Judgment :- Gokulakrishnan, J. The accused, Karukka Perumal, was charged with an offence of murder for having stabbed one Parama Thevar with a knife on the left reck, left shoulder and back at about 9 p.m. on the 9th April, 1979, at a place called Melathope, Kokkula-thachi Lane, in Sellur, at Madurai. As a result of the injuries sustained by him, Parama Thevar died on the way to the hospital. 2. The prosecution case is the following: P.W.1 is the widow of the deceased Parama Thevar. Parama Thevar, as per the evidence of P.W.11. as the power-of-attorney agent of one Kamanan,took on lease the right to collect cycle stand fee at the Madurai Central Market. After so taking the lease, Parama Thevar was collecting the cycle stand fee at the Market after depositing one-fourth of the lease amount with the Madurai Corporation. It is in the evidence of P.W.7 that Parama Thevar sub-leased the right to collect the cycle stand fee to the accused and the accused was managing the same with the help of his brother’s wife by name Mayakkal. After some time, dispute arose between the accused and Parama Thevar in respect of the collection of the cycle stand fee at the Market. Hence, it is in the evidence of P.W.I, that Para ma Thevar cancelled the contract given to the accused. 3. It is also in the evidence of P.W.I that her husband had taken in auction the right to collect the cycle stand fee at the Central Market at Madurai, belonging to the Corporation of Madurai, and that he had in addition taken a contract to the lease right in respect of the vegatable stalls at the market. It is the further evidence of P.W.1 that Para ma Thevar, after taking the abovesaid contracts in auction, sub-leased the right in respect of the cycle stand fee in favour of the accused. Parama Thevar also gave a vegetable stall to Mayakkal the wife of the brother of the accused. There were money transactions between Mayakkal and Parama Thevar. In respect of the collection of the cycle stand rent, there was some dispute between the accused and Parama Thevar, and a sum of Rs. 3,000 became due to Parama Thevar from the accused. Parama Thevar also gave a vegetable stall to Mayakkal the wife of the brother of the accused. There were money transactions between Mayakkal and Parama Thevar. In respect of the collection of the cycle stand rent, there was some dispute between the accused and Parama Thevar, and a sum of Rs. 3,000 became due to Parama Thevar from the accused. About five or six months prior to the occurrence in this case, it is in the evidence of P.W.1, Parama Thevar cancelled the sub-lease given to the accused since the accused had to pay him a sum of Rs. 3,000 towards the lease amount. Even though Parama Thevar cancelled the sub-lease in favour of the accused, Parama Thevar allowed Mayakkal, wife of the brother of the accused, to run the vegetable stall The accused, according to the evidence of P.W.1, suspected that Parama Thevar was having illicit intimacy with Mayakkal and on that account the accused was disgruntled with Parama Thevar. 4. From the abovesaid facts the prosecution wants the Court to infer motive for the accused to do away with Parama Thevar. 5. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 9th April, 1979, P.W.5 celebrated the ear-boring ceremony of his son between 6 and 7-30 p.m. P.W.5’s house is in the southern extremity of Kokkulathachi lane. P.W.1, Parama Thevar and others went to the function at about 8-45 p.m. They made some presents which is said to have been entered in a note-book. They left the house of P.W.5 at about 8-45 p.m. According to the evidence of P.W.1, she alone took food while Para ma Thevar did not take food at the house of P.W.5. 6. At Kokkalathachi compound, which is in the middle of the said lane, when P.W.1 and Parama Thevar were proceeding towards their house at the other end, the accused came from north to south. The accused’s house is on the southern side of Kokkalathachi Lane. On seeing the accused, it is in the evidence of P.W.1, Parama Thevar abused him in vulgar language and asked the accused to pay the dues of Rs. 3,000 immediately. When Parama Thevar accosted the accused, the accused retorted by stating that Parama Thevar lad spoiled not only the accused’s family but also that of his brother. The accused also resorted by stating that he cannot give any money to Parama Thevar. 3,000 immediately. When Parama Thevar accosted the accused, the accused retorted by stating that Parama Thevar lad spoiled not only the accused’s family but also that of his brother. The accused also resorted by stating that he cannot give any money to Parama Thevar. So saying, the accused took out a soori knife and stabbed Parama Thevar on, the left neck once. Alter receiv-ing the stab, Parama Thevar fell down on a cot which was near by. Soon after Parama Thevar fell on the cot, the accused got over him and stabbed him on the back twice. Due to the weight, the cot got broken. After this incident, it is the prosecution case, the accused, with the soori knife in his land, ran in a northerly direction in Kokkalathachi Lane. Parama Thevar, after receiving the stab injuries, got up from the cot, took four or five steps and then fell down near a Mariamman temple in that lane. P.W.1 raised a cry. This incident was also seen by P.Ws. 2 and 4. 