IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a confession made by an accused can be used in their favor if it is consistent with the evidence and supports a claim of grave and sudden provocation, thereby allowing for a lesser charge of culpable homicide instead of murder.

JUDGMENT :

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the sole accused, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon him vide judgment dated 20.12.2017 in S.C.No. 240 of 2016 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai.

2......

(i) It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was the wife of the appellant; that the appellant suspected her fidelity and harassed her both physically and mentally; that on account of the same, on 16.12.2015 at about 2.00p.m., at their residence at No. 8, G-Block, Valliswaran Garden Housing Board, R.A.Puram, he attacked the deceased with a knife on her neck, face and stomach and caused her death; that when the eyewitnesses and other neighbours tried to catch hold of the appellant, he intimidated them and fled away from the scene. PW1, the mother of the deceased and an eyewitness to the occurrence, lodged a complaint [Ex.P1] to the respondent police. PW12 registered the FIR in Cr.No. 3254 of 2015 at 5.00 p.m., against the appellant for the offences under Sections 341, 302 and 506(ii) of the IPC and took up the investigation. The printed FIR was marked as Ex.P11.

(ii) Thereafter, PW12 went to the scene of the occurrence at 5.45p.m., and prepared the Observation Mahazar [Ex.P2] and Rough Sketch [Ex.P12]. He seized the bloodstained mosaic stone [M.O.1] and the stone that was not bloodstained [M.O.2], under the Seizure Mahazar [Ex.P3]. Thereafter, he examined the eyewitnesses and on 17.12.2015 at about 8.00 a.m., he arrested the accused in the presence of witnesses and recorded his confession. The admissible portion of his confession was marked as Ex.P5. At about 10.00 a.m., he seized the bloodstained shorts [M.O.3], bloodstained shirt [M.O.4] and the bloodstained knife [M.O.5] on the confession of the appellant. He conducted an inquest on the dead body on 17.12.2015 at about 10.30 a.m., and recovered the bloodstained clothes of the deceased under Form-91. The inquest report is marked as Ex.P13. He sent the body for a postmortem, which was conducted by P.W.13. The postmortem certificate is marked as Ex.P15. Thereafter, PW14 took up the investigation and examined the remaining witnesses and after obtaining the report from the Forensic Science Laboratories filed the final report before the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, for the offences under Sections 341, 302 and 506 (ii) IPC against the appellant.

(iii) On the appearance of the appellant, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., were complied with, and the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C.No. 240 of 2016 and was made over to the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, Chennai, for trial. The trial Court framed charges against the appellant, and when questioned, the appellant pleaded 'not guilty'.

(iv) To prove its case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.14, marked 15 exhibits as Exs.P1 to P15, and marked 7 Material Objects as M.O.1 to M.O.7. When the appellant was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. The appellant neither examined any witnesses, nor marked any documents.

(v) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found that the prosecution had established the case beyond reasonable doubt and held the appellant guilty of offence under Section 302 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo SI for six months. Hence, the accused has preferred the appeal challenging the said conviction and sentence.

3. Heard, Mr.S.Panneerselvam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State.

4.....

(i) Mr.S.Panneerselvam, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that admittedly PW1, PW2 and PW3 did not witness the entire occurrence and had gone to the occurrence place after hearing about the