Judgment : P.N. Prakash, J. 1. The sole accused in the Trial Court Kittusamy @ Krishnan, is the appellant before us. He was tried by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in SC.No.11/2010 for an offence u/s.302 IPC for committing the murder of his wife Makali in front of her house at around 7.30 p.m. on 30.04.2009 and for the said charge, he was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-and in default, to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment by the Trial Court. 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:- [a] Kittusamy @ Krishnan, the appellant herein was a butcher by profession and he was working in the mutton stall owned by Selvaraj [P.W.7]. The appellant and the deceased were blessed with 2 children, Dhandapani [P.W.1] and Sekar [P.W.2]. The appellant suspected the fidelity of his wife, on account of which, their matrimonial life was very much disturbed. On the fateful day of occurrence, i.e., on 30.04.2009 around 7.30 p.m., the deceased and her two sons [P.Ws.1 and 2] were standing outside their house witnessing the festivities in the local temple. At that time, the appellant came there and there was an altercation between the couple. It is alleged that the appellant took out a knife [M.O.5] and attacked the deceased in a trice. Thereafter, he fled from the place. P.Ws.1 and 2 took their mother to the Government Hospital, Pollachi, where she was examined by Dr.Latha [P.W.10] at 8.25 p.m. who found that the patient was brought dead. The body was directed to be kept in the Mortuary for further proceedings. Thereafter P.W.1 went to the police station and lodged a complaint [Ex.P.1] based on which a case in Kottur Police Station Cr.No.139/2008 for an offence u/s.302 IPC was registered on 30.04.2009 at 23 30 hours by Mr.Radhakrishnan - Sub-Inspector of Police [P.W.15]. The complaint and the printed FIR [Ex.P.13] were despatched to the jurisdictional Magistrate who received the same at 2.15 a.m. on 01.5.2009 as could be seen by the endorsement of the learned Magistrate on Ex.P.13. [b] Mr.Somanathan -Inspector of Police [P.w.16] took up the investigation of the case and went to the place of occurrence. The complaint and the printed FIR [Ex.P.13] were despatched to the jurisdictional Magistrate who received the same at 2.15 a.m. on 01.5.2009 as could be seen by the endorsement of the learned Magistrate on Ex.P.13. [b] Mr.Somanathan -Inspector of Police [P.w.16] took up the investigation of the case and went to the place of occurrence. He prepared the Observation Mahazar [Ex.P.2] ; Rough Sketch [Ex.P.14] ; took earth with and without blood stains [M.Os.1 and 2] under the cover of Mahazar [Ex.P.3] in the presence of witnesses Devendran [P.w.4] and Manikandan [not examined]. Thereafter, he conducted inquest over the body of the deceased Makali between 8.15 a.m. and 11.15 a.m. on 01.05.2009 in the Government Hospital, Pollachi in the presence of witnesses and the Inquest Report is marked as Ex.P.16. Autopsy was conducted by Dr.Raja [P.W.11] who noted the following injuries and also his opinion for the death in the Post Mortem Certificate [Ex.P.8]:- "EXTERNAL INJURIES:- 1. Cut injury in the left shoulder 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle depth. 2. Eliptical wound below left scapular region 4 cm x 1 cm clean edges. 3. Cut injury below left nipple 3 cm x 1 cm, irregular edge [2 inch below left nipple]. Fat protrudes out from wound. POSTMORTEM FINDINGS:- Moderately built, symmetrical on its back. Hyoid intact. No ENT bleedings. Tongue kept inside. 1. Cut injury below left nipple extends inside # left 7th rib present in ante axillary line, enters left ventricle of Heart and ended in the base of the Heart with a Haematoma of Heart. 2. Cut injury in the back entered inter-space Ribs and punctured left lung in lower left lobe of lung. The blood present in thoracic cavity. Lungs C/S Pale. Liver, spleen, Kidney C/S Pale. Internal distended uterus, bladder empty. Skull No.# mems intact. Brain Pale – 1 Kg. Spinal cord intact. OPINION:- The deceased would appear to have died of shock and Haemorrhage due to injury to major organs like Heart and Lungs." [c] The appellant surrendered before Gnanasekaran, village Administrative Officer [P.W.6] and gave an extra-judicial confession, confessing to the commission of the offence in Ex.P.4. Skull No.# mems intact. Brain Pale – 1 Kg. Spinal cord intact. OPINION:- The deceased would appear to have died of shock and Haemorrhage due to injury to major organs like Heart and Lungs." [c] The appellant surrendered before Gnanasekaran, village Administrative Officer [P.W.6] and gave an extra-judicial confession, confessing to the commission of the offence in Ex.P.4. Thereafter, P.W.6 brought the appellant with a Special Report [Ex.P.5] at 4.30 p.m. before P.W.16 who placed him under arrest and recorded his confession statement, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P.6, which led to the recovery of knife [M.O.5] under the cover of Mahazar [Ex.P.7] by P.W.16. The blood stained clothes [M.Os.3 and 4] worn by the appellant were recovered in Form-95 by P.W.16 and all the materials were sent to the Judicial Magistrate for being forwarded to the Chemical Examiner for chemical examination. P.W.16 also arranged for taking photographs of the place of occurrence by Jayaraman [P.W.9] and the photographs were marked as M.O.6 series. After recording the statement of witnesses, P.W.16 completed the investigation and filed the final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Pollachi which was taken on file in PRC No.19/2009. [d] On the appearance of the appellant, the provisions of u/s.207 Cr.P.C. was complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions wherein the aforesaid charge was framed against the appellant/accused, to which he pleaded "not guilty". [e] In order to prove the prosecution case, 16 witnesses were examined ; 16 exhibits and 10 material objects were marked. No witness was examined or document marked on the side of the appellant. 3. After analysing the evidence on record, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. Aggrieved by which he is now before us in this appeal. 4. Mr.S.Samuel Raja Pandian, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution had failed to prove the case inasmuch as the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 are not worthy of acceptance. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt and the findings of the Trial Court require no interference by this Court. 