JUDGMENT : S.NAGAMUTHU, J. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.143 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputhur. He stood charged for offences under Sections 302 IPC. By judgment dated 28.06.2005, 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 rigorous imprisonment for one year. Challenging the same, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The deceased in this case was one Balasubramanian. P.W.1 is his wife. P.W.2 is his brother. P.W.3 is the niece of the deceased. The deceased was residing at Jakkammalpuram in Virudhunagar District. The father-in-law of P.W.1 was residing in Gopalapuram. The accused belonged to Gopalapuram Village. Some time before the occurrence, the deceased and P.W.1 had gone to Gopalapuram. At that time, the accused had damaged the street light by throwing a stone at it. P.W.2 – the brother of the deceased reprimanded him for the said act. From that time onwards, there was no lovelost between the family of the accused and the deceased. They were in inimical terms. 2.1. While so, some time thereafter, the father of the accused died. After the demise of his father, the accused was telling that he would kill the deceased and P.W.1. While so, on 07.09.2003, P.W.1 and the deceased had gone to Gopalapuram to see the father-in-law of P.W. 1, who was ailing. P.Ws.2 and 3 had come along with them to see them off. When they were walking on a pathway, ie. one after the other in a row, the accused came from behind in a cycle. He overtook P.Ws.1 to 3 and went near the deceased, who was going ahead of P.Ws. 1 to 3. It was 4 p.m. Suddenly, the accused took out a knife and stabbed the deceased on the stomach. The deceased was about to fall. P.W.1 tried to catch him. At that time, the accused again stabbed the deceased on his right thigh with the same knife. P.Ws.1 to 3 raised alarm. The accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. P.Ws.1 to 3 under the hope that the deceased was alive, took the deceased to the shop of one Subramaniam. But instantaneously he died. P.W.1 tried to catch him. At that time, the accused again stabbed the deceased on his right thigh with the same knife. P.Ws.1 to 3 raised alarm. The accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. P.Ws.1 to 3 under the hope that the deceased was alive, took the deceased to the shop of one Subramaniam. But instantaneously he died. Hence, P.W.1 went to the police station. 2.2. P.W.10 was the then Inspector of Police, Aruppukottai Town Police Station. P.W.1 made a complaint, upon which, P.W.10 registered a case in Crime No. 674 of 2003 under Sections 341 and 302 IPC. Ex.P1 is the complaint and Ex.P13 is the FIR. He forwarded both the documents to Court forthwith. At 8.00 p.m., he prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch at the place of occurrence in the presence of P.W.8 and another witness. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased at 7.30 p.m., and prepared Ex.P15 – inquest report. He forwarded the body for postmortem. 2.3. P.W.6 conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 07.09.2003 at 2.00 p.m. He noticed the following injuries: 1.A stab injury over left side abdomen 5 cm in length, 2 cm in breadth in the centre attempt elliptical in shape, vertically placed, a loob of 1 feet of small intestine protruded out from the wound. 2.An incised wound over right thigh lower 1/3 lateral aspect about 10 x 4 x cm x bone depth vertically placed. Muscles were cut in the wound. About 500 ml. Blood present in the abdominal cavity. No friction ribs. Ex.P4 is the postmortem certificate. He gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage. 2.4. In the course of investigation, it came to light that the accused surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate at Sattur on 10.09.2003. P.W.10 took custody of the accused on 19.09.2003 on the orders of the learned Magistrate. On the same day at 03.30 p.m., while in the custody of the police, he made a voluntary confession in the presence of P.W.9 and another witness. In the said confession, he disclosed the place, where he had hidden the suriknife. In pursuance of the same, he took P.Ws.10 and 9 to Palayampatti theppam and took out M.O.1 – knife from the hide out. The same was recovered. In the said confession, he disclosed the place, where he had hidden the suriknife. In pursuance of the same, he took P.Ws.10 and 9 to Palayampatti theppam and took out M.O.1 – knife from the hide out. The same was recovered. Then he forwarded the material objects to the Court and made a request to the Court to forward the same for chemical examination. The report revealed that there was human blood of 'B' Group on all the material objects including the knife. P.W.10 examined the witnesses, collected the medical records and on concluding the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused under Section 302 IPC. 2.5. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the charge as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment. The accused denied the same as false. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 10 witnesses were examined. 15 documents and 9 material objects were marked. 2.6. Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 3 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. They have vividly spoken about the same. P.W.4 is an independent witness and he has also spoken about the occurrence so vividly. P.W.5 has spoken about the motive. P.W.6 has spoken about the autopsy conducted by him and his final opinion. P.W.7 is the Head Clerk of the Court has spoken about the forwarding of the material objects for chemical examination and the report received. P.W.8 has spoken about the observation mahazar and a rough sketch prepared in his presence and the recovery of material objects from the place of occurrence. P.W.9 has spoken about the arrest of the accused, his confession and the consequential discovery of M.O.1. P.W.10 has spoken about the investigation done. 2.7. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same. However, he did not choose to examine any witness nor to mark any documents on his side. Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted him and accordingly, punished him. That is how, he is before this Court with this appeal. 