7. On hearing the cry of P.W. 1, P.W. 6 who was in his shop-cum-residence in the same lane, saw the accused running with a knife M.O.1 in his hands. P.Ws.5 and 6 and others came to the scene of occurrence after hearing the cry of P.W.1 and to them P.W.1 told as to what had happened. The persons assembled there brought another cot M.O.3 and placed injured Parama Thevar on that cot. 8. It is in the evidence of P.W.1 that one of the slippers of Parama Thevar fell on the spot and the towel of the accused M.O.8 also fell on the spot. 9. P.W.6 and others followed by P.W.1, carried the injured on the cot M.O.3 to B-7 Police Station, P.W.17, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police was present at the Police Station. It was about 9.15 p.m. then. P.W. 17 finding that the injured was not able to speak and was in a swooned state, put him in a rikshaw and asked the persons who had come a long with the injured to take him to the hospital. P.W.1 also got into the rikshaw and was holding the injured. Due to that, her sari M.O.4 got bloodstained. After putting the injured in the rikshaw P.W.17 also followed it to the hospital. 10. P.W.1 also got into the rikshaw and was holding the injured. Due to that, her sari M.O.4 got bloodstained. After putting the injured in the rikshaw P.W.17 also followed it to the hospital. 10. P.W. 12 the doctor who was in charge of the Casualty Department of Government Rajaji Hospital, Madruai, found that Parama Thevar was dead before he was brought to the hospital. The doctor after noting down the injuries, despatched the body to the mortuary. 11. P.W. 18 the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the B-7 Police Station, after hearing about the incident, reached the hospital by about 9.45 p.m. He sent P.W.17 to the scene of occurrence. At the hospital itself, P.W.18 recorded a statement Exhibit P-2 from P.W.1 Sarasu and read out the same to her P.W.1 accepted the correctness of the recording and put her thumb impression on Exhibit P-2. The said document was attested by a male nurse at the hospital. The recording of Exhibit P-2 was completed at 10-30 p.m. P.W.18 also seized M.O.4 the bloodstained sari of P.W.1 and also M.O.8 the left leg slipper of the deceased under Exhibit P-17 mahazar. 12. P.W.18 the Sub-Inspector of Police reached his station at 10.45 p.m. and registered a case on the strength of Exhibit P-2 in Crime No. 173 of 1979 under section 3C2, Indian Penal Code. After registering the case, the Sub-Inspector prepared and sent express reports to the concerned — authorities and also contacted the higher authorities through phone. Exhibit D-5 is the printed form report sent to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate’s Court, Madurai, along with Exhibit P-2 report given by P.W. 1. After despatching the reports, P.W. 18 reached the place of occurrence at about 11. p.m. Within a short while thereafter, P.W. 19 the Inspector of Police arrived at the scene of occurrence and took up investigation. 13. P.W.19 the Inspector Police prepared an observation mahazar Exhibit P-4 at the scene at about 11. 15 p.m. attested by P.W. 8. Exhibit P-18 is the rough sketch of the scene drawn by the Inspector. By 11.30 p.m. of 10th April, 1979, he seized M.Os. 2, 8, 9, 10 and 11 under Exhibit P-5 mahazar. Exhibit P-5 was attested by P.W. 8 and another. 15 p.m. attested by P.W. 8. Exhibit P-18 is the rough sketch of the scene drawn by the Inspector. By 11.30 p.m. of 10th April, 1979, he seized M.Os. 2, 8, 9, 10 and 11 under Exhibit P-5 mahazar. Exhibit P-5 was attested by P.W. 8 and another. Thereafter, P.W. 19 proceeded to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, and held an inquest over the dead body of Parama Thevar between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m. on loth April, 1979. During the inquest, he examined P.Ws. 1, 6 and others. Exhibit P-19 is the inquest report. While examining P.W.6, the Inspector noticed bloodstains on his shirt and therefore he seized the shirt M.O. 6, under Mahazar Exhibit P-20 by 5.2c. a.m. Subsequent to the inquest, he sent the dead body through P.W. 15, with a requisition Exhibit P-9 for the purpose of conducting post-mortem examination. 14. Again the Inspector visited the scene of occurrence at about 8 a.m. on 10th April, 1979 and examined P.Ws. 2, 5, 7 and 8. While examining P.W.7, he seized M.O.7 under Exhibit P-21 from P.W. 7 at 9 a.m., From P.W. 2 he seized M.O. 5 under Exhibit P-22 at about 9-30 a.m. From one Mokkamayan, he seized the shirt M.O.19 worn by him which was bloodstained, under a mahazar Exhibit P-23. He also seized M.O.3 under Exhibit P-24 mahazar. Subsequently he searched the house of the accused by about 11 A.M. after sending advance intimation to the Court. From the house of the accused, the Inspector seized M.O. 20 a photograph as per the record Exhibit P-25 which is the search list. Under Form No.91 which is Exhibit P-12, he recovered M.Os.14 to 17 which were produced by P.W.15. On the same day, be examined P.W.12. He searched for the accused but he was absconding. 