JUDGMENT : S.NAGAMUTHU, J. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.349 of 2009, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. He stood charged for the offence under Sections 294(b) and 302 I.P.C. By Judgment, dated 22.01.2011, 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.5,000/-in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The Trial Court acquitted him from the charge under Section 294(b) I.P.C. 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: (i)The deceased in this case was one Mr.Ramaiah @ Ramaraj. He was residing at Yesu Street, Solaicheri Village in Tirunelveli District. The accused was also residing in the same Village. The distance between the house of the accused and the deceased was a very short. The deceased as well as the accused and their family members were all involved in beedi rolling work for coolie. The wife of the accused used to go to the house of the deceased to join the wife of the deceased to roll beedies. In that process, due to frequent visits made by the wife of the accused, the deceased had developed illicit intimacy with her. At one point of time, the illicit relationship came to light. On knowing the same, the accused reprimanded the deceased and requested him to disconnect his relationship with the wife of the accused. But, the deceased did not stop with that. This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence. (ii)It is alleged that on 23.04.2009 at about 12.10 a.m., the deceased, his wife, P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 were in the Village. As a matter of fact, on the pial of the house of the deceased, the deceased was talking to the above witnesses. At that time, it is alleged that the accused came to the spot and questioned the deceased as to why he did not disconnect his illicit relationship with his wife. This resulted in a quarrel. In the said quarrel, it is alleged that the accused took out a wooden log and attacked the deceased with the same repeatedly. The deceased sustained serious injuries and fell unconscious. The accused ran away from the scene of occurrence with the weapon. This resulted in a quarrel. In the said quarrel, it is alleged that the accused took out a wooden log and attacked the deceased with the same repeatedly. The deceased sustained serious injuries and fell unconscious. The accused ran away from the scene of occurrence with the weapon. (iii) P.W.2 immediately took the deceased to the Government Hospital at Sankarankovil. P.W.8, Dr.Jeyakumar, examined him at 12.40 a.m. on 14.04.2009. At the time of examination, he found that there was smell of arrack from the breath of the deceased. He found the following injuries: (i) A lacerated injury measuring 15 cm x 3 cm x bone deep in the right side of frontal region of scalp. (ii) A lacerated injury measuring 2 cm x ½ cm x ½ cm on the right eyebrow. (iii) A lacerated injury measuring 1 cm x ½ cm x ½ cm on the left eyebrow. (iv) Both eyes were eczematous. Ex.P.6 is the Accident Register. According to him, these injuries would have been caused by a weapon, like M.O.1, wooden log. He gave intimation to the police regarding the same. Thereafter, the deceased was shifted to the Government Medical College Hospital at Tirunelveli. P.W.15, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Medicine at Government Medical College Hospital, Tirunelveli, examined the deceased on 24.04.2009 at 02.45 am. He admitted him as inpatient in the said hospital. While in the hospital, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. (iv) On getting intimation from the hospital, P.W.11 went to the Government Medical College Hospital at Tirunelveli and recorded the statement of P.W.1 at 09.30 a.m. and on returning to the Police Station at 11.15 a.m., he registered a case in Crime No.109 of 2009 under Sections 294(b) and 302 I.P.C. Ex.P.10 is the First Information Report and Ex.P.1 is the complaint. Then, he forwarded both the documents to the Court and handed over the Case Diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. (v) P.W.14 took up the case for investigation on 24.04.2009 at 12.15 p.m. He went to the Government Medical College Hospital at Tirunelveli and conducted inquest on the body of the deceased. Then, he forwarded the body for postmortem. (vi) P.W.10, Dr.Selva Murugan, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 24.04.2009 at 04.00 p.m. He found the following injuries: “1. Then, he forwarded the body for postmortem. (vi) P.W.10, Dr.Selva Murugan, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 24.04.2009 at 04.00 p.m. He found the following injuries: “1. Abrasions: 4 x 3 cm over right cheek, 3 x 3 cm over left side of forehead, 7 x 3 cm over left side of chest, 2 x 2 cm over left side of lower lip, 3 x 2 cm over middle of chin and 2 x 1 cm over left side of chin. 2. Sutured lacerations: 8 x 2 cm x bone deep over right side of forehead, 2 x 1 x 1 cm over medial aspect of right eye. 3.Laceration of 1 x 1 x 1 cm over left eyebrow. 4.On dissection of head: Scalpel contusion of size 10 x 7 cm over right side of forehead and 7 x 5 cm over left side of forehead, depressed fracture of size 7 x 5 cm over right side of forehead, crack fracture of length 7 cm seen over left side of forehead, facial bones and anterior cranial fossa bones of both sides found in multiple pieces, right frontal lobe lacerated of size 5 x 3 x 2 cm”. Ex.P.9 is the Postmortem Certificate. According to him, the deceased would appear to have died of complications of head injury. (vii) During the course of investigation, P.W.14 went to the place of occurrence at 08.30 p.m. on 24.04.2009 and prepared an Observation Mahazer and a Rough Sketch in the presence of P.W.5 and another witness. He also recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence. On 25.04.2009, he arrested the accused at Solaicheri Veeranam Road in the presence of P.W.6 and another witness. On such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed that he had hidden the wooden log (M.O.1) at Mottaiyansamy Temple. In pursuance of the same, he took the police and witnesses to the said place and produced M.O.1, wooden log from the hide-out and the same was recovered under a mahazer. On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects to the Court. He made a request to the Court for sending the material objects for Chemical Examination. The Report revealed that there was human blood on all the material objects including the stick. On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects to the Court. He made a request to the Court for sending the material objects for Chemical Examination. The Report revealed that there was human blood on all the material objects including the stick. He collected the medical records, examined the doctor and on completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused. 3. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as, 15 witnesses were examined and 21 documents were exhibited, besides 4 Material Objects. 4. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined as eye-witnesses. P.W.2 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 have vividly spoken about the occurrence, where they have stated that it was this accused, who attacked the deceased with the wooden log. P.W.5 has spoken about the Observation Mahazer and the Rough Sketch prepared and also the recovery of bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence. P.W.6 has spoken about the arrest of the accused and the consequential recovery of M.O.1, wooden log. P.W.7 is an official from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, who has stated that at the time of occurrence, there was no electricity failure and there was enough light at the place of occurrence. P.W.8, Dr.Jeyakumar, has stated the fact that he examined the deceased at Government Hospital, Sankarankovil at 12.40 a.m. on 24.04.2009. P.W.15 has stated that he treated the deceased at the Government Medical College Hospital, Tirunelveli. P.W.9 has stated that the deceased died at 09.15 a.m. on 24.04.2009 at the Government Medical College Hospital, Tirunelveli. He has stated that he gave intimation of the same to the police. P.W.10 has spoken about the postmortem conducted and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.11 has stated that on receiving intimation from the hospital, he went to the Government Medical College Hospital at Tirunelveli, recorded the statement of P.W.1 and on returning to the Police Station, he registered the case against the accused. P.W.10 has spoken about the postmortem conducted and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.11 has stated that on receiving intimation from the hospital, he went to the Government Medical College Hospital at Tirunelveli, recorded the statement of P.W.1 and on returning to the Police Station, he registered the case against the accused. P.W.12, the Head Clerk of the Judicial Magistrate's Court, has spoken about the fact that he forwarded the material objects to the Forensic Lab for Chemical Examination on the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate. P.W.13 has stated that he carried the First Information Report to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate and handed over the same at 03.00 p.m. on 24.04.2009. P.W.14 has spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed. 5. 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. His defence was a total denial. Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court convicted the appellant under both the charges and accordingly punished him. That is how, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 6. 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. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there was enormous delay in preferring the complaint and also forwarding the same to the Court, which has not been explained away at all by the prosecution. This, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, would create enormous doubts in the case of the prosecution. He would submit that P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 would not have seen the occurrence, because there was no reason for them to be awakened at that odd hours. The learned counsel would further submit that had it been true that they were present at that time, the delay in preferring the complaint, would not have occurred. The learned counsel would next contend that the deceased would have been attacked by somebody, which would have been unnoticed by anybody and that is the reason why the First Information Report has been registered belatedly as an afterthought. The learned counsel would next contend that the deceased would have been attacked by somebody, which would have been unnoticed by anybody and that is the reason why the First Information Report has been registered belatedly as an afterthought. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused. In the alternative, the learned counsel would submit that the offence said to have been committed by the accused would fall only under Section 304 Part I I.P.C. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently oppose this appeal. According to him, P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 were all involved in beedi rolling and according to them, they used to do the said job even during the late night hours. Thus, the presence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 at the time of occurrence cannot be doubted, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, contended. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that immediately after the occurrence, P.W.2 took the deceased to the hospital and admitted him at 12.40 a.m. itself. At that time, the Doctor was told that the deceased was attacked by a known person with a wooden log at his house. Thus, the earliest information given to the doctor vouches for the truthfulness of the allegations made in the complaint, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted. Since his condition was serious, he was taken to the Government Medical College Hospital at Tirunelveli and thereafter he died. It was, only on receiving the intimation, the police went to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1 under Ex.P.1. Thus, the delay has been explained away. Similarly, according to him, the delay in forwarding the First Information Report to the Court has also been explained away. Thus, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, from the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4, which is duly corroborated by the medical evidence, the prosecution has proved that it was, this accused, who caused the death of the deceased. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further add that the act of the accused clearly falls under Section 302 I.P.C. 9. We have considered the above submissions. 10. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. Therefore, it would have been quite natural for her to be in the house along with the deceased. P.W.2 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. We have considered the above submissions. 10. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. Therefore, it would have been quite natural for her to be in the house along with the deceased. P.W.2 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.3 and P.W.4 are neighbours. They were also involved in beedi rolling work. Therefore, it was quite natural for them to have been awakened late in the night for the purpose of doing the job. The occurrence had takenplace just on the pial of the house of the deceased, where all these people were sitting. There is no reason for us to reject the evidences of these witnesses. They have categorically stated that it was, this accused, who attacked the deceased with a wooden log. Though, these three witnesses have been cross-examined at length, nothing has been elicited by the defence to discredit their evidences. 11. Immediately after the occurrence, P.W.2 had taken the deceased to the Government Hospital at Sankarankovil and admitted him at 12.40 a.m. itself. At that point of time, the deceased was only semi-conscious. But, the doctor was told that the occurrence was around 12.10 mid night. This duly strengthens the evidences of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 about the time and place of occurrence. Thereafter, the deceased was shifted to the Government Medical College Hospital at Tirunelveli, as his condition was serious. P.W.15 had examined him in the said hospital at 02.45 a.m. on 24.04.2009. He was admitted as inpatient. It was only after the intimation from the police, P.W.11 had gone to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1 and on returning to the Police Station, he had registered the case. Thus, in preferring the complaint, there is no delay at all. The prosecution party would have been very much worried about the deteriorating condition of the deceased, who underwent treatment at the hospital and they would not have been in a mood to go to the Police Station to make a complaint. But, after the registration of the case, there had occurred enormous delay in forwarding the First Information Report to the Court. But, in our considered view, in the instant case, the said delay has not caused any dent in the case of the prosecution at all, since the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 is so cogent and convincing. But, after the registration of the case, there had occurred enormous delay in forwarding the First Information Report to the Court. But, in our considered view, in the instant case, the said delay has not caused any dent in the case of the prosecution at all, since the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 is so cogent and convincing. For the error committed by the police in forwarding the First Information Report to the Court, we cannot simply reject the evidence of the eye-witnesses as the same would only amount to miscarriage of justice. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant on the ground of delay, is only liable to be rejected. 12. Now, the next immediate question which arises for consideration is by the said act “what is the offence committed?” The medical evidence clearly reveals that there were injuries on the vital parts of the deceased and the death was caused only by the said injuries. The intention of the accused in causing the said injuries on the deceased on the vital parts of the body, would go to establish that his act would squarely fall within the third limb of Section 300 I.P.C. But, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the act of the accused would only fall within Exception (1) to Section 300 I.P.C. We have considered the said submission. 13. It is in evidence that the deceased had developed illicit intimacy with the wife of the accused. On a number of occasions, the accused reprimanded the deceased and requested him to disconnect all his illicit relationship with the wife of the accused. But, the deceased did not stop with that. On the day of occurrence, the accused questioned the deceased as to why he did not stop having illicit relationship with his wife. This had resulted in a quarrel. It was only in the said quarrel, the accused had taken a wooden log and attacked the deceased. In our considered view, a comprehensive analysis of the entire narration of facts, would give an inference that the accused would have been provoked by the deceased on account of the illicit relationship, he had with the wife of the accused. Because of the provocative words, which would have been uttered by the deceased, the accused would have lost his self-control and would have attacked the deceased with wooden log. Because of the provocative words, which would have been uttered by the deceased, the accused would have lost his self-control and would have attacked the deceased with wooden log. Thus, in our considered view, the act of the accused would squarely fall within Exception (1) to Section 300 I.P.C. Therefore, the appellant is liable to be punished under Section 304 Part I I.P.C. 14. Now, turning to the quantum of sentence, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant is aged 36 years. He has got wife and two daughters. He is a poor man. He is eking his livelihood only by beedi rolling work. He had no premeditation to commit murder. The occurrence itself was at the spur of the movement. The weapon used is also only an ordinary wooden log (stick). Having regard to all these mitigating as well as aggravating circumstances, by way of striking a balance, we are of the view that sentencing the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, would meet the ends of justice. 15. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is party allowed; the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused under Section 302 I.P.C. by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, made in S.C.No.349 of 2009, dated 22.01.2011, is set aside and instead, he is convicted under Section 304 Part I I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 weeks. Bail bond executed by the appellant and the sureties shall stand cancelled. The period of sentence already undergone by the appellant/accused shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The Trial Court shall secure the appellant/accused and commit him in prison so as to serve out the remaining period of sentence.