Jobin Sebastian, J.

1. The sole accused in S.C. No.269/2014 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kottayam, has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed against him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:

The accused and the deceased, who were husband and wife, were residing together with their children, PW2, PW3, and CW4 (not examined), at Thiruvanchoor Parampukara Colony. While residing there, the accused attempted to molest PW2, his elder daughter and hence the relationship between the accused and the deceased got strained. Apprehending that the accused would again attempt to sexually abuse her daughter when she was away at work, the deceased left the company of the accused and started to reside in her brother’s house located at Chanthakadavu along with her children. Infuriated by the same, the accused, with an intention to do away with his wife, on 20.03.2014 at 8:00 a.m., at a concrete road proceeding from Chanthakadavu, stabbed her twice on the left chest beneath the left nipple of her breast and pushed her down into a nearby canal. Although the injured was immediately taken to a hospital, she succumbed to the injuries during medical examination. Hence, the accused is alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

3. Upon completion of the investigation, the final report was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Kottayam. Being satisfied that the case is one triable exclusively by a Court of Session, the learned Magistrate, after complying with all the necessary formalities, committed the case to the Court of Session, Kottayam, under section 209 of Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, having taken cognizance, issued process to the accused, and in response to the same, the accused appeared. On the appearance of the accused before the trial court, the learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides under section 227 of Cr.P.C. and upon perusal of the records, framed a written charge against the accused for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. When the charge was read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the trial, from the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW22 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P35. MO1 and MO5 were exhibited and identified. After the completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., during which he denied all the incriminating materials brought out in evidence against him. Thereafter, both sides were heard under Section 232 of Cr.P.C., and since it was not a fit case to acquit the accused under the said provision, the accused was directed to enter on his defence and to adduce any evidence that he may have in support thereof. However, no evidence whatsoever was produced from the side of the accused. Thereafter, both sides were heard in detail, and finally, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3,00,000/-. In default of payment of the fine, the accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Fine amount, if paid or realised, Rs.1,00,000/- each was ordered to be given to PW2, PW3 and CW4, the children of the deceased. Challenging the said finding of guilt, conviction, and the order of sentence passed, the accused has preferred this appeal.

5. We heard Sri. Sarath Babu Kottakkal, the learned legal aid counsel appearing for the appellant, and Smt. Sheeba Thomas, the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. This is a case of uxoricide. The law was set in motion in this case on the strength of the statement given by the brother of the deceased to PW18, the Station House Officer, Kottayam West Police Station. Acting upon this initial statement, PW18 formally registered the First Information Report (FIR), marked as Ext.P22, alleging the commission of an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Following the registration of the FIR, the investigation was conducted, and subsequently, the Circle Inspector of Police, Kottayam West Police Station (PW19), compiled the evidence and materials collected and filed the final report before the Judicial Magistrate.

7. When the brother of the deceased, who gave the first information statement, was examined as PW1, he deposed on the following lines:

                  The deceased in this case was his sister, and her marriage with the accused was solemnised approximately twenty years prior to the incident. PW2, PW3, and CW4 (not examined) are the children born of their marriage. The accused used to have frequent quarrels with his sister. Moreover, the accused subjected the children to cruelty. On one occasion, the accused attempted to molest his elder daughter. Following the said incident, the elder daughter shifted her residence to his house. Subsequently, his sister, accompanied by her other two children, also moved to his house and began residing there. Subsequently, the younger brother started to reside in his another sister’s house situated very near to his house. On the date of the incident, at about 8 a.m., while he was returning to his house after going to a shop, he saw a crowd at the scene of the incident in this case. When he reached the crime scene, he saw his injured sister being taken to a vehicle by those who had gathered there. He also found a knife lying on the road. PW1 identified the said knife, and the same was marked as MO1. Thereafter, he went to the hospital, where he found his sister lying dead in a bed. Then, he immediately went to the police station and gave a statement. Ext.P1 is the statement given by him. According to PW1, the incident in this case occurred on the road which leads to his house, and there is a bridge near the main road from which the road  to  his  house  originates,  and  the  incident  in  this  case occurred at a place situated on the southern side of the said bridge. There is a canal between the main road and the road which leads to his house.

