JUDGMENT : Ziyad Rahman A.A., J. The appellant is the accused in S.C. No. 803/2014 on the file of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-III, Thalasserry, who stands convicted for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C). He is accused of committing murder of his own brother, in front of their mother. 2. Payyavoor Police registered Crime No. 33/2014 against the appellant and after investigation, they filed a charge sheet before the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Thaliparamba. After completing the formalities, it was committed to the Sessions Court, wherein it was tried and it resulted in the impugned judgment convicting the appellant and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. The appellant /accused was arrested on the next day of the incident, i.e on is 21/01/2014 and he is in judicial detention since then. The prosecution case in detail is as follows; The appellant and deceased are brothers and they were residing in nearby houses. Smt. Neithy @ Annamma, is the sister of their mother and she is the owner of a rubber plantation having an extent of ¾ Acre. As she was working at Kottayam, she entrusted the management of the said property with the appellant and his brother Stephen, who is the deceased. The appellant used to tap the rubber trees in the said property and he used to take the income from the aforesaid property. It was the instruction of his maternal aunt, the owner of the property, to give Rs.1000/-per month to his mother from the income derived from the property. On 20/01/2014, at about 4 o’clock in the evening, PW1, the mother of the appellant, who was residing along with the deceased, went to the house of the appellant and demanded the amount, which was to be paid to her from the income from the plantation of her sister. The appellant informed he did not have the money but agreed to pay it shortly. At that time, the deceased Stephen came to the house of the appellant and questioned the appellant for wasting the income from the aforesaid property for consumption of alcohol. The said questioning enraged the appellant and it resulted in a scuffle between them. The mother intervened, separated them and held his hand, to pull him away and out of the house of the appellant. The said questioning enraged the appellant and it resulted in a scuffle between them. The mother intervened, separated them and held his hand, to pull him away and out of the house of the appellant. While so, the appellant went inside the house, came back with a chopper and inflicted cut injuries on the head of the deceased. Even though he was taken to a hospital, next morning he succumbed to the injuries. 3. In support of prosecution case, PWs 1 to 21 were examined, Exhibits P1 to P25 were marked and material objects, M.Os 1 to 4 were identified. After completing the prosecution evidence, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence put to him and he explained that at the time of the occurrence of the crime, he was not in station, as he was engaged in concrete work at Irikkur. 4. After analysis of the entire materials, the Sessions Court found the accused guilty of the offence and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. 5. Heard Sri R. Krishnakumar (Cherthala), the learned counsel for the appellant (State Brief), and Sri S.U.Nazar, the learned public prosecutor. The learned counsel for the appellant raised various contentions such as; the evidence of PW1, the mother of the deceased and the appellant are not at all believable, as there are several inconsistencies therein, particularly with respect to the exact spot of occurrence. He points out that as per the First Information statement (FIS) given by the mother, the incident of inflicting cut injuries occurred when the deceased was attempting to step down from the veranda of the residence of the appellant, whereas the place of occurrence as shown in Ext P14 site plan and Ext P4 scene mahasar is 5.2 meters away from the said veranda. He also points out certain discrepancies in the narrative made by her as to the commission of the crime. Even though PW1 stated in the FIS that she had seen the incident, when examined as PW1, she stated that she had not seen the act of inflicting cut injuries on the deceased. He also points out certain discrepancies in the narrative made by her as to the commission of the crime. Even though PW1 stated in the FIS that she had seen the incident, when examined as PW1, she stated that she had not seen the act of inflicting cut injuries on the deceased. It is his further contention that there were no fingerprints on MO1 chopper and even though bloodstains were found on the same, Ext P25 FSL report does not contain any details as to the characteristics of the blood found therein. 6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor would argue that the prosecution was successful in establishing the guilt of the accused without any reasonable doubt and the contradictions and inconsistencies highlighted by the appellant are not of much significance when the entire evidence is considered as a whole. He points out that, the evidence of PW1 provides a vivid picture of the incident and the evidence of PWs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 lends credence to the version put forward by PW1 and the events occurred immediately after the incident. The complete chain of circumstances was established, through the evidence of witnesses mentioned above, and it is supported by the recovery of MO1 weapon and MO3 lunki worn by the appellant at the time, recovered from the residence of the appellant, based on his confession statement. Both the said material objects were found with blood stains. The learned Public Prosecutor therefore prays for dismissal of the appeal. 