Judgment : Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Appellant challenges his conviction and sentence on a count under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant under State assistance and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. The gist of the prosecution case is as follows : At about 9.45 p.m. on 9.10.2005, the accused and the deceased quarreled in the scene of occurrence, which, going by description, is in the public place in front of the residence of PW1. This happened, after both of them alighted from a motor cycle, which the accused was riding and the victim, the pillion rider. As a result of the stab injuries inflicted by the accused, the victim died. The intention to kill is attempted to be fortified by the story that two days prior to that incident, there was an altercation between them. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the credibility of the ocular witnesses, PW1, PW2 and PW3, cannot be taken to the extent to which the Court of Session has done and that there is every likelihood of the deceased being the aggressor and the incident having occurred without premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion, upon a sudden quarrel. According to the learned counsel, there is no material to hold that the accused had taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The attempt is to bring the case under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. She also argued that in such cases, it is immaterial as to which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault, going by the Explanation to that Exception. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the homicidal death of the victim is proved beyond doubt and the consistent version of PW1 to PW3, who are the eye witnesses, has been believed by the Court of Session, and a different view is not available in the appeal to hold the findings of the trial court as wrong. He argued that there is no contradiction, whatsoever, worth cognizance, made out either in the depositions of each of the witnesses or among themselves taken together. He argued that there is no contradiction, whatsoever, worth cognizance, made out either in the depositions of each of the witnesses or among themselves taken together. There is also no material to infer that the witnesses had a hostile animus to the accused to ensure his conviction, though there is a faint and groundless suggestion in that regard, in the cross examination, it is argued. He further argued that the contents of Ext.P1 First Information Statement, proved by its maker, PW1, speak of the victim having uttered words clearly pronouncing that he has been stabbed by Nanu (accused), immediately following the incident. This, according to the learned Prosecutor, would fall as a reliable material available within the purview of Section 6 of the Evidence Act. PW4's version that he saw the accused running away from the scene of occurrence, with the weapon in hand, after the incident, is also pointed out by the learned Prosecutor. 6. PW7 is the widow of the deceased. She, as per Ext.P3, obtained custody of the motor cycle from the court. She also proved MO5 slipper as belonging to the deceased, and worn by him at the time of incident. PW6, the brother of the victim stated that he took the victim to the hospital. PW8 is the doctor, who examined the victim, on being brought to the hospital. She recorded the injuries and issued Ext.P4 wound certificate, also stating therein that blood pressure was not recordable. It was she, who declared the victim dead. PW15, who conducted post mortem, issued and proved Ext.P9 post mortem certificate, which showed two fatal injuries. Death was due to incised penetrating wounds sustained to the abdomen, going by that certificate. Going by the description of the nature of injuries 1, 2 and 3 on the abdomen and the quality of the autopsy report and evidence of PW15, it is clearly established that those injuries on the victim were brutally inflicted. The weapon of offence, MO1, is connected to those wounds, through PW15, the doctor, who conducted the autopsy and also PW13 and PW14, who proved Ext.P8 recovery mahazar regarding MO1, that weapon. Thus, the weapon of offence, the injuries, the identity of the victim, all stand established. Hence, the death of the victim (Babu Thomas) was a homicide as a result of injuries inflicted with MO1-the weapon. 7. Thus, the weapon of offence, the injuries, the identity of the victim, all stand established. Hence, the death of the victim (Babu Thomas) was a homicide as a result of injuries inflicted with MO1-the weapon. 