8. Another crucial witness examined from the side of the prosecution is PW2. On examination before the court, PW2 deposed that the deceased in this case is her mother and the accused is her father. During the relevant period, she was residing in the house of her uncle(PW1). She started to reside there around two years prior to the incident in this case. Earlier, she was residing with her parents in her paternal house at Thiruvanchoor. It was she who initially shifted the residence from Thiruvanchoor to her uncle’s house. Thereafter, her mother, as well as two siblings, also shifted their residence to the house of PW1. While residing in the paternal house at Thiruvanchoor, the accused misbehaved towards her while she was sleeping. Her father caught her leg and patted her body. Then she struck off his hands. Thereafter, the accused requested her not to disclose the same to her mother, otherwise he would commit suicide. Nevertheless, she informed the said incident to her mother. Accordingly, her mother took her to her uncle’s house, and hence she started to reside there.  The day on which her mother died was the wedding anniversary of her mother and father. One year prior to the incident in this case, her father came to her uncle’s house and created an unwanted scene there after demanding her, her mother and the other children to come to his house. With respect to the said incident, her mother complained to the police. The accused was in the habit of having frequent quarrels after consuming liquor, and used to assault them. After the shifting of her residence to her uncle’s house also, the accused used to make quarrels after reaching the said house, and on one occasion, while she was returning to her uncle’s house after attending school, the accused came on a bike and attempted to knock her down. Moreover, the accused grabbed the umbrella held by her and beat her with the same, and she sustained injury on her cheek. During the period of occurrence of the incident in this case, her mother was working as a daily labourer. Her mother used to leave for work between 7:45 am and 8 a.m. The accused used to make threats that he would do away with her mother. Hence, her mother was scared of the accused. On the alleged date of the incident, when her mother went to work, her younger sister and younger brother accompanied her mother. After a short while, her younger sister rushed to her uncle’s house and informed her that her mother had been stabbed by the accused.

                  After telling her so, her younger sister rushed back to the crime scene. Then she also followed her younger sister. Upon reaching the scene, she saw one Gopi lifting her mother from a canal. After lifting her mother, Gopi laid her mother in her lap. She observed an injury on her mother's left chest and also found a knife lying on the road, which she identified as MO1. Then a dog attempted to bite her mother. When she tried to drive it away, it bit her on her back. Thereafter, the police came, and her mother was taken to the hospital. Her younger sister, brother and one Ajeesh also went to the hospital in the police jeep. On the previous day of the said incident, the accused threatened her mother that she would be immersed in the soil. Two months later, she found some written complaints in the bag of her mother. Some of the complaints were typed, and some were written in PW2's handwriting. The said complaints are written at the instance of her mother, and they bear the signature of her mother. Ext.P2 series are the said complaints. Seeing the said complaints, she handed over the same to PW1, and he, in turn, produced the same at the police station.

9. The prime witness examined by the prosecution to prove the occurrence in this case is PW3, who is none other than the younger daughter of the deceased.  On examination before the court, PW3 deposed that during the period of occurrence of the incident in this case, she was studying in the 9th standard at Infant Jesus School, Mannarcaud. Her mother was employed as a sweeper in a parallel college at Kottayam.  Her mother used to go to work at 8 a.m. On the date of the incident, she, as well as her younger brother, accompanied her mother while her mother went to work. The accused used to make threats that he would kill her mother, and that's why she accompanied her mother on that day. When she reached near her uncle’s house, she saw the accused crossing the bridge from the opposite side, and thereafter, he entered the property on the eastern side. Immediately, the accused came back and approached her mother and said something. Thereafter, he caught hold of her mother’s neck and stabbed her chest twice.  Then her mother raised an alarm, “അയ! രക%കയ' ഓട% വരയ'" (help me, come fast). Seeing the same, she rushed to her uncle’s house and informed the matter to her elder sister. Immediately, when she came back, she saw the accused pushing her mother into a canal.  Then she pelted stones upon her father, and he fled from the spot.  Then, one Gopi, who was running a pan shop near the canal, took her mother from the canal to the road.  At that time, her elder sister and younger brother were also present there. Thereafter, Gopi laid her mother in the lap of her elder sister. When the MO1 knife was shown to PW3, she identified the same as the one used to stab her mother. Thereafter police came and took her mother to the hospital. She, her younger brother and one of her relatives named Ajeesh also accompanied her mother to the hospital. As her sister was bitten by a dog in the meantime, she did not accompany them. During the period of occurrence of this case, she was residing in her uncle’s (PW1) house. It was due to the harassment and illtreatment of her father that she, along with her mother and siblings, shifted their residence to her uncle’s house. The accused even used to make quarrels after reaching her uncle’s house. On the previous day of the incident also, the accused threatened that he would immerse her mother in soil and would not permit her to live.