15. P.W.13, Professor of Forensic Medicine, Madurai Medical College, Madurai, after receiving the requisition Exhibit P-9 from P.W. 19, commerced autopsy on the body of Parama Thevar at about 9.30 a.m. on 10th April, 1979. At that time rigor mortis was present in all the limbs of the dead body. The doctor found the following external injuries on the dead body: 1. A stab wound measuring 4 cm X 2 cm over the lower part of the front of the left side of the neck, just above the inner end of left collar bone. At that time rigor mortis was present in all the limbs of the dead body. The doctor found the following external injuries on the dead body: 1. A stab wound measuring 4 cm X 2 cm over the lower part of the front of the left side of the neck, just above the inner end of left collar bone. The edges were regular and the lower end was angular and the upper and was irregular. Blood clots were found adherent to the wound. 2. An incised wound, 1.5 cm x skin deep, just below the outer angle of the left lower eye-lid. 3. A vertical incised wound, 2 cm x 1 cm X muscle deep, on the right shoulder on the middle of the back. 4. An incised wound horizontally placed, 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep, on the left shoulder on the back. 5. A horizontal linear abrasion over the left side of the back, just below injurty No. 4, measuring 5 cm x 0.25 cm. 6. An abrasion, 3 cm x 2 cm on the front of the middle of the left knee joint. On dissection of external injury No.1, the doctor found the wound was directly obliquely downwards and slightly to the back and cutting the intercostal muscles between the second and third left inter-costal space and entering into the left thoracic cavity. It had caused a cut measuring 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the front of the descending part of the aorta. The left thoracic cavity contained 2, 200 ml. of blood clots. The tissues around the heart and the left lung infiltrated with blood clots. As far as the stomach was concerned, the doctor has stated that it was empty. The doctor was of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of haemorrhage as a result of injury to the aorta due to external injury No. 1 sustained by him. Exhibit P-10 is the post-mortem certificate issued by the doctor. According to the doctor P.W.13, external injury No.1 to 4 could have been caused by a weapon like M.O. 1; external injury Nos.5 and 6 could have been caused by fall over a wooden cot like M.O.2, and after receipt the injuries, the injured could have survived for about five to ten minutes and could have taken a few steps. According to the doctor P.W.13, external injury No.1 to 4 could have been caused by a weapon like M.O. 1; external injury Nos.5 and 6 could have been caused by fall over a wooden cot like M.O.2, and after receipt the injuries, the injured could have survived for about five to ten minutes and could have taken a few steps. The doctor had definitely opined that injury No.1 with its corresponding internal injuries is necessarily fatal. As regards injury Nos. 2 to 6, he has stated that they are simple in nature. It is the further evidence of the doctor that death could have occurred about twelve hours prior to the post-mortem examination. 16. On 11th April, 1979, P.W.19 the Inspector examined P.W. 1 at about 10 p.m. P.W.4 is a dumb woman. Hence P.W.19 took her to the Deaf and Dumb School at Ellis Nagar, Madurai, and examined P.W.4 with the help of P.W.3. P.W.4 was examined with reference to the photograph M.O.20 seized by P.W. 19 from the house of the accused during his search of the said house. After this, the investigating officer visited the hospital and examined P.W.13, the doctor who conducted autopsy. 17. P.W.19 sent the material objects seized in the crime to the Court on 11th April. 1979 and also on 16th April, 1979. On 11th April, 1979 itself, he examined P.W.17. On information, he went to Pethaniapuram on 12th April, 1979 and arrested the accused by about 5 p.m. in the presence of P.W. 10 and others. On arrest, the accused made a statement, the admissible portion of which is Exhibit P-6. In Exhibit P-6 the accused has stated that if taken he would produce the knife and the dothi. In pursuance of Exhibit P-6. the accused took P.W.19, P.W.10 and others to a Hanumar temple and rear that place from the cattle-shed of one Arumugham took out M.O.1 knife with the sheath M.O.12 from underneath the rubbish. M.Os.1 and 12 were seized by P.W.19 under ExhibitP-7 mahazar by 6.30 p.m. Exhibit P-7 was attest ed by P.W.10 and another. Subsequently, the accused took the Inspector and P.W.10 to the house of one Ekali Mozhai by name and from him took the dothi M.O. 13 and produced it to P.W.19. This dothi M.O. 13 was seized by P.W.19 under Exhibit P-8 mahazar. It was about 7 p.m. then. Subsequently, the accused took the Inspector and P.W.10 to the house of one Ekali Mozhai by name and from him took the dothi M.O. 13 and produced it to P.W.19. This dothi M.O. 13 was seized by P.W.19 under Exhibit P-8 mahazar. It was about 7 p.m. then. Exhibit P-8 was attested by P.W.10 and another. On that day itself, the Inspector sent the accused to the lock-up and sent him for medical examination on 13th April, 1979 since he found certain injuries on the accused. 