JUDGMENT S. NAGAMUTHU, J. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.211 of 2010, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Tuticorin. By Judgment, dated 20.12.2011, the Trial Court convicted him under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court, with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The deceased in this case was one Mr. Sivalinga Perumal. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the wife and son respectively of the deceased. They were residing at Karpagavinayagar Temple Street at Vallanadu Village. The accused is a neighbour of the deceased. Eight months prior to the occurrence, the accused had written something obscene about P.W.1 in a piece of paper and threw it into the house of the deceased. The deceased noticed the same and reprimanded the accused. This resulted in a wordy quarrel between them. From then, onwards, there was no love lost between them. Two days prior to the occurrence, P.W.1 had gone to the backyard of her house to Sami Madam. The accused was standing behind his house and he scolded P.W.1 indirectly. P.W.1 also retaliated by hurling abusive words against the accused. Thereafter, on 07.05.2010, early in the morning, the deceased and P.W.1 had gone for their work. At that time, P.W.1, informed the deceased about the earlier occurrence. They returned home at 07.00 p.m. Both the deceased and P.W.1 took bath and since it was Friday, he went to the backyard of his house to light the Deepa Vilakku. P.W.1 and the children of the deceased were inside the house. At that time, they heard the alarm raised by the deceased. P.W.1 and P.W.2 rushed to the backyard of the house. At that time, they found that there was a wordy quarrel between the accused and the deceased. Then around 07.00 p.m., the accused rushed to his house, came out with a long size aruval and indiscriminately cut the deceased. He sustained as many as 17 injuries. The deceased fell down in a pool of flood. He died instantaneously. The accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. 3. Then around 07.00 p.m., the accused rushed to his house, came out with a long size aruval and indiscriminately cut the deceased. He sustained as many as 17 injuries. The deceased fell down in a pool of flood. He died instantaneously. The accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. 3. P.W.1 thereafter rushed to the Police Station, Murappalnadu at 09.00 p.m. and made a complaint under Ex.P.1. P.W.8, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Murappalnadu Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.116 of 2010 under Section 302 I.P.C. Ex.P.14 is the First Information Report. Then, he forwarded both the documents to the Court and handed over the Case Diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. 4. P.W.9 took up the case for investigation, proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared an Observation Mahazer in the presence of P.W.4 and another witness. He recovered blood stained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence under Ex.P.5, Mahazer. Then, he forwarded the body for postmortem. P.W.3, Dr. Sudalaimuthu, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 08.05.2010 at 11.00 a.m. He found the following injuries: “1.16 x 2 cm x cranial cavity deep gaping incised wound (cut injury) seen on the forehead. It's right end in 1 cm above the middle of right eyebrow and the left end in 7 cm above left eyebrow. Underlying frontal bone and meninges found cut at site. 2.5 x 1 cm x full thickness deep gaping incised wound seen on the left ear lobe. 3.10 x 3 cm x muscle deep gaping incised wound left side of neck. Underlying muscles, major vessels, nerves cut at site. 4.10 x 3 cm x cervical bone deep gaping incised wound (cut injury) seen on the left side of neck, 2 cm below the injury No.3. Underlying muscles, major vessels, nerves cut at site. 5.12 x 2 x muscle deep gaping incised wound seen on the left side of lower part of neck 2 cm below in for No.4. 6.12 x 4 cm x muscle deep gaping incised wound seen on the top of left shoulder. 7.12 x 3 cm x muscle deep gaping incised wound back of left shoulder. Underlying muscles, vessels, nerves and humorous bone cut at site. 8.4 x 1 cm x muscle deep gaping incised wound seen on the outer aspect of left lower forearm. 6.12 x 4 cm x muscle deep gaping incised wound seen on the top of left shoulder. 7.12 x 3 cm x muscle deep gaping incised wound back of left shoulder. Underlying muscles, vessels, nerves and humorous bone cut at site. 8.4 x 1 cm x muscle deep gaping incised wound seen on the outer aspect of left lower forearm. 9.7 x 2 cm x bone deep gaping incised wound seen on the inner aspect of left wrist joint, underlying luna bone found cut at site. 10.14 x 4 cm x bone deep gaping incised wound seen on the top of right shoulder. Underlying humorous bone cut at site. 11.8 x 1 cm x muscles deep gaping incised wound seen on the back of right upper chest. 12.20 x 2 x bone gaping incised wound seen on the back of upper part of neck, it extends from right cheek to the external occipital protuberance. Underlying muscle, vessels, nerves and mandible bone, cervical bone No.2 and spinal cord cut at site. 13.22 x 2 cm x bone deep gaping incised wound seen on the back of neck, 1 cm below injury No.12. Underlying muscles, vessels nerves and bones Cervical bone No.3 cut at site. 14.26 x 2 cm x bone deep gaping incised wound back of lower part of neck, 3 cm below injury No.13. OTHER FINDINGS: Pleural and Peritoneal cavities–Empty. Heart– normal, coronaries–patent. Hyoid Bone–Intact. Stomach–contains 10 ml of mucosal fluid, Nil specific smell. Mucosa-pale. Lungs, Liver, Spleen and Kidneys-C/s pale. Small Intestine-contains 10 ml of bile stained fluid, nil specific smell. Musoca-pale. Bladder-empty. Brain-c/s. pale”. He gave opinion that the death was due to the shock and haemorrhage due to cumulative effect of all the injuries. Ex.P.3 is the Postmortem Certificate. 