10.    It is apparent that the prosecution primarily relies on the direct testimony of PW3 to establish the occurrence in this case. Before examining the reliability and credibility of PW3’s evidence, it is appropriate to consider the medical evidence adduced regarding the nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased and the cause of death. It is evident that immediately after the incident, the injured was taken to the District Hospital, Kottayam. The doctor at the said hospital who examined the injured and issued the wound certificate was examined as PW13. Referring to the wound certificate, which was marked as Ext.P13, the doctor deposed that it was on 20.3.2014, she examined the injured in this case and issued Ext.P13 wound certificate. According to her, the patient was unconscious when brought to the hospital. The patient’s pulse and respiration ceased after three minutes. The body was covered with mud, and she noted two small lacerated wounds on the left breast. According to PW13, the death was due to Asphyxia and the death was declared at 8.40 am. During the Chief examination, she further stated that the death was due to asphyxia and the result of a fall into the mud. According to PW13, the alleged history യ,!ല%ക. യ/!ക1നസമയത. ഭർത!വ. കത% കക!ണ. ക1ത%യയ;ഷ= കണത’ %ൽതള%യ%ടത%ൽവച. (While going to work, the husband stabbed her with a knife and pushed her into a canal). PW13 deposed that the said history was stated by those who brought the patient to the hospital.

11. A conjoint reading of the testimony of PW13, the doctor, along with Ext.P13, the wound certificate issued by her, clearly establishes that immediately after the incident, the injured was taken to the hospital, where she succumbed to her injuries within about three minutes of her arrival. The medical evidence further indicates that the body of the deceased was covered with mud, and PW13 noted two small lacerated wounds on the left side of the breast.

12. The doctor who conducted autopsy examination was examined as PW14. On examination before the Court, he deposed that on 20.3.2014, while he was working as a Lecturer and Assistant Police Surgeon department of Forensic Medicine, Medical College, Kottayam, he conducted the postmortem examination on the body of the deceased in this case. Ext.P14 is the postmortem certificate issued by PW14. Referring to Ext.P14 postmortem certificate, PW14, deposed that in the autopsy examination, he had noticed the following antemortem injuries:-

                  1. Incised penetrating wound 3x2cm, oblique on left side of front of chest (on breast at the 4'o' clock position) its lower inner blunt end 19cm outer to midline and 15cm below collar bone. The wound entering the chest cavity through sixth intercostal space and terminated by piercing the apex of heart. The wound track directed downwards backwards and right for a total minimum depth of 10cm. Left chestcavity contained two litres of blood mixed with clots and lung was collapsed.

                  2. Incised wound 2.5x1x5cm, oblique, on left side of front of chest (on breast at the 5 'o' clock position) its lower blunt end 14cm outer to midline and 20cm below collar bone.

                  3. Abraded contusion 2x1x0.5cm on back of right hand 4cm above root of ring finger.

13. PW14 opined that the death was due to the incised penetrating injury sustained to the chest (injury No.1). When PW14 was confronted with MO1 knife, the alleged weapon of offence, he deposed that injury Nos. 1 and 2 noted by him could be caused by a weapon like MO1. During cross-examination, when the learned counsel for the accused asked whether the nature of the injuries noted by him during the autopsy could have been caused by the patient coming into contact with a blunt or sharp piece of metal or a piece of glass, PW14 replied in the negative.