18. P.W.14, a Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, examined the accused at about 11-20 a.m. on 13th April, 1979. The doctor found two injuries on the person of the accused: (i) an abrasion about 2 cm x 1 cm over the front of the right knee, and (ii) an a brasion about 2 cm x 1/2 cm over the lateral aspect of the right knee. The accused was treated at the hospital as an out-patient. Exhibit-P-11 is an extract from the Accident Register issued by the doctor. Both the injuries, according to the doctor, are simple and both could have been caused by a fall from a wooden cot on 9th April, 1979. After medical examination, the Inspector sent the accused for remand. 19. Exhibits P-15 and P-16 are there ports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist respectively. As per these reports, M.Os.1, 12, 18 and 19 were stained with human blood, but blood grouping was not possible; M.Os.2 to 9 and 13 to 17 were stained with human blood of B group, and M.O.11 was stained with human blood. 20. After he completed the investigation, P.W.19 was transferred on 9th May, 1979, and subsequently the incumbent in his place filed the charge-sheet against the accused before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate II, Madurai. 21. When the accused was examined with reference to the evidence let in by the prosecution, he generally denied the offence and stated that the injuries on him were caused due to beatings by the Police and that he is innocent. He further stated that he was arrested at Periakulam and wanted the three documents filed by him with a memo along with his statement under section 313, Criminal Proceduce Code, to be read as part and parcel of his statement. He further stated that he was arrested at Periakulam and wanted the three documents filed by him with a memo along with his statement under section 313, Criminal Proceduce Code, to be read as part and parcel of his statement. When asked whether he had any witness to be examined on his side, the accused said he had nobody on his side to be examined as a witness. 22. Along with the statement, the accused filed a copy of the document furnished in Crime No. 1268 of 1978 of B-4 Police Station, Madurai, in C.C.No. 263 of 1979, on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, in order to show that the deceased Parama Thevar had been cited as an eye-witness and that he was witness No.6 in the charge-sheet in that case. The second document filed by the accused was a certified copy of the judgment in Calendar Case No.263 of 1979, in order to show that while the trial of C.C. No. 263 of 1979 was pending, Parama Thevar was done to death. The third document filed was a copy of the telegram sent by Advocates Thiruvalargal Syed Ali and Venkata Narayanan of Periakulam to the Inspector General of Police, Chief Minister and Superintendent of Police, Madurai North, in order to show that the accused, on his way to Palani to surrender himself before Court, was arrested in Periakulam Bus Stand at about 4. a.m. on 12th April, 1979. The fourth document filed by the accused was the judicial confession of the accused, in order to confirm that he had no part to play in the sessions case. 23. As per the judicial confession filed along with the statement under section 313, Crimi-nal Procedure Code the accused has stated that he was arrested by the Police at Periakulam twenty days prior to 27th April, 1979, that he was enquired by the police for two days at the Police Station itself, that at the Police Station he was tortured and compelled to give a confessional statement, that due to the compulsion of the Police he came before the Magistrate to give a statement and that he had absolutely no connection with the case put up against him. Finally, the accused stated before the Magistrate that he was not prepared to make any confessional statement. 24. Finally, the accused stated before the Magistrate that he was not prepared to make any confessional statement. 24. On the evidence appearing against the accused, the learned Sessions Judge, Madurai found him guilty of an offence punishable under section 302, Indian Penal Code, convicted him there under and sentenced him to death by hanging subject to confirmation by the High Court. 25. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred Criminal Appeal No.127 of 1980. The reference made by the learned Sessions Judge regarding the sentence of death imposed by him, is also before us, numbered as Referred Trial No.2 of 1980. 