that it falls squarely within the first limb of Section 300 IPC. A perusal of the confession itself would go to show that he had determined to do away with the deceased. The motive, the weapon used, the number of injuries caused, and the force with which the weapon was used would all go to show that the accused had a definite intention to cause the death of the deceased. Thus, the act of the accused squarely falls within the first limb of 300 IPC. 18. Coming to the next argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the act of the accused would fall within the first exception to Section 300 IPC, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the said argument that due to sustained provocation, the occurrence had taken place. In order to substantiate this contention, the learned counsel would submit that the accused has stated that the deceased had developed illicit intimacy with one Murugan of Koosalipatti and it had sustained in his mind and that had provoked the accused to cause the death of the deceased. But, we are unable to agree with the said argument for the reason that the alleged illicit intimacy between the deceased and the accused was long before the alleged occurrence. After that, she was residing at home and the accused had gone to Kerala. The accused returned from Kerala only 4 days before the occurrence and during the interregnum period, there was no act committed by the deceased so as to provoke the accused to commit the murder. Thus, we find total absence of any kind of provocation including sustained provocation. Thus, the act of the accused does not fall within the first exception to 300 IPC. Therefore, the accused is liable to be punished only under Section 302 IPC for committing murder of the deceased. Thus, we find total absence of any kind of provocation including sustained provocation. Thus, the act of the accused does not fall within the first exception to 300 IPC. Therefore, the accused is liable to be punished only under Section 302 IPC for committing murder of the deceased. Coming to the offence under Section 201 IPC, the accused had set fire to the body and buried the same also. This has been stated in the extra judicial confession and as a matter of fact, the Revenue Divisional Officer exhumed the body from the place where the dead body buried as has been identified by the accused. Thus, the offence under Section 201 IPC has also been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts. 19. Coming to the quantum of punishment, we find that the same is just and fair, which does not require any interference at the hands of this Court at all. Thus, we do not find any merit at all in this appeal. 20. In the result, the Criminal Appeal fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is confirmed. 21. Before parting with this matter, we would like to place our appreciation on record the services rendered by the learned State Brief Counsel in this matter and we direct the Legal Aid Services Authority to pay his remuneration.