14. One of the main contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the evidence of PW13, the doctor who initially examined the deceased, and PW14, the doctor who conducted the autopsy, is contradictory. According to the learned counsel, PW13 opined that the death was due to asphyxia resulting from a fall into the mud, whereas PW14 deposed that the death was caused by the incised, penetrating injury sustained to the deceased’s chest. On the basis of this alleged inconsistency, the learned counsel argued that the prosecution failed to establish the exact cause of death. However, we are unable to accept the said contention for more than one reason.

15. Firstly, what PW13 deposed in her examination is that the death was due to asphyxia. Asphyxia is not, in itself, an injury; rather, it is a physiological consequence arising from serious injury to vital organs such as the heart or lungs. The evidence of PW14, who conducted the autopsy, clearly establishes that the penetrating injury on the left side of the chest had pierced the apex of the heart. His evidence further reveals that the chest cavity contained two litres of blood, and the lungs were collapsed. The nature and depth of the wound, as recorded in the post- mortem certificate, indicate a strong likelihood of cardiac failure, which would impede effective pumping of blood and thereby lead to asphyxia. Asphyxia, in the present case was only symptomatic of the underlying injury. Therefore, it cannot be said that the medical evidence in   this case is     mutually destructive or contradictory.

16. Secondly, from the evidence of PW13 itself, it is clear that she arrived at a conclusion regarding the cause of death on the basis of a general clinical observation. In her evidence, she stated that although she had noted two small lacerated wounds on the left breast, each about 2 cm long, she did not notice the depth of the said wounds due to the condition of the patient. Therefore, the evidence of PW13 itself reveals that she did not conduct a thorough examination of the injured, as she breathed her last within three minutes of the commencement of her assessment.

17. Thirdly, when an injured patient is brought to the hospital, the primary duty of the attending doctor is to initiate all necessary life-saving measures. A doctor engaged in emergency clinical care is not expected to determine the precise cause of death; such determination is the responsibility of the forensic surgeon who conducts the autopsy. Moreover, in the present case, PW13, the doctor who initially examined the deceased, also noted two lacerated wounds on the chest. These very injuries were recorded again during the post-mortem examination. Therefore, the appellant’s contention that the medical evidence is inconsistent cannot be sustained.

18. Even if there is a minute difference in the opinion of medical experts, the court can very well consider which one is the probable one. The Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhagirath and others [(1999) 5 Supreme Court cases 96] observed that “the opinion given by a medical witness need not be the last word on the subject. Such an opinion shall be tested by the court. If the opinion is bereft of logic or objectivity, the court is not obliged to go by that opinion. After all, opinion is what is formed in mind of a person regarding a fact situation. If one doctor forms one opinion and another doctor forms a different opinion on the same facts it is open to the Judge to adopt the view which is more objective or probable. Similarly, if the opinion given by one doctor is not consistent with probability, the court has no liability to go by that opinion merely because it is said by the doctor. Of course, due weight must be given to opinions given by persons who are experts in the particular subject ”.

19. In the present case, as noted earlier, there are no glaring inconsistencies between the opinions expressed by the doctors. We find no reason to doubt the opinion of the doctor who conducted the autopsy regarding the cause of death. The opinion of the doctor who conducted the initial examination of the injured and that of the doctor who performed the post-mortem are not mutually destructive. A conjoint reading of the evidence of PW14 and the post-mortem certificate issued by him clearly demonstrates that the death resulted from the incised, penetrating injury sustained to the chest, and that the nature of the death was homicidal.

20. Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the doctor who conducted the autopsy did not expressly state that the injury observed during the post- mortem examination was sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death. While considering this contention, it is significant to note that the autopsy surgeon categorically deposed that it was Injury No. 1 that resulted in the death of the deceased. It is true that the doctor did not specifically state that the said injury was sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death. However, the question of whether a medical expert must invariably, in every case, state that an injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death is no longer res integra. In Sannappa Rayappa Jadge v. State of Karnataka (1994 SCC (Cri) 1167), the Supreme Court held that “the failure of the doctor to specifically state that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death was immaterial.”