26. Mr. A.A. Selvam, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused, took as through the evidence on record and also the judgment of the Court below. The learned Counsel submitted arguments in respect of the prosecution witnesses end also in respect of the medical evidence which we will consider presently while discussing the evidence on record. It is the contention of the learned Counsel that the accused has been falsely implicated in the crime and that be had nothing to do with the offence alleged against him. 27. According to the prosecution, P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 are the eye-witnesses, and P.W.6. is a person who saw the accused running with M.O.1 Soori-knife and blood stained dothi soon after the occurrence from the scene. P.Ws. 1, 7 and 11 speak about the motive aspect of the case. 28. It is in the evidence of P.W. 11 who is an Assistant working in the Madurai Corporation that the deceased Parama Thevar, as the power-of-attorney agent of one Kamanan took in auction the right to collect the rent for the cycle stands at the Central Market at Madurai for the year 1977-78. it is also the further evidence of this witness that ever, though the lease was registered in the name of Kamanan, it was the deceased Parama Thevar who paid the one-fourth deposit money as per the conditions of the auction and that it was Parama Thevar who was collecting the rent for the cycle-stands during this period, at the Central Market, Madurai. 29. P.W.1 who is the widow of the deceased generally speaks to the deceased having take the contract for the collection of the rent for the cycle-stands at the Central Market, Madurai, belonging to the Madurai Corporation. 29. P.W.1 who is the widow of the deceased generally speaks to the deceased having take the contract for the collection of the rent for the cycle-stands at the Central Market, Madurai, belonging to the Madurai Corporation. P.W.1 further states that the deceased had taken the contract for letting out the vegetable stalls at the Market also. 30. It is the further evidence of P.W.1 that her husband the deceased had subleased the right to collect the cycle stand rent to the accused. The deceased also, according to P.W.1 gave on vegetable stall to Mayakkal, wife of the brother of the accused. There were also money transactions between Mayakkal and the deceased. P.W.1 further states that dispute arose between the accused and the deceased in respect of the collection and payment of rent for the cycle stand and the accused fell in arrears to the extent of Rs. 3,000. Five or six months prior to the occurrence, the deceased cancelled the sub-lease in favour of the accused. In spite of such cancellation, Mayakkal, wife of the brother of the accused, was running her vegetable stall in the Central Market. The accused was under the impression, according to P.W.I, that the deceased was having illicit intimacy with Mayakkal and on that account the accused was angry with the deceased. 31. The fact that the deceased took on lease the right to collect cycle stand rent, that he sub-leased that right to the accused and that there were arrears payable by the accused to the deceased in. respect of the said sub-lease and ultimately the deceased cancelled the sub-lease in favour of the accused and gave the sub-lease to some ether person, is spoken to by P.W.7 also. 32. The fact that the accused had a grievance against the deceased, which has been spoken to by P.Ws. 1 and 7, is made very clear by the evidence of P.W.I when she states that on the date of occurrence when the accused met the deceased at the occurrence place, the deceased scolded the accused by stating: For this, it is in the evidence of P.W.1, the accused retorted by stating that the deceased had spoiled not only his family but also that of his brother. These pieces of evidence given by P.Ws. 1, 7 and 11 have not been taken in Cross-examination. These pieces of evidence given by P.Ws. 1, 7 and 11 have not been taken in Cross-examination. Thus, we are of the view that the prosecution has established that the accused was aggrieved against the deceased. 33. Next, we have to consider whether the prosecution has established beyond all reasonable doubt that it was the accused who was responsible for causing the stab injuries on Parama Thevar as alleged by the prosecution. In this respect, the prosecution has let in evidence of three eye-witnesses viz., P.Ws.1, 2 and 4. P.W. 1 is the widow of the deceased. On the date of the occurrence, she and her husband, the deceased, went to the house of P.W.5 in order to attend the ear-boring ceremony of P.W.5’s son. The house of P.W.5, is situate on the southernmost side of Kokkulathachi Lane. On the wastern row of P.W.5’s house is the house of the accused. The house of the deceased and P.W.I is in the street called Thiruvappuda-yar Agraharam Street. To reach the house of the deceased from the house of P.W.5 in Kokkulathachi Lane, one has to proceed towards the north of the Lane and then has to turn to the left. P.W.6 has a shop-cum-resident at Kokkulathachi Lane, which is almost in the middle of that lane. It is in the evidence of P.W.I that she and the deceased P.W.5’s house at about 7-30 p.m. were there for about an hour, and at the function, P.W.1 alone took meal and the deceased did not eat anything. After attending the