The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the careful scrutiny test to the evidence presented by closely related witnesses, the consideration of sustained provocation, and the decision to convict the accused under Sec.304 (Part I) of IPC instead of Sec.302 IPC.

M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.

Challenge is made to a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.III, Tiruvallur, made in S.C.No.193 of 2007 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sec.302 of IPC, tried, found guilty of murder and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.25000/- and default sentence.

2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:

(a) P.W.1 is the brother; P.W.2 is the father and P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased Bhuvaneshwari. She was given in marriage to the accused/appellant. P.W.1 along with the family members was residing in MMDA Colony. The wife of the accused/appellant developed intimacy with P.W.6, and they were exchanging messages. This came to the knowledge of the accused/appellant. He not only rebuked her, but also brought it to the notice of the parents. On the previous occasion, she put a phone call to P.W.6 and called him that night. When he refused, she threatened that if he did not come, she would commit suicide. Under the circumstances, he came over there and stayed with her, and this was seen by the accused/appellant. Immediately, he sent her out, and she came to the mothers house and was staying over there. The next day i.e., 3.1.2007, P.Ws.1 and 2 and others went to his house, appealed to him and requested him to pardon her. But, he was not amenable. Then it was decided to get a divorce in the Court of law.

(b) On 4.1.2007 at about 4.30 P.M., P.Ws.1 and 2 were in the house, and P.W.3 went to the nearby relatives house. At that time, the accused came over there and informed that he was to take her. Then both of them went to the nearby bedroom and locked the same inside. After sometime, they heard the distressing cry. Then P.Ws.1 and 2 broke open the door. When they got entry through the hole made therein, they found the accused/appellant squatting on her chest and go on stabbing her instantaneously. When both of them entered in to the room, the accused fled away from the place of occurrence with the weapon of crime. P.Ws.1 and 2 came out, and P.W.1 rushed to the nearby relatives house and informed to P.W.3. Then P.W.3 came to the house. Thereafter, P.W.1 rushed to the respondent police station and gave Ex.P1, the report, on the strength of which P.W.12, the Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.3 of 2007 under Sec.302 IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P8, was sent to the Court.

(c) P.W.13, the Inspector of Police of the Circle, on receipt of the copy of the FIR, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P2, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P3. Then he conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P10. The photographs were taken which are marked as M.O.7 series. He also collected the material objects from the place of occurrence under a cover of mahazar. The dead body was sent to the Government Hospital for the purpose of autopsy.

(d) P.W.11, the Professor and H.O.D., Department of Forensic Medicine, Stanley Medical College and Hospital, Chennai, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of Bhuvaneshwari and found 28 injuries which are narrated in the postmortem certificate, which is marked as Ex.P7, wherein he opined that she would have appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple stab injuries.

(e) Pending the investigation, the accused was arrested when he came forward to give a confessional statement voluntarily, and the same was recorded in the presence of witnesses. The admissible part of the confessional statement is marked as Ex.P6, pursuant to which he produced M.O.1, knife, and other material objects, which were recovered under a cover of mahazar. Then he was sent for judicial remand. All the material objects were subjected to chemical analysis which resulted in Ex.P11, the chemical analysts report. On completion of i