21. Likewise, in Joy Devaraj v. State of Kerala (2024 (8) SCC 102), the Supreme Court clarified that the medical expert's opinion about whether the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature is highly relevant but not mandatory for establishing murder. However, the absence of a specific statement by the doctor that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature does not preclude the possibility of convicting an accused under Section 302 IPC, if other evidence indicates that the injury was likely to cause death. In State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammed Omar and Others [(2000) 8 SC Cases 382], it was observed as follows:

                  “ The question whether the bodily injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death was not put by Public Prosecutor to the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination. However, the doctor opined that the deceased was murdered and that death had resulted from multiple injuries and injuries on the vital organs. Where, from the nature of injuries, it could be concluded that injuries are responsible for causing death, the trial court itself could have come to the same conclusion and hence mere non-mention by the doctor that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death would be inconsequential.”

22. Therefore, even in the absence of a specific deposition by the doctor stating that the injury was sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death, the court can independently assess whether the injury was likely to result in death by carefully examining the nature of the wound, the part of the body affected, and the weapon used. In the present case, the medical evidence indicates that the stab wound penetrated the apex of the heart. It follows, without the necessity of an expert opinion, that such an injury is sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death. The doctor who conducted the post- mortem examination categorically deposed that the aforementioned injury was the cause of death of the deceased. Therefore, the absence of a specific statement by the doctor that the said injury was sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death is of little consequence.

23. As already stated, the primary evidence that the prosecution relies upon to prove the occurrence is the evidence of PW3, the younger daughter of the deceased. On unequivocal terms, PW3 deposed that on the fateful day, she, as well as her younger brother, accompanied their mother while the latter went to her job, and it was on the way that the accused attacked her mother. According to PW3, the accused stabbed twice in the chest of her mother with a knife, and immediately PW3 rushed to her uncle's house and informed the matter to her elder sister. After informing the matter, she again rushed to the crime scene and then found the accused pushing her mother into a nearby canal. Of course, the evidence of PW3 clearly unveils the incident which led to the death of her mother.

24. However, the evidence of PW3 has been primarily challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that, being the daughter of the deceased, she is an interested witness, and her testimony alone cannot form a basis for convicting the accused. It was further urged that it is unsafe to rely solely on the evidence of a relative witness to arrive at a conclusion of guilt against the accused.

25. While considering the appellant’s contention in this regard, it must be borne in mind that there is no rigid or inflexible rule requiring the evidence of a related witness to be viewed with suspicion in all circumstances. Nevertheless, in assessing the reliability of the testimony of a relative witness, the court must exercise caution and act with discerning circumspection. In the present case, we are therefore firmly of the view that the appellant’s contention that the evidence of PW3 should be discarded at the threshold solely because she is the daughter of the deceased cannot be accepted.

26. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Rayappa and others [(2006) 4 SCC 512], the Supreme Court observed as under:

                  “Testimony of a witness otherwise inspiring confidence cannot be discarded on the ground that he being a relation of the deceased is an interested witness. A close relative who is a very natural witness cannot be termed as an interested witness. The term interested postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing the accused person being convicted somehow or the other either because of animosity or some other reasons. On the contrary, it has now almost become a fashion that the public is reluctant to appear and depose before the court especially in criminal cases because of varied reasons. Criminal cases are kept dragging on for years to come and the witnesses are harassed a lot. They have been threatened, intimidated and at the top of all they are subjected to lengthy cross-examination. In such a situation the only natural witness available to the prosecution would be the relative witness. The relative witness is not necessarily an interested witness. On the other hand, being a close relation to the deceased they will try to prosecute the real culprit by stating the truth. There is no reason as to why a close relative will implicate and depose falsely against somebody and screen the real culprit to escape unpunished. The only requirement is that the testimony of the relative witness should be examined cautiously.”

27. In Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar [(1996) 1 SCC 614], it was observed that a close relative who is a natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness. The term “interested” postulates that the witness must have some interest in having the accused somehow or the other convicted for some animosity or for some other reasons.

28. Keeping in mind the principles enunciated in the aforementioned judicial pronouncements, while analysing the evidence of PW3, it is significant to note that she testified regarding an incident in which her mother tragically lost her life, allegedly at the hands of the accused. Importantly, the accused is her father. PW3 was aged only  14 years at the time of the occurrence. In ordinary human experience, it cannot reasonably be expected that a daughter would falsely implicate her father in a case concerning the murder of her mother. This is particularly so because doing so would allow the actual perpetrator of the offence to evade punishment.