function, both P.W.1 and the deceased reached started from the house of P.W. 5 at about 8-45 p.m. and were proceeding northwards in Kokkulathachi Lane. At that time, the electric tube light in the municipal lamp post in that lane was burning. While P.W.1 and the deceased were nearing the Mariamman temple in that lane, the accused came in the opposite direction from north to south. On seeing the accused, the husband of P.W.1, viz., the deceased abused him by saying: The accused retorted by stating that the deceased had spoiled not only his family but also his brother’s. It is the further evidence of P.W.1 that the accused challenging the deceased whether he could get any money from him, whipped out a soori-knife and stabbed on the leftside of the neck of Parama Thevar. After receiving the said stab, Parama Thevar fell down on a cot which was nearby. Immediately, it is in the evidence of P.W.1, the accused got up and sat on the injured Parama Thevar and with the soori-knife stabbed him twice on the back. Those two stabs fell on the shoulders of Parama Thevar. When parama Thevar and the accused were on the cot, the cot got broke due to the weight. After delivering these stabs, P.W.1 says, the accu-sed had run towards north in Kokkulathachi Lane, carrying the knife in his hands. Subsequently, Parma Thevar got up and after walking for a bout four or five feet, fell down near the Mariamman temple. P.W. 1 further states that this incident was witnessed by P.Ws-2 and 4. While the accused was stabbing the deceased, P.W.1 raised alarm. On hearing her alarm it is in the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.5, one Mookkamayar, one Selvaraj, P.W.6 and others came running towards scene of occurrence. To them, P.W.I told as to how one the incident had happened. P.W.1 further states that one of the slippers worn by the deceased fell in the spot and the towel M.O.8 worn by the accused also fell in the scene of occurrence. According to P.W.I, the occurrence happened at about 9 p.m. It is this witness who gave Exhibit P-2 to P.W. 18 at the hospital and P.W. 18 on the strength of Exhibit-P-2 registered the case against the accused under section 302, Indian Penal Code. 34. Mr. Selvam, the learned Counsel for the appellant commenting upon the evidence given by P.W.1, submitted that P.W.6 had not stated in his statement under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code, that he saw P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 at the scene of occurrence. P.W. 6, according to the learned Counsel claims to have gone to the Police Station and also followed injured Parama Thevar to the hospital. According to the learned Counsel, P.W. 1 could not have been present at the scene of occurrence and she would have gone to the hospital after hearing that her husband had been stabbed and taken to the hospital, and while at the hospital hansari M.O. 4 would have become blood-stained. The fact, according to Mr. Selvam, that P.W.1 had not referred to the two eye-witnesses in her statement Exhibit P-2, esta-blishes that she would not have been present at the scene of occurrence. The fact, according to Mr. Selvam, that P.W.1 had not referred to the two eye-witnesses in her statement Exhibit P-2, esta-blishes that she would not have been present at the scene of occurrence. Mr. Selvam sought to derive his support to attack P.W.1 by criticising the statement Exhibit P-2 alleged to have been given by P.W.1 at the hospital. He commented that if Exhibit P-2 had been taken at the hospital the Sub-Inspector who took the statement would have asked those persons who had followed the deceased to the hospital to attest the document. It is strange, according to Mr. Selvam, that a male nurse had been asked to attest the report Exhibit P-2. 35. Before considering the attack made by the defence Counsel on the evidence of P.W.1, we can discuss the reliability of Exhibit P-2. Exhibit P-2 was recorded by P.W.18 the Sub Inspector of Police at the hospital by about 10.30 p.m. on 9th April, 1979. In Exhibit P-2 it is seen that P.W.1 has stated that all she has deposed before the Sessions Court except for the presence of P.Ws. 2 and 4 at the scene of occurrence. In Exhibit P-2 it is mentioned that P.Ws. 6 and 7 and others came running after hearing the cry of P.W.1. In Exhibit P-2, P.W. 1 has not mentioned about the accused leaving his towel M.O. 8 at the scene of occurrence. Mr. Selvam pointing out the evidence of P.W. 18, wherein he states that he recorded Exhibit P-2 at the hospital that he reached B-7 Police Station by about 10.45 p.m. on the occurrence day and that only at the Police Station he registered the case in Crime No.173 of 1979 under section 302, Indian Penal Code, submitted that if so, the attestation of Exhibit P-2 by a male nurse has been taken below the endorsement made by P.W. 18 to the effect “On 9th April, 1979 at 22-30 Registered a case in B-7 Crime No. 173 under section 302, Indian Penal Code”. It is surprising, according to the learned Counsel as to how the case was registered even before the male nurse attested Exhibit