7. The proceedings were commenced based on the FIS (Ext P1) given by PW1 at 8:30 PM on 20/01/2014. In it she stated as follows: She is a resident of Uppupadanna, in Payyavur and she has five children. The 2nd son, the appellant herein was residing alone, in a nearby house, as his wife and children deserted him. Her younger sister is working in ‘Karithas’ at Kottayam and she has a rubber plantation. She entrusted the tapping of rubber trees in the said property with the appellant and the deceased. The deceased, who is the younger son of PW1 is a concrete worker. On 20/01/2014 at 4:30 PM, she went to the house of the appellant and asked for the amount towards maintenance. She entrusted the tapping of rubber trees in the said property with the appellant and the deceased. The deceased, who is the younger son of PW1 is a concrete worker. On 20/01/2014 at 4:30 PM, she went to the house of the appellant and asked for the amount towards maintenance. At that time, the deceased came to the house of the appellant and questioned him for wasting the money received from the rubber plantation for consumption of alcohol. The appellant responded by saying “you need not interfere in that matter” and the exchange of words resulted in an altercation between them. All these incidents happened at the veranda of the house of the appellant. PW1 intervened and pacified them and thereafter she had taken the deceased out of the house of the appellant by holding the hands of the deceased. While they were attempting to step down from the veranda, the appellant went inside, came back with a chopper and inflicted two cut injuries on the back side of the head of the deceased. The deceased fell down and immediately she had taken him to the house of the deceased. Hearing the cry of PW1, Appachan and his daughter-in-law Bindu (PW 2), Kuttappan and Radha, who are the neighbours came to the spot. They covered the head injuries of the deceased with a piece of cloth and immediately a jeep was summoned and he was taken to Pariyaram Medical College, for treatment. On the way to the hospital, PW1 got down at the residence of her daughter at Parakadavu. 8. Ext P8 is the post-mortem certificate which was proved by PW12 Doctor. The antemortem injuries mentioned in the said document were as follows: “1. Sutured incised wound, 7cm long, horizontal with slight obliquity, on the left side of head just behind the ear; the inner end of the wound was, 2cm above the mastoid process. Underneath, the temporal bone was found cut open; the left petrous temporal bone was fractured at its middle. Brain showed a thin film of subarachnoid bleeding. Minimal cerebral oedema was noted. There was a small contusion at the left frontal pole. 2. Sutured superficial incised amount, 2.5 CM long, on the head, 2 cm above the back end of injury no.1 3. Abrasion covered with black scab 0.7 x 0.2cm, on the back of left forearm at its middle. 4. Minimal cerebral oedema was noted. There was a small contusion at the left frontal pole. 2. Sutured superficial incised amount, 2.5 CM long, on the head, 2 cm above the back end of injury no.1 3. Abrasion covered with black scab 0.7 x 0.2cm, on the back of left forearm at its middle. 4. Fracture of sternum, at its middle; 2 - 5 ribs and 7th rib on the left side were fractured, with minimal infiltration of blood only (resucification artefacts).” 9. The cause of death was shown as lung complication, following the chop wound sustained to the head. PW12 reiterated the said findings in the witness box and categorically opined after examining M.O.1 chopper that, the injuries mentioned in the postmortem report, particularly the injuries 1 and 2 can be caused by the said weapon. It is further deposed by him that injury No. 1 is sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature. 10. From the analysis of the evidence of PW12, coupled with Ext P8 post-mortem certificate, it can be safely concluded that the death of the deceased was a homicide. Having found so, the next question that emerges is as to whether it was the accused, who inflicted those injuries upon the deceased with an intention to cause the death of the deceased, as claimed by the prosecution. 11. The crucial evidence that prosecution relies on, is the evidence of PW1, who is none other than the mother of the appellant as well as the deceased, and the only eyewitness to the incident. On going through the evidence of PW1, it can be seen that, she deposed about the incident clearly and substantially in tune with her statement in Ext P1. Of course, it is true that there was some deviation with regard to the witnessing of the particular act of inflicting the cut injuries upon the body of the deceased. In this regard, it is to be noted that, even though she initially stated that she had seen the appellant inflicting the injuries upon the deceased, immediately she retracted and corrected herself that she had not seen the act of inflicting injuries. In this regard, it is to be noted that, even though she initially stated that she had seen the appellant inflicting the injuries upon the deceased, immediately she retracted and corrected herself that she had not seen the act of inflicting injuries. However she categorically stated that, while she was returning to her house with the deceased following her, after the scuffle between the deceased and the appellant; hearing a sound she looked back and saw the deceased inflicted with head injuries and in a profusely bleeding stage. She had also seen the appellant nearby, with a bloodstained chopper in his hands. From the above statement, it is evident that, the retraction from the statement that she had seen the incident of inflicting cut injuries on the body of the deceased, is not of much significance. The statement of PW1 that as she looked back, she saw the deceased with injuries and the appellant standing nearby with the bloodstained chopper, itself is sufficient evidence to find the culpability of the appellant. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant further points out that there are other crucial discrepancies in the evidence of PW1 as to the place of occurrence of the incident and it is not safe to base a conviction on such evidence. He took us to the statement in Ext P1 made by PW1 and submits that as per the version contained therein, the incident occurred on the veranda of the house of the appellant, whereas the contents of Ext P4 scene mahasar and Ext P14 site plan reveals a different story. He points out that the Sessions Court found the said statement to be a mistake on the part of PW1, which is not sustainable. But, on a careful examination of the statement made by PW1 in Ext P1 statement, it can be clearly seen that the said statement is neither contradictory to her statement in deposition, nor can it be treated as a mistake on her part. The statement regarding the exact spot of occurrence as narrated in Ext P1, is clearly in tandem with the evidence of PW1 and also with the scene mahazer. The statement regarding the exact spot of occurrence as narrated in Ext P1, is clearly in tandem with the evidence of PW1 and also with the scene mahazer. It is to be noted that the exact statement made by her in Ext P1 in this regard is that, when she along with the deceased were attempting to get down from the veranda of appellant’s house, Thomas (appellant) went inside and came back with a chopper, shouting “I will not spare you” and inflicted cut injuries on the back of his head. From a closer examination of the said statement, it can be seen that, when they were attempting to step down from the veranda, the appellant went inside. At the relevant time, PW1 and the deceased were evidently walking towards their house from the appellant’s house, through the exit on the northern side and by the time the appellant came out with a chopper, they moved a little bit forward and the injuries were inflicted slightly away from the veranda. This is very clear from the description of the spot of occurrence as contained in Ext P4, as it is a place which is located 5.20 meters towards the north-eastern side from the north-western corner of the veranda of the house of the appellant. In such circumstances, the aforesaid statement cannot be treated as an inconsistency or contradiction so as to disbelieve the evidence of PW1. It is also to be noted in this regard that, the spot of occurrence has been clearly mentioned in Ext P4 and the same was prepared based on the information furnished by PW1 and it was proved by evidence of PW7, who witnessed the preparation of scene mahasar. Apart from the above, PW9 is the witness to Ext.P5 seizure mahasar, evidencing seizure of bloodstained soil collected in packets by PW10 scientific assistant from the exact spot. PW9 clearly stated that, at the time of preparation of Ext P5, the spot was identified by PW1 and PW10 collected the blood stained soil found there. The said evidence is corroborated by evidence of PW10, who collected the samples of blood stained soil and also the blood samples found in the vicinity. PW9 clearly stated that, at the time of preparation of Ext P5, the spot was identified by PW1 and PW10 collected the blood stained soil found there. The said evidence is corroborated by evidence of PW10, who collected the samples of blood stained soil and also the blood samples found in the vicinity. All the above evidence clearly lead to a conclusion that the incident occurred at the spot as asserted by the prosecution and the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard is only to be rejected. 13. It is true that evidence of PW1 contain more details than stated in Ext P1 statement. In her deposition, PW1 stated about the instruction given by PW6 to the appellant, the owner of the rubber plantation to give Rs 1000/-per month to her, which was an improvement of her statement in Ext.P1. Further, Ext. P1 also does not contain the fact that initially, the deceased was taken to Mercy Hospital and later to Pariyaram Medical College. However, in our view, those deviations would not in any matter affect the credibility of PW1 as those were clarifications of Ext.P1. The FIR has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as not an encyclopaedia of events (Superintendent of Police, CBI v. Tapan Kr.Singh [ (2003) 6 SCC 175 ]). So nothing precludes the witness in furnishing more information than stated in the F.I.S. as long as it is not an embellishment regarding the crime or a clear contradiction which produces a reasonable doubt as to how the crime occurred. 