29. Likewise, although PW3 was subjected to a thorough and rigorous cross-examination by the learned defence counsel, she successfully withstood it. Even after cross-examination, her evidence remains consistent and free from any contradictions or omissions, even of a minor nature. Similarly, we find no reason to doubt her presence at the crime scene, as she explained that she, along with her younger brother, accompanied her mother due to the constant threat posed by her father. She further testified that even on the previous day of the incident, her father had threatened to harm her mother. In view of the foregoing, we have no hesitation in holding that the solitary testimony of PW3 is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.

30. We are not oblivious to the fact that in a case based on direct evidence, proof of motive is not of critical relevance. In the present case, however, the prosecution has established that the  accused had a strained relationship with his wife. According to the prosecution, their relationship further deteriorated following an incident in which the accused allegedly attempted to molest PW2, his own daughter. The evidence further establishes that the deceased in this case, along with her children, was living separately in her brother’s house, as the ill-treatment and harassment by the accused had become unbearable.

31. The evidence of PW1, the brother of the deceased, reveals that even then, the accused did not spare his wife and children, but he used to visit PW1's house and create problems therein. The evidence of PW2 and PW3 further demonstrates that, even on the day prior to the incident, the accused threatened to kill the deceased. The evidence and circumstances presented in this case clearly indicate that the accused was deeply aggrieved by his wife’s separate residence with her children and was on hostile terms with them. Consequently, the motive for the commission of the offence stands fully established. As already stated, we are cognizant that when there is convincing direct ocular evidence, the proof of motive holds relatively little significance. However, when prosecution successfully proves motive, it undoubtedly strengthens its case.

32. Notably, the evidence of PW2, the elder daughter of the deceased, shows that she reached the crime scene immediately after the incident. Her testimony indicates that on the alleged date of the occurrence, at around 7:30 a.m., her mother left for work accompanied by her younger sister and brother. Shortly thereafter, her younger sister rushed back home and informed her that the accused had stabbed their mother. After stating this, the younger sister immediately returned to the scene of occurrence. PW2 further stated that she followed her younger sister, and upon reaching the crime scene, she saw one Gopi, who runs a pan shop near the place of occurrence, lifting her injured mother from a canal.

33. The evidence of PW2 further shows that she found a knife lying on the road and identified MO1 as the said knife. Likewise, PW1 also deposed that when he arrived at the crime scene immediately after the incident, he too saw a knife lying on the road. In addition, PW3, who stated that she had witnessed the accused stabbing her mother, identified MO1 as the weapon used by the accused to stab her mother. It is significant to note that the prosecution does not claim that MO1 was recovered at the instance of the accused. On the contrary, the prosecution case is that MO1 was produced at the police station by PW8, an independent witness who had reached the crime scene immediately after the incident.

34. When PW8 was examined, he admitted that it was he who produced the knife before the police station. According to him, immediately after the incident, he reached the place of occurrence and found a blood-stained knife lying at the scene. Believing that the knife might be important evidence, he picked it up and placed it in the bag attached to his motorcycle for the purpose of producing it before the police. Thereafter, the police contacted him and instructed him to produce the knife, and accordingly, he produced it at the police station.

35. When the Circle Inspector of Police, who conducted the investigation in this case, was examined as PW19, he deposed that it was PW8 who produced the knife before him. The mahazar by which MO1 was seized is marked as Ext.P9. According to PW19, at the time the knife was produced, it bore bloodstains. Similarly, the Assistant Director (Serology), FSL, Thiruvananthapuram, who examined the thondy articles in this case, was examined as PW20, and the report prepared by her was marked as Ext.P29. Referring to Ext.P29, PW20 deposed that on serological examination, blood was detected on MO1, which is shown as Item No. 13 in her report.