P-2. Mr. Selvam further contended that Exhibit P-17, which is a mahazar for recovering M.O. 4. sari, also supports the contention of the defence. It is surprising, according to the learned Counsel as to how the case was registered even before the male nurse attested Exhibit P-2. Mr. Selvam further contended that Exhibit P-17, which is a mahazar for recovering M.O. 4. sari, also supports the contention of the defence. In Exhibit P-17, it is pointed out a that the sari of P.W. 1 M.O. 4 was recovered by P.W.18 at about 10.30 p. m. at the hospital itself. There is evidence given by P.W. 18 that the case was registered at the Police Station at about 10.45 p.m. But in the mahazar Exhibit P-17 it has been mentioned in column (4)there-of that M.O.4 was recovered from P.W.1 in respect of Crime No.173 of 1979, on the file of B-7 Police Station. Since the recovery of M.O.4 was much earlier to the registration of the case, Mr. Selvam questioned as to how P.W.18 has mentioned the crime number in Exhibit P-17. 36. The learned Public Prosecutor, no doubt, tried to explain these mistakes by stating that while P.W. 18 left the station to the hospital, he would have noted from the Genera] Diary the previous crime number and would have mentioned the subsequent number even before he registered the case. We are not able to accept this explanation. Nevertheless, there is absolutely nothing in the cross-examination of P.W.18 and that of P.W.1 as regards the giving of the statement Exhibit P-2 and recording the same by P.W. 18 at the hospital. There is absolutely no necessity to have it attested. The over zealous Sub-Inspector of Police, after registering the case at the Police Station, would have probably thought fit to get the attestation of the male nurse Exhibit P-12. Inasmuch as the credibility of Exhibit P-2 is beyond doubt from a reading of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and we do not think the endorsements pointed out in Exhibit P-2 and discussed in paragragh supra will in any way affect the recording and genuineness of Exhibit P-2. The same way, the Sub-Inspector P.W. 18 would have filled up column (4) in Exhibit P-17 at the Police Station. 37. As regards the evidence of P.W.1, it is true that she had not mentioned about the presence of P.Ws.2 and 4 in her complaint Exhibit P-2. The same way, the Sub-Inspector P.W. 18 would have filled up column (4) in Exhibit P-17 at the Police Station. 37. As regards the evidence of P.W.1, it is true that she had not mentioned about the presence of P.Ws.2 and 4 in her complaint Exhibit P-2. It has been often held that the first information need not be an encyclopaedia of all the events that had happened. Even according to P.W.2, he was coming behind P.W.1 and the deceased after attending the function at the house of P.W.5. Exhibit P-2 was recorded at the hospital itself. We can clearly visualize the state of mind of the wife whose sari got completely drenched in blood after having witnessed the give some attack on her husband in her presence. The persons who came running after hearing the cry of P.W. 1 had been mentioned by P.W.1 in Exhibit P-2. The non-mention in ExhibitP-2 by P.W.1 about P.W.4 a dumb girl who happened to sit at the Mariamman temple and about P.W. 2 who was coming behind P.W.1 and the deceased at the time of the occurrence, cannot be taken to indicate that they were not really present at the scene of occurrence. The State of mind of P.W.1 at the time of giving Exhibit P-2 has also to be taken into account. Hence the non-mention of these two witnesses i.e., P.Ws. 2 and 4 in Ex libit P-2 will not in any way affect the prosecution case or the veracity of the evidence given by P.W. 1. The suggestion as if the sari M.O. 4 belonging to P.W. 1 got blood-stained at the hospital while P.W.1 was near the deceased cannot be accepted. This sari M.O.4 seized immediately after taking Exhibit P-2 by the Sub-Inspector of Police contained human blood of B group as per the reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serelogist. The B Group blood found on M.O.4 is that of the deceased. The presence of P.W.1 at the scene of occurrence is also spoken to by P.Ws. 2, 6 and 7. Hence the suggestion made by the learned Counsel appearing for the defence as if P.W.1 would not have been present at the scene of occurrence cannot be accepted. 38. The B Group blood found on M.O.4 is that of the deceased. The presence of P.W.1 at the scene of occurrence is also spoken to by P.Ws. 2, 6 and 7. Hence the suggestion made by the learned Counsel appearing for the defence as if P.W.1 would not have been present at the scene of occurrence cannot be accepted. 