14. Even though the learned counsel for the appellant strenuously argued against the trustworthiness of PW1, we cannot find any reason to accept the said contention. The entire chain of events which started from the commission of crime and until the death of the deceased, as stated by PW1, is clearly established by the circumstances revealed through various materials and also from the evidence of PWs 2 to 6. PW 3, is a neighbour who rushed to the spot upon hearing the outcry of PW1. According to her, when she reached the place along with her father-in-law, she found the deceased lying near the house of PW1 with bleeding injuries. PW 3, is a neighbour who rushed to the spot upon hearing the outcry of PW1. According to her, when she reached the place along with her father-in-law, she found the deceased lying near the house of PW1 with bleeding injuries. PW2 who is another neighbour who came to the spot immediately after the incident when he was informed of the incident by PW3, stated that when he reached the house of the deceased, he found the deceased lying with injuries. Both of the said witnesses have stated that, immediately a jeep driven by PW4 was summoned and the deceased was taken to Mercy Hospital. PW2 accompanied PW1 to Mercy hospital and he further stated that as the injuries were serious, Mercy hospital authorities did not admit the deceased there and instead, he was referred to Pariyaram Medical College. PW2 also stated that, PW5 brother-in-law of the deceased came to Mercy Hospital, upon getting information. From Mercy Hospital, deceased was taken to the Medical College Hospital in an ambulance. PW4, the driver of the jeep also spoke of the said sequence of events exactly as stated by the other witnesses and he would further state that he dropped PW1 at the residence of her daughter and this statement is also in perfect alignment with the version of PW1. PW5, the brother-in-law of the deceased as well as the appellant who came to the Mercy Hospital upon getting information and accompanied the deceased to the Pariyaram Medical College Hospital, also has spoken about the same in tandem with the above version. All the said witnesses have vividly described the nature of injuries sustained by the victim and also the information furnished by PW1 that the said injuries were inflicted by the appellant. So what is revealed from the analysis of the entire materials is that the entire chain of events are clearly established as all the witnesses have consistently spoken of the episode, exactly as projected by the prosecution. 15. It is true that, there is only one eye witness to the incident. However her presence in the scene of occurrence cannot be disbelieved. She clearly stated about the arrangements made by her sister, PW6, with regard to the amount to be paid by the appellant to PW1 from the income derived from the rubber plantation of PW6. 15. It is true that, there is only one eye witness to the incident. However her presence in the scene of occurrence cannot be disbelieved. She clearly stated about the arrangements made by her sister, PW6, with regard to the amount to be paid by the appellant to PW1 from the income derived from the rubber plantation of PW6. PW1 clearly stated that, she went to the house of the appellant on that day for asking the said amount. Similarly, PW6 has also clearly spoken of the said arrangements and the instruction she had given to the appellant for paying the amount to PW1 every month. So the version of PW1 in this regard is clearly established. It is true that, there were some minor embellishments in her evidence, but nothing material could be brought out by the defence, so as to shake the veracity of her evidence. Moreover, being the mother of the appellant, we cannot assume any interest on her part, in seeing the appellant punished. On the other hand, even while she was narrating the incident, some attempts were made by her to play down the acts of the appellant, presumably to reduce his culpability. Her statements such as, she had not seen the appellant inflicting injuries on the deceased, when asked for money the appellant expressed his willingness to pay the same at a later point of time etc, bear testimony of such intention. The conduct of PW1 in making such statements, reveal the motherly affection towards the appellant, and it adds more genuineness to her version, particularly because of the reason that, despite her attempt to make her version as soft as possible as regard to the acts committed by the appellant, the facts revealed from such evidence constituted the offence under section 302 of IPC. Her predicament is understandable since both the victim and the assailant were her children. So we find her evidence truthful, trustworthy and it inspires confidence. It is a well settled position of law that, evidence is to be weighed and not counted; what matters is not quantity, but quality. In Veer Singh and others Vs State of U.P.( 2014(2) SCC 455 ) the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows; “Legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. In Veer Singh and others Vs State of U.P.( 2014(2) SCC 455 ) the Honourable Supreme Court held as follows; “Legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is not the number of witnesses but - quality of their evidence which is important as there is no requirement under the Law of Evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to prove / disprove a fact. Evidence must be weighed and not counted. It is quality and not quantity which determines the adequacy of evidence as has been provided under S.134 of the Evidence Act. As a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. (Vide: Vadivelu Thevar and Another v. State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 614 ; Kunju @ Balachandran v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2008 SC 1381 ; Bipin Kumar Mondal v. State of West Bengal AIR 2010 SC 3638 ; Mahesh and Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2011 (9) SCC 626 ; Prithipal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another 2012 (1) SCC 10 ; Kishan Chand v. State of Haryana JT 2013 (1) SC 222 and Gulam Sarbar v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) - 2013 (12) SCALE 504 ).” 