5. Continuing the investigation, P.W.9 arrested the accused on 08.05.2010 in the presence of P.W.4 and another witness at 04.00 a.m. at Nanalkadu bus stop. On such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden the aruval. P.W.9 reduced the same to writing. In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, the accused took P.W.9, P.W.4 and another witness to Nanalkadu Vilakku and from a bush, he produced M.O.1, aruval. P.W.9 recovered the same under Ex.P.7, Mahazer, in the presence of P.W.4 and another witness. P.W.9 reduced the same to writing. In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, the accused took P.W.9, P.W.4 and another witness to Nanalkadu Vilakku and from a bush, he produced M.O.1, aruval. P.W.9 recovered the same under Ex.P.7, Mahazer, in the presence of P.W.4 and another witness. On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand and he also produced the material objects for chemical examination. He made a request to the Court to forward the material objects for chemical examination. The Chemical Analysis Report revealed that there was human blood on the aruval, which is of 'A' group. The lungi of the deceased also contained human blood of 'A' group. P.W.9 collected these materials, examined the doctor and got the final opinion from him and finally he laid charge sheet against the accused. 6. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charge under Section 302 I.P.C. The accused denied the same. 7. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as, 9 witnesses were examined and 16 documents were exhibited, besides 4 Material Objects. M.O.1 is the aruval, which has been identified by P.W.1 and P.W.2. 8. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence, who have vividly spoken about the occurrence. P.W.3, Dr. Sudalaimuthu, has spoken about the autopsy conducted by him and his final opinion. P.W.4 is the then Village Administrative Officer, who has spoken about the preparation of the Observation Mahazer, the Rough Sketch, recovery of blood stained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence and he has further stated about the arrest of the accused, the disclosure statement made by him and the consequential recovery of M.O.1, aruval. P.W.5, is the Constable, who carried the First Information Report from the Police Station and handed over the same to the learned Magistrate at 07.25 a.m. P.W.6 is the Constable, who handed over the body for postmortem. P.W.7 is the Head Clerk of the Judicial Magistrate's Court, who has spoken about the forwarding of material objects for chemical examination on the orders of the learned Magistrate. P.W.8 has spoken about the registration of the case. P.W.9 has spoken about the investigation. 9. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false. P.W.8 has spoken about the registration of the case. P.W.9 has spoken about the investigation. 9. When the above incriminating materials 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 on his side nor to mark any document. Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court convicted the appellant, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment, and sentenced him accordingly. That is how, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 10. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the First Information Report in this case is a doubtful document as there is inordinate delay, according to him, which has not been explained by the prosecution at all. The learned counsel would further submit that the occurrence had takenplace just on the road behind the house of the deceased and therefore P.W.1 and P.W.2 would not have been present at that time and noticed the same. The learned counsel would submit that since P.W.1 and P.W.2 are highly interested and also inimical towards the accused, their evidences require close scrutiny and if it is so done, they are liable to be rejected. The learned counsel would submit that the arrest of the accused and the consequential recovery of M.O.1 cannot be believed as P.W.4 is a stock witness for the prosecution. The learned counsel would further submit that the narration of occurrence by P.W.1 and P.W.2 is highly unnatural and therefore the whole case of the prosecution needs to be rejected. The learned counsel would submit that assuming that it was this accused who caused injuries on the deceased, the act of the accused would not fall under Section 302 I.P.C. and the same would fall only under Section 304 Part I I.P.C. 12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would however oppose this appeal. According to him, since the occurrence had takenplace just behind the house of the deceased, the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 cannot be doubted. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there is no delay in the First Information Report. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would however oppose this appeal. According to him, since the occurrence had takenplace just behind the house of the deceased, the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 cannot be doubted. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there is no delay in the First Information Report. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that the arrest of the accused and the recovery of weapon would also go to support the case of the prosecution, because the blood group found on M.O.1 has tallied with the blood group of the deceased. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that there are no reasons to reverse the well-considered Judgment of the Trial Court. 13. We have considered the above submissions. 14. Admittedly, the occurrence had takenplace just behind the house of the deceased. It is not a street as it is claimed by the learned counsel for the appellant. There was a deity and the deceased had gone to light the Deepa Vilakku. P.W.1 has stated that since it was a Friday, it was the usual practice in the evening for the deceased to go and light the Deepa Vilakku. P.W.1 and P.W.2 had categorically stated that after the deceased had gone to the backyard, they heard the cry of the deceased and the accused. Therefore, they went out of the house. At that time, they found that quarrel was going on between two. Then, the accused went to his house, came out with an aruval and caused 17 cut injuries on his body. The presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 cannot be doubted, in this regard. There is also no reason for them to omit to mention about the real accused if any and to implicate the accused falsely. Though, they are interested witnesses and inimical towards the accused, on that score, their evidence cannot be rejected. The occurrence was not witnessed by anybody and therefore the question of examining independent witnesses did not arise. 15. Immediately, after the occurrence, P.W.1 had gone to the Police Station and made a complaint, at 09.00 p.m. itself. The distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station is hardly 3 Kms. The First Information Report had reached the hands of the learned Magistrate at Sathankulam at 07.25 a.m. itself. In this also, there is no enormous delay causing any doubt regarding First Information Report. The distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station is hardly 3 Kms. The First Information Report had reached the hands of the learned Magistrate at Sathankulam at 07.25 a.m. itself. In this also, there is no enormous delay causing any doubt regarding First Information Report. Thus, the prompt lodging of the First Information Report in this case and prompt despatching of the same to the Court would vouch to some extent for the truth of the allegations made against the accused. Thus, we do not find any reason to reject the evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2, who are the natural witnesses and who had been present at the time of occurrence. 16. So far as the arrest of the accused is concerned, according to P.W.9 and P.W.4, he was arrested on 08.05.2010 and on the disclosure statement made by him, M.O.1 aruval was recovered. M.O.1 has been identified by P.W.1, by which, the accused cut the deceased. Apart from that during chemical analysis, it was found that the aruval contained the human blood of 'A' group. This tallies with the blood found on the dress material of the deceased. Thus, the recovery of M.O.1 on the disclosure statement made by the accused, also lends support to the case of the prosecution. 17. Having an overall analysis of the entire case, we do not find any reason to reject the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. We find that the injuries on the deceased were caused only by the accused, which resulted in his death. 18. The next immediate question which arises for consideration is that by the said act, what is the offence committed? The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that since there was a quarrel, the accused would have been provoked by the deceased and that is how, the occurrence had takenplace and therefore his act would fall within the ambit of First Exception of Section 300 I.P.C. But, we are not persuaded by the said argument. It is true that it is in evidence that quarrel was going on between the accused and the deceased. At the end of the said quarrel, the accused went to his house. Thereafter, he returned to the place of occurrence with an aruval. This would go to show that there was no grave provocation caused at the time of occurrence. It is true that it is in evidence that quarrel was going on between the accused and the deceased. At the end of the said quarrel, the accused went to his house. Thereafter, he returned to the place of occurrence with an aruval. This would go to show that there was no grave provocation caused at the time of occurrence. After the quarrel, when the accused went to his house, there was enough time for him to cool down. When he returned with the weapon, he had come only with an intention to do away with the deceased. The weapon used, the 17 cut injuries sustained by the deceased, the situs of the injuries and the motive would all go to prove that the accused caused the death of the deceased with the intention to kill him and his act does not fall within the ambit of Exception (1) to Section 300 I.P.C. Therefore, the accused is liable to be convicted only under Section 302 I.P.C. So far as the sentence is concerned, since minimum sentence has been imposed by the Trial Court, the same does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. 19. In the result, the Appeal fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court is hereby confirmed.