38. In the cross-examination of P.W. 1, P.W. 1 denied the suggestion that she was not at the place of occurrence and that she went to the hospital after being informed by the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. She also denied the suggestion that her sari M.O.4 got blood-stained while she was holding her husband at the hospital and crying. Surprisingly there was also a suggestion put to her to the effect that her husband had been attacked by two or three persons with knives and sticks and that is why her husband sustained injuries. This Suggestion would visualize the presence of P.W. 1 at the scene of occurrence. The suggestion of cause was denied by P.W.1. The non-mention in Exhibit P-2 by P.W.I of the deceased getting up from the cot and taking a few steps and the omission to mention that P.W.1 informed about the incident when P.Ws.5, 6and others came to the spot, in our opinion, will not in any way affect either the genuineness of the evidence given by P.W.I or the complaint Exhibit P-2 given by her. 39. P.W.2 is another eye-witness. He also attended the function at P.W.5’s house on the night of 9th April, 1980. He made a present of Rs. 16 at that function. By about 8.30 for 8.45 p.m., he was going behind the deceased and P.W.1 at Kokkala thachi Lane after attending the function at P.W.5’s house. At that time, it is in his evidence that the accused came from north. On seeing the accused the deceased demanded money due from him by using vulgar language. On this aspect, P.W.2 corroborates the evidence of P.W.1. As regards the occurrence proper also. P.W.2 corroborates the evidence of P.W. I. He also mentions in his evidence that at the time of occurrence P.W.4 Ramayee was sitting on the outer steps of Mariamman temple in that lane. On this aspect, P.W.2 corroborates the evidence of P.W.1. As regards the occurrence proper also. P.W.2 corroborates the evidence of P.W. I. He also mentions in his evidence that at the time of occurrence P.W.4 Ramayee was sitting on the outer steps of Mariamman temple in that lane. It is in the evidence of P.W.2 that the deceased after receiving the injuries and subsequent to the accused running a way from the scene, got up from the cot and took five or six steps and fell down near the Mariamman temple. On hearing the cry of P.W.1, P.W.2 states, P.W.5, P.W.7, Mokkayan P.W.6 and others came to the scene of occurence. It is also in the evidence of P.W.2 that P.W.I told P.Ws. 5, 6, 7 and the others about the incident that had happened. According to this witness, the incident occurred between 8.45 and 9 p.m. This witness states that the street electric light and the illunination at P.W.5’s house afforded sight at the scene of occurrence. M.O.5 is the dothi of P.W.2 and this was seized by the Police and later sent for chemical examination. This dothi of P.W.2 M.O.5 was found to be stained with human blood of B Group which is the same group as that of the deceased. 40. Mr. Selvam attacked the evidence of this witness by stating that he could not have been present at the scene of occurrence, inasmuch as his name does not find a place in Exhibit P-2. The best evidence to establish the presence of P.W.2 at the scene of occur-rence, according to Mr. Selvam, would be the account-book of P.W.5. This account, book, according to the learned Counsel, would show the moi amount given by P.W.2 to P.W.5 on the date of occurrence when P.W.5 celebrated the ear-boring ceremony of his son. In the absence of such account-book, the learned Counsel stated that it is highly doubtful that P.W.2 was present at the scene of occurrence. We are not able to appreciate the criticism levelled against P.W.2 by the learned Counsel. No doubt this witness had not told the police about the breaking away of the cot. The suggestion that he came much later to the scene of occurrence was denied by P.W.2. This witness and P.W.1 identified M.O.1 as the knife used by the accused for stabbing Parma Thevar. No doubt this witness had not told the police about the breaking away of the cot. The suggestion that he came much later to the scene of occurrence was denied by P.W.2. This witness and P.W.1 identified M.O.1 as the knife used by the accused for stabbing Parma Thevar. The reasoning given by me while discussing the evidence of P.W.1 will squarely apply as regards non-mentioning of the name of P.W.2 in Exhibit P-2. It is too much to expect P.W.5 to produce the account-book for receiving the moi money from various persons during the function in his house. The blood-stain on the dothi of P.W.2, which is M.O.5, clearly and clinchingly establishes his presence at the time of occurrence. This witness was examined at about 8 a.m. on 10th April, 1977 by the investigating officer P.W.19. The only omission elicited from P.W.19 was that P.W.2 did not inform the police that blood was gushing out from the body of injured Parama Thevar. We are convinced that P.W.2 is a genuine witness and there is absolutely no motive for him to implicate the accused in the crime. There is nothing in the cross-examination of P.W.2 to discredit his testimony. 41. Then, we have the evidence of P.W.4. She is a dumb girl and according to the prosecution, she was sitting on the steps of Mariamman temple at the time of occurrence. She knew the accused even before the time of the occurrence. She was examined with the help of P.W.3, who is the Headmistress of the Deaf and Dumb School at Madurai. Even apart from the photograph M.O. 20 wherein P.W.3 pointed out the accused during investigation, she has while in