a)P.W.1 is the son of the deceased Kamala.The accused is the brother ofthe deceased.They are the residents of Velanoor.In respect of an enjoyment ofporamboke land, there has been all along quarrel and tussle between the accusedand the deceased.P.W.1 was actually employed in Madras.During the relevanttime, he came to his native place and on the date of occurrence, he wasavailable in his native place.b)On 31.5.2003 at about 4.15 p.m., P.W.1 and his mother had travelled in amini bus to Keelakarai and in the same bus, the accused was also travelling andthey were sitting apart.When the bus was nearing the house of one Selvakumar,the accused suddenly sprang on the deceased with aruval and attacked herindiscriminately and she died instantaneously inside the bus itself.Immediately, the accused got down from the bus and ran away.c)P.W.1 immediately proceeded to the respondent police station and gaveEx.P.1, the report to P.W.16, the Sub Inspector of Police at about 17.30 hourson 31.5.2003, on the basis of which, a case came to be registered by therespondent police in Crime No.191 of 2003 under Section 302 IPC.Ex.P.12, theFIR was despatched to the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court.d)P.W.17, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the FIR, tookup the investigation, proceeded to the spot and made an inspection in thepresence of the witnesses.He prepared Ex.P.3, the observation mahazar andEx.P.14, the rough sketch.He recovered material objects from the place ofoccurrence under a cover of mahazar.(The judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Challenging the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge,Ramanathapuram made in S.C.No.39 of 2004, the sole accused/appellant, on beingfound guilty under Section 302 IPC and awarded life imprisonment and to pay afine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo six months RI, has brought forth thiscriminal appeal.2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are asfollows:Then, he conducted inquest on the dead bodyof the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and preparedEx.P.13, the inquest report.Following the same, the dead body of the deceasedwas sent to the Government Hospital, Keelakarai for the purpose of autopsy alongwith a requisition.e)P.W.8, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Keelakarai, onreceipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of thedeceased.He has issued Ex.P.5, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he hasopined that the deceased would appear to have died of injury to spinal cord andinjury to major blood vessels of neck 12 to 18 hours prior to autopsy.He filed an application for policecustody and the same was ordered.On 14.6.2003, the accused voluntarily gave aconfessional statement, which was marked as Ex.Pursuant to the same, theaccused produced M.O.1 aruval, which was recovered in the presence of thewitnesses under a cover of mahazar.All the M.Os recovered from the place ofoccurrence, from the dead body of the deceased and the material object recoveredfrom the accused pursuant to the confessional statement were subjected tochemical analysis by the Forensic Science Department, which resulted in tworeports.P.6 is the Chemical Examiner's report and Ex.P.7 is the Serologist'sreport.g)P.W.18, the Inspector of Police took up further investigation of thecase.On completion of the investigation, he filed the final report before theCourt.3.The case was committed to the court of sessions and necessary chargeswere framed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution has marched18 witnesses and relied on 14 exhibits and 9 M.Os.On completion of the evidenceon the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned procedurally underSection 313 Cr.P.C as to the incriminating circumstance found in the evidence ofprosecution witnesses, which he flatly denied as false.No defence witness wasexamined.The trial court heard the arguments advanced on either side and took aview that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and foundthe accused guilty under Section 302 IPC and awarded life imprisonment, which isthe subject matter of challenging before this Court.4.Advancing his arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned counselwould submit that in the instant case, the prosecution rested its case on directevidence of 6 witnesses, which according to the prosecution are theeyewitnesses, out of 6 eyewitnesses, P.Ws.2 to 6 have turned hostile; that theonly evidence available for the prosecution was the evidence of P.W.1; thatinsofar as P.W.1 was concerned, he is none else than the son of the deceased;that when the test of careful scrutiny was applied, his evidence did not standthe test; that the lower court has accepted the test, which was thoroughly indeviation of the prosecution case; that the occurrence has taken place in arunning bus; and that if to be so, at least one of the independent witnesseswould have come forward to speak the prosecution case, but all of them haveturned hostile, which would clearly indicate that they have not witnessed theoccurrence and they have been added as witnesses by the Investigator in order tomake believe the case.7.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentionsand the Court has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.Following the inquest conducted by the Investigator, the dead body of thedeceased was subjected to post-mortem by P.W.8, the Doctor.He has issuedEx.P.5, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceasedwould appear to have died of injury to spinal cord and injury to major bloodvessels of neck 12 to 18 hours prior to autopsy.The fact that she died out ofhomicidal violence was never questioned by the appellant/accused at any stage ofproceedings and hence, it has got to be safely recorded so.It is true, P.W.1 is the son of the deceased and itcannot by itself be the reason to discard his testimony, since it stood the testof careful scrutiny.P.W.1 wastravelling in the bus, in which both the deceased and the accused were alsotravelling.When the bus nearing the place of occurrence, the accused suddenlysprang on the deceased with aruval and attacked her and caused her death.Immediately, P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent police station and a case came tobe registered within a short span of time.The FIR has also reached theJudicial Magistrate concerned within a reasonable time and thus, he has spokenthe act of the accused in a clear and candid manner and his evidence hasinspired the confidence of the Court.Yet another circumstance is therecovery of M.O.1 aruval, pursuant to the confessional statement.The witnesswas examined to that effect.10.Coming to the question of nature of the act of the accused, the Courtis of the considered opinion that the contentions of the learned counsel for theappellant has got to be discountenanced.It is true, there was a poramboke landand there was a rival claim and tussle between the accused and the deceased asto the enjoyment of the same.The learned counsel took the court to the part ofthe confessional statement to state that the deceased was in practice of abusingthe accused and that was the reason for provocation.A reading of theconfessional statement, which was relied on by the prosecution and accepted bythe lower court, would indicate that the deceased was in practice of abusing theaccused.The object of the accused at that time was to do away the deceased, sothat he can enjoy the land and not because of provocation he has acted, sincethe deceased abused him.Thus, there is distinction between both of them.Therewas neither quarrel nor provocation, which was sudden as expected one in law.Apart from that, in order to attract the sudden provocation, the accused shouldnot take undue advantage of the situation.In the instant case, the deceased wasa womenfolk and when she was travelling in the minibus unarmed, the accusedsuddenly sprang on her and attacked her with aruval and thus, he has taken undueadvantage of the situation.Hence, no question of applying sudden provocationwould arise as one envisaged in the exceptions to S.300 IPC.Hence, the act ofthe accused should be termed as murder.The lower court was perfectly correct infinding the accused guilty Under Section 302 IPC and awarding life imprisonmentand nothing requires for interference either factually or legally.11.In the result, the criminal appeal fails and the same is dismissed.1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram.2.The Inspector of Police, Kilakkarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.3.The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Cited provisions: Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code