6. We gave our anxious consideration to rival submissions put forward by either side and also to the materials on record and appreciated the evidence in toto. 7. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt and the findings of the Trial Court require no interference by this Court. 6. We gave our anxious consideration to rival submissions put forward by either side and also to the materials on record and appreciated the evidence in toto. 7. There are four eyewitnesses in this case, viz., Dhandapani [P.W.1] ; Sekar [P.w.2] ; Subramaniam [P.W.3] and Devendran [P.W.4]. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the children of the couple. At the time of the incident, the deceased was around 40 years of age ; P.W.1 was around 25 years old and P.W.2 was around 18 years old. It is in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that on 30.04.2009 at around 7.30 p.m. they were standing along with their mother in the sit-out, outside their house and were watching the temple festivities as that was the time, their village Deity was being taken out on procession. It is also in the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, who are the neighbours, that they were also standing outside their houses to watch the festivities. At that time, P.Ws.1,2,3 and 4 say in their evidence, that the appellant came to the house and a wordy quarrel ensued between the deceased and the appellant. In the course of the quarrel, the appellant suddenly took out a knife [M.O.5] from his possession and started inflicting injuries on the deceased. The line of cross-examination of P.W.1 proceeds as if on the fateful day, when the appellant came to the house, it was the sons [P.Ws.1 and 2] who picked up a quarrel with him and attempted to chase him out of the house. It was further suggested to P.W.1 that it was he who brought the knife from inside the house and engaged in a scuffle resulting in the death of Makali. 8. We carefully analysed the evidence P.Ws.1 to 4. P.Ws.3 and 4, in their evidence have stated that while they were all standing outside their houses, they saw the quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. They have also stated that P.Ws.1 and 2 were present outside the house. At that time, they saw the appellant suddenly whipping out a knife and inflicting injuries on the deceased and thereafter, running away. They have also stated that P.Ws.1 and 2 were present outside the house. At that time, they saw the appellant suddenly whipping out a knife and inflicting injuries on the deceased and thereafter, running away. Even to them, it was suggested by the defence that the death ensued because of the scuffle that took place between the appellant and his sons. Therefore, the presence of the appellant at the scene of occurrence was never denied. It has also been established through cogent evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 that the appellant had come to the place of occurrence at the said time. Now, it is boils down to see whether the death had occurred because of the scuffle between the appellant and his sons or in the manner projected by the prosecution. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that if the appellant attacked the deceased as projected by the prosecution, the sons would have immediately intervened to protect their mother and would have prevented the attack. Though this argument sounds reasonable, nevertheless, the evidence of the witnesses militates against this possibility. P.Ws.1 and 2 in their evidence say that their parents have always been quarreling and therefore, it must have not been something new to them when they started quarreling on the fateful day. It is in the cross-examination of P.W.1 that he and his brother were sitting about 5 to 6 feet away from the place where his parents were quarreling. At that time, in a trice, the appellant whipped out a knife and started attacking the deceased. When P.Ws.1 and 2 saw this and rushed to their mother's rescue, the appellant ran away from the scene. Therefore, from the conspectus of proved facts, we are unable to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant that it was not the appellant who had caused the death of his wife Makali on the fateful day. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the homicide of Makali was caused by the appellant and from the nature of injuries and proved fact, we are convinced that the act of the appellant falls within the second limb of Section 299 IPC. 9. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the homicide of Makali was caused by the appellant and from the nature of injuries and proved fact, we are convinced that the act of the appellant falls within the second limb of Section 299 IPC. 9. Now, what is to be seen is whether the appellant had the necessary mens rea to commit an offence u/s.302 IPC or whether his acts would fall within any of the exceptions adumbrated in section 300 IPC. 10. All the four eyewitnesses, viz., P.Ws.1 to 4 uniformly say that prior to the actual attack, there was a heated quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. In fact, P.W.2, son of the couple in his cross-examination has stated that his parents quarrelled for about 30 minutes. Even the charge framed by the Trial Court discloses that there was an altercation between the appellant and the deceased. As regards the possession of knife [M.O.5], even according to the prosecution, the appellant was a butcher by profession and was working in the shop of Selvaraj [P.W.7]. Selvaraj [P.W.7] has identified the knife [M.O.5] as the one used in his shop for cutting meat. Therefore, we cannot hold that the appellant had carried the weapon with premeditation. Being a butcher, he was in possession of the implement that is used by him for his profession. We are not surprised at this. Therefore, we hold that the act of the appellant in a fret of passion in the course of a quarrel, falls within fourth exception to section 300 IPC and therefore, the appellant is punishable u/s.304[Part I] IPC. 11. In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, viz., the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in SC.No.11/2010 dated 01.10.2010 is hereby set aside. Instead, the appellant is convicted u/s.304 [Part I] IPC and he is sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment. The period already undergone shall be given set off. Fine amount and the default sentence imposed on the appellant by the Trial Court is confirmed.