7. Now, on to the evidence of PW1, PW2 andPW3, who were cited as eye witnesses to prove the occurrence. PW3 is the wife of PW1. PW2 is a worker of PW1. The scene of occurrence is in the public road, in front of PW1's residence. According to those witnesses, they were sitting in the open yard and carrying out decortications of areca nuts from about 8 p.m. that night. The consistent version of all those witnesses establish the sequence of events, which evidence that the victim and the deceased came to that place in a motor cycle, alighted from that vehicle and thereafter, exchange of words ensued between them and the accused pulled out MO1 knife and repeatedly stabbed the victim. There is nothing intrinsic in the testimony of each of those witnesses, which could be treated as material contradiction of their respective testimonies. There is also no material contradiction between the versions given by PW1, PW2 and PW3, though an unsustained bald suggestion was made in the cross examination. Added on to all the aforesaid evidence, is the testimony of PW4 that he saw the accused running away from the scene of occurrence with the weapon in hand. No circumstance is pointed out to even remotely suggest that PW1, PW2, PW3 or PW4 had any hostility or animosity against the accused and were interested in getting his conviction. 8. MO1 knife with a total length of 24.5 cm. with the sharp blade portion having a length of 13.5 cm. is proved to have been used to inflict three deep injuries in the abdomen of the victim, essentially traumatising the entire abdominal organs. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the victim and the quality and nature of MO1, the weapon, proved to have been used to inflict the fatal injuries on the victim, the intention of the accused to cause the injuries suffered by the victim is well established. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the victim and the quality and nature of MO1, the weapon, proved to have been used to inflict the fatal injuries on the victim, the intention of the accused to cause the injuries suffered by the victim is well established. The use of a weapon of such nature as MO1 to inflict the multiple injuries evidenced by Ext.P9 autopsy report corroborated by its maker PW15, who conducted the autopsy clearly fixes the homicide of the victim to be at the hands of the accused. Those injuries were inflicted to cause bodily injury to the victim, going by the legal evidence on record. Those injuries are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, going by the evidence, documentary and oral, as to autopsy. The intention to inflict the bodily injuries on the victim, as established by the documentary and oral evidence in the case in hand is an inescapable inference, as the intention of the assailant is a matter of his mind and deducible and to be judicially ascertained. Definition of murder in Section 300 of the IPC, thirdly, is well established. Hence, it is not necessary for us to labour much to consider the particular items of evidence regarding motive. 9. Notwithstanding the above, we notice that PW5 and PW10 had spoken about the prior altercation between the accused and the victim. There is acceptable clarity and consistency, with no cognizable contradictions, in their versions. Not only that, PW5's statement was that the accused had told him about the prior altercation with the victim. That by itself is a particular act of the accused expressing about the prior altercation. The prior altercation having been proved, that statement of PW5 about the disclosure by the accused can necessarily be considered as an item, which could be tagged along, within the purview of Section 6 of the Evidence Act, in the chain of textural materials and contextual legal inferences, leading to the conclusion that the commission of the overt acts by the accused had, indisputably, resulted in the death of the victim. This, we say for certain on the total analysis of the entire legal evidence on record, though it is not necessary for us to depend on the testimony of PW5 and PW10 to sustain the conviction and sentence handed down by the Court of Session. 10. This, we say for certain on the total analysis of the entire legal evidence on record, though it is not necessary for us to depend on the testimony of PW5 and PW10 to sustain the conviction and sentence handed down by the Court of Session. 10. Now, we will deal with the plea of the accused that if he is found to have committed the acts attributed to him, his attributed acts would fall within the ambit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. We proceed to answer this plea. Analysing the evidence as noted above, we have to first reiterate the nature of the injuries, as reflected in the post-mortem report. Injury Nos.1 to 3 are of such nature as would never have been inflicted, having cropped up on the spur of a moment. Those injuries cannot be taken, in the common course of human conduct, to have been inflicted in a sudden fight or that the incident was not premeditated. We are unable to hold that the offender had not taken undue advantage or had not acted in a cruel or unusual manner in executing the overt acts resulting in the death of the victim. Similarly, the testimony of PW1 to PW3, who have been believed as eye witnesses do not, in any manner, indicate that any sudden fight was generated in any heat of passion upon any sudden quarrel. In such circumstances, we cannot, but, hold that Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC is not attracted. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no ground to interfere with the conviction entered by the Court of Session and the sentence of life imprisonment handed down by it to the appealing accused. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.