36. Likewise, PW19, the Investigating Officer, deposed that the dress worn by the deceased at the time of the commission of the offence was handed over to him by a nurse at the District Hospital, Kottayam, where the injured was taken for treatment immediately after the incident. According to PW19, the dress included a saree, an underskirt, a blouse, and a brassiere, and he seized these items after describing them in Ext.P7 mahazar. The nurse who handed over the said dress materials was examined as PW5, and the dress removed from the body of the deceased was marked as MO2 series. When the scientific expert in physics, FSL, Thiruvananthapuram, who subjected the said brassiere and blouse for scientific examination, was examined as PW22, she deposed that she had examined the blouse and the brassiere, and she noted two numbers on severance in the said blouse and brassiere. The report of her examination is marked as Ext.P28. In Ext.P28, the said blouse and brassier were shown as item Nos.3 and 4, respectively.

37. The evidence of PW22 further reveals that she also examined MO1 knife, and on such examination, she concluded that the severance noted on Item Nos. 3 and 4 were cut marks made by the said knife. According to PW22, the sharpness of the blade of MO1 was sufficient to cause the tears observed on the blouse and brassiere. More pertinently, PW22, after referring to Ext.P28 report, deposed that white-coloured fibres were detected on the edges of the blade of MO1, and that the fibres recovered from the knife were similar to those of the brassiere. Undoubtedly, the above scientific evidence provides corroboration for the prosecution case that the accused inflicted the two stab injuries noted in the autopsy by using MO1.

38. Moreover, the evidence of PW19, the Investigating Officer, shows that he arrested the accused on 20.03.2014 at 3:30 p.m. According to PW19, he was convinced that the clothes worn by the accused at the time of arrest were the same as those worn at the time of the commission of the offence. Accordingly, he took into custody the shirt and dhoti worn by the accused, after describing them in Ext.P17 mahazar. These items were marked as MO3 and MO4. The evidence of PW20, the Assistant Director (Serology), FSL, Thiruvananthapuram, along with the Ext.P29 report prepared by her, shows that the said shirt and dhoti, shown as Item Nos. 11 and 12 therein, contained human blood.

39. We have already found that the testimony of PW3, the eyewitness, is convincing and reliable, and the same alone is sufficient to enter into a finding of guilt against the accused. As PW3 can be safely categorised as a wholly reliable witness, no corroboration is legally required for acting upon her testimony. Nevertheless, the prosecution has, in addition, adduced scientific evidence and other compelling circumstances that further strengthen its case. In view of the foregoing, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has fully succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

40. However, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the act of the accused will in no way attract an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. According to him, the maximum offence that would be attracted in this case is culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which is punishable under Section 304 of the IPC. However, we cannot agree with his contention in the above regard. In the present case, the nature of the overt acts committed by the accused, the number of injuries inflicted, the nature of the weapon used, and the part of the body where the injuries were inflicted, all speak volumes as to the intention harboured by the accused.

41. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pulicherla Nagaraju Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh [2006 (11) SCC 444] held that “the intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few or several of the following, among other, circumstances; (i) nature of the weapon used; (ii) whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot; (iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body;

                  (iv) the amount of force employed in causing injury; (v) whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden fight or free for all fight; (vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or whether there was any premeditation; (vii) whether there was any prior enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger; (viii) whether there was any grave and sudden provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation; (ix) whether it was in the heat of passion; (x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual manner; (xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or several blows. The above list of circumstances is, of course, not exhaustive, and there may be several other special circumstances with reference to individual cases which may throw light on the question of intention.”

42. The evidence presented in this case establishes that the accused, armed with a dangerous weapon, inflicted two stab injuries upon the vital part of the body of the victim. The post- mortem report and the testimony of the doctor who conducted the autopsy confirmed that significant force was used in causing the injuries. The eyewitness account, detailing that the accused first caught hold of the neck and then stabbed the victim's chest twice with the knife, clearly indicates an intention to inflict piercing injuries. Furthermore, the evidence that the accused had raised a threat against the deceased on the day prior to the incident, coupled with the manner of execution, makes it apparent that the act was premeditated and scrupulously carried out. Considering all the above aspects, we have no hesitation in holding that the act of the accused will come under Clause 3rdly of Section 300 of the IPC. Likewise, none of the exceptions provided under Section 300 of the IPC would attract in this case.

Resultantly, we confirm the finding, conviction, and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C. No.269/2014 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kottayam, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and hence, the appeal stands dismissed.