7 The fact that P.W.1 is the wife of the appellant/accused is not in dispute. Similarly, though there were misunderstanding in the marital life of the spouses previously, at the time of occurrence, both of them were residing in Teachers' Colony, Erode, where the occurrence had taken place, along with their daughters This fact is also not in dispute. When the evidence of P.W.1 is carefully scanned, on the date of occurrence, i.e., on 13.03.2015, at about 8.45 a.m, the appellant/accused, as usual, picked up a quarrel with P.W.1 and took the knife [M.O.4] and caused cut injuries on her neck. When the same was warded off, she sustained injuries on her neck besides sustaining injuries on her left and right thumb, left wrist etc. P.W.2, minor daughter of the appellant/accused and P.W.1, in her evidence, has also categorically and clearly stated the role played by her father, the appellant/accused herein. P.W.9-neighbour of the spouses, on hearing the alarm raised by P.W.1, saw P.W.1 coming out of her house with injuries and took her to hospital. P.W.10, one Gnanasundari, has also seen P.W.1 coming out her house with injuries and had also seen P.W.9 taking P.W.1 to hospital. It is also her evidence that P.W.1 informed her that her husband had caused such injuries on her. Thus, the evidence of P.W.9 and P.W.10 amply corroborates the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and as such the evidence of P.W.9 and P.W.10 certainly fall within the ambit of section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act.