3. We have the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and we have also perused the records carefully. 4. Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted him and accordingly, punished him. That is how, he is before this Court with this appeal. 3. We have the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and we have also perused the records carefully. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that P.Ws.1 to 3 are interested witnesses and they would not have seen the occurrence. P.W.4 is a chance witness and therefore, his presence is also doubtful. He would further add that because P.Ws.1 to 3 are inimical towards the accused, they have falsely deposed against him. So far as the arrest of the accused and the consequential discovery of M.O.1, the learned counsel would submit that P.W.9 cannot be believed, as he is a stock witness. The learned counsel in the alternative would submit that even assuming that it was this accused, who caused the death of the deceased, he is liable only for punishment under Section 304 (i) IPC. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, oppose this appeal. According to him, P.Ws.1 to 3, though related to the deceased, have vividly spoken about the entire occurrence and there is no reason to reject their evidences. P.W.4 is an independent witness, who has also spoken about the occurrence. He would further submit that the eye witness account is duly corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.6. The arrest of the accused and the consequential discovery of M.O1 also lends assurance to the prosecution case. He would further submit that the act of the accused would not fall under any of the exception to Section 300 IPC. Thus, according to him, the trial Court has rightly convicted him. 6. We have considered the above submissions. 7. P.Ws.1 to 3 are, of course, related to the deceased and they are also inimical towards the accused. But on that score, their evidences cannot be outright rejected. The law requires that their evidences should be closely scrutinized. In this case, the presence of P.Ws.1 to 3 has been explained away by them. According to P.W.1, he had gone along with the deceased to Gopalapuram to see her ailing father-in-law. When they were returning, P.Ws.2 and 3 came with them to see them off. It was only on their way to the bus stand, the occurrence had taken place. According to P.W.1, he had gone along with the deceased to Gopalapuram to see her ailing father-in-law. When they were returning, P.Ws.2 and 3 came with them to see them off. It was only on their way to the bus stand, the occurrence had taken place. Thus, the presence of P.Ws.1 to 3 cannot be doubted. They, in a convincing manner, stated as to how, the occurrence had taken place. We do not find any reason to reject the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. Apart from that P.W.4 is an independent witness, whose presence cannot be doubted at all, as there is no material elicited to doubt his presence. P.W.4 had no axe to grind against the accused. Thus, the evidence of P.W.4 lends full assurance to the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. Further, the medical evidence duly corroborates the eye witness account. Thus, the prosecution has clearly proved this case beyond any reasonable doubts that it was this accused, who caused the injuries on the deceased and caused his death. This conclusion is further strengthened by the discovery of M.O. 1 – knife at the instance of the accused. According to the chemical analysis report, the knife contained 'B' Group blood, ie the blood group of the deceased. P.W.1 has identified the knife as one, which was used by the accused. Thus, these proved facts also lend assurance to the case of the prosecution further. 8. Now, turning to the alternative plea of the accused, in our considered view, the act of the accused does not fall under any of the exceptions to Section 300 IPC. The accused had gone to the place of occurrence in a cycle, armed with weapon. He overtook P.Ws.1 to 3 and reached the deceased. On reaching him, he stabbed him twice with a knife. The fatal injury was caused on the stomach. The deceased died instantaneously. Thus, the injury on the stomach was the intended injury, which, in our considered view is sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature. Therefore, the act of the accused would squarely fall within the 3rd limb of Section 300 IPC. We do not find any material to hold that his act would fall under any of the exceptions to Section 300 IPC. 9. Therefore, the act of the accused would squarely fall within the 3rd limb of Section 300 IPC. We do not find any material to hold that his act would fall under any of the exceptions to Section 300 IPC. 9. The learned counsel would submit that out of grave and sudden provocation, the accused would have caused the death of the deceased. Of course, it is true that under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, this Court can presume certain facts, if the Court believes the same would have happened in a such fashion. But such presumption cannot be drawn from vacuum. Any presumption drawn from vacuum will be only a surmise. Legal presumption requires strong foundation. In this case, the entire materials available on record would go to show that absolutely there is nothing on record to presume that the accused would have been provoked to lose his mental balance and to cause the injuries on the deceased. The very fact that the accused went to the place of occurrence in a cycle, overtook P.Ws.1 to 3 and stabbed the deceased all would go to show that it was this accused, who caused the death of the deceased. Thus, the act of the accused is an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. So far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, the trial Court imposed only a minimum punishment, which does not require any interference. In such view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the appeal. 10. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial Court is confirmed. The trial Court shall take steps to secure the accused and to commit him in prison so as to serve out the remaining period of sentence.