16. Another crucial aspect to be taken into consideration, is the confession statement made by the appellant, which led to the recovery of MO1 chopper and MO3 lunki worn by the deceased at the time of incident. Ext P19 is the relevant extract of the confession statement made by the appellant. The aforesaid recoveries were witnessed by PW2 and PW7. Both of them have spoken of the recovery in the manner as mentioned by PW21, the investigating officer and also as revealed through Ext P2 seizure mahazer. Ext P19 is the relevant extract of the confession statement, as per which, the appellant informed PW21 that, he had kept the chopper in his house and he further stated that if he is taken there, he can show the place of concealment. He also made a similar statement with respect to M03 lunki as well. In pursuance to the aforesaid statements, PW21 had taken the appellant to his house on 22/01/2014 and the recovery was effected. He also made a similar statement with respect to M03 lunki as well. In pursuance to the aforesaid statements, PW21 had taken the appellant to his house on 22/01/2014 and the recovery was effected. Both PW2 and PW7 deposed in tune with the prosecution case as to the aforesaid recovery and the manner in which it was conducted. The crucial aspect to be noticed in this regard is that, when the appellant was brought to his house in pursuance of the confession statement made by him, his house was locked. It was opened by the appellant himself using the key kept by him. The aforesaid fact was clearly spoken of by both PW2 and PW7. This would clearly rule out all possibilities of manipulations as regards the material objects, and at the same time, it would also add credibility to the prosecution version. 17. Scientific examination of the said material objects would further strengthen the case of the prosecution. Ext P25 is the report of the Scientific Assistant (Biology) Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Kannur. In the said report, MO1 chopper was described as item no 2 and as per the report, it contained bloodstains, but due to insufficiency of quantity thereof, origin and grouping could not be done. Similarly, MO3 lunki which was worn by the accused at the time of commission of the crime and was recovered as per Ext P2 mahasar, also contained human blood, but the origin and grouping could not be done as the available quantity was not sufficient. The facts that, (1) the above material objects were recovered from the residence of the appellant which was under the lock and key of the appellant himself, (2) the recovery on the basis of the confession statement made by the accused, and (3) the presence of bloodstains on both the above material objects are matters of crucial importance, indicating the culpability of the appellant. On the other hand, the appellant does not have any explanation to offer, for the presence of bloodstains in the aforesaid material objects, which were proved to have been recovered from the residence of the appellant. Since the aforesaid discovery of material objects were in pursuance of a confession statement made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it is an admissible piece of evidence. Since the aforesaid discovery of material objects were in pursuance of a confession statement made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it is an admissible piece of evidence. In such circumstances, the recovery of the aforesaid material objects coupled with the presence of bloodstains found therein, would corroborate the evidence of PW1. 18. It is true that, there are materials to show that MO1 chopper did not contain the fingerprints of the appellant. However, the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved only because of the same. In this case, there is reliable evidence of PW1, as to what transpired on the ill-fated day and she identified MO1 as well. MO1 was recovered from the house of appellant kept under lock and key by him and his ownership over the said house is proved through Ext P12 ownership certificate which was proved by PW16, the Secretary of Payyavoor Grama Panchayat. The recovery of MO1 was based on a confession statement duly proved. MO1 and also MO3 lunki recovered from the said house contained blood stains and the appellant has nothing to offer in explanation to the same. In our view, the facts mentioned above are sufficient to arrive at the conclusion of guilt of the appellant and the absence of fingerprints on MO1 chopper would not come to the rescue of the appellant under any circumstances. This is particularly because, the case set up by the appellant when his statement was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C was that, at the relevant time he was not present in the place of occurrence as he was engaged in construction work at Irikur. Apart from the mere statement, no materials were brought in by the appellant to substantiate the same. On the other hand, materials available on record and discussed above, would clearly show a clear connection of the appellant with Material Objects and his presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. 19. Regarding the motive, the prosecution case is that the appellant failed to pay the amount to PW1 out of the income from the property of PW6, as per the instructions of PW6 and this was questioned by deceased. However, evidence of PW1 and PW6 do not reveal that there was any refusal on the part of the appellant and hence the same cannot be treated as a motive. However, evidence of PW1 and PW6 do not reveal that there was any refusal on the part of the appellant and hence the same cannot be treated as a motive. But, as mentioned above, evidence of PW1 would clearly establish that both of them were not in good terms for the past three years. The altercation between the parties just before the commission of crime, which stemmed up from the questioning of the deceased spending money for consuming alcohol, is a clear indication of the strained relationship between the appellant and the deceased. These facts clearly show the motive behind the action of the appellant. Further, when there is evidence of a credible eye witness, there cannot be much predominance for the existence of a motive. In this case, as we have found the evidence of PW1 creditworthy, the absence of motive cannot absolve the appellant. 20. The nature of injuries mentioned in postmortem certificate clearly indicate that those were inflicted by using a sharp weapon and it was used with such a force to cause injuries leading to death. PW12 doctor conducted the postmortem and issued Ext P8 certificate, after examining MO1 chopper. He offered a definite opinion that those injuries could be inflicted with the said weapon. In such circumstances, it can be safely concluded that the injuries were inflicted by the appellant with the knowledge that those injuries could result in the death of the deceased and hence the act of the appellant would come under section 300 of IPC. We have also examined as to whether the commission of the acts were at a time, while he was deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation. The facts of the case do not make out a case for such mitigation. It is evident from the deposition of PW1 that, even though there was an altercation between the appellant and the deceased, PW1 could manage the situation by putting an end to it and she was leading the deceased away from the scene of occurrence by holding his hands. It is evident from the deposition of PW1 that, even though there was an altercation between the appellant and the deceased, PW1 could manage the situation by putting an end to it and she was leading the deceased away from the scene of occurrence by holding his hands. However, after the immediate tension of the altercation was apparently over and when the deceased was retreating from the appellant’s house along with PW1, the appellant went inside his house, took a dangerous weapon, the chopper and came back to attack the deceased, to inflict injuries which in the ordinary course would result in death, as would any reasonable man be aware of. The act of the appellant going inside the house for collecting the MO1 chopper would clearly indicate an intention to commit the crime. Under no circumstances the said act can be treated as one done while he was deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation. Moreover, the words exchanged between the appellant and the deceased, as spoken of by the PW1 do not reveal anything so serious as to invoke such a grave and sudden provocation, which would persuade a normal person to commit an act resulting in the death of another. It is also discernible from the evidence of PW1 that, for the past 3 years, the appellant and the deceased were not in talking terms. Thus all the aforesaid aspects would clearly point to the fact that appellant had inflicted cut injuries upon the head of the deceased with an intention to cause death or with the knowledge that those injuries could result in his death. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that, the finding entered into by the Sessions Court holding the appellant guilty for the offence under section 302 of IPC is legally sustainable and liable to be confirmed. 21. From the above discussion, our findings can be summarized as follows; the evidence of PW1 is reliable, trustworthy and reveals the manner in which the injuries were inflicted by the appellant on the deceased. The sequence of events immediately after the assault on the deceased and till his death are clearly revealed from the evidence of PWs 2 to 5. From the above discussion, our findings can be summarized as follows; the evidence of PW1 is reliable, trustworthy and reveals the manner in which the injuries were inflicted by the appellant on the deceased. The sequence of events immediately after the assault on the deceased and till his death are clearly revealed from the evidence of PWs 2 to 5. The recovery of the MO1 chopper and MO3 lunki from the residence of the appellant, based on Ext P19 confession statement made by him, is clearly established by the evidence of PW2, PW7 and PW21, with the support of Ext P2 seizure mahazer. As the recovery pursuant to the confession statement of the victim is an admissible piece of evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it is a valuable material, pointing out the guilt of the accused. The scientific evidence of postmortem certificate (Ext P8,) proved through PW 12, would clearly indicate that the injuries which resulted in the death of the deceased could be caused by MO1 weapon. The aforesaid weapon as well as MO3 lunki which were recovered from the house of the appellant that was kept locked by him, contained bloodstains as revealed from Ext P25 report. The aforesaid evidence when considered along with the evidence of PW1 would rule out all hypothesis of innocence of the accused. The evidence of PW1 would further prove that the appellant and the deceased were not in good terms for the past three years. All the above aspects would clearly establish the guilt of the accused, beyond any reasonable doubt. 22. In the above circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the finding entered into by the Sessions Court and accordingly the conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court in S.C 803/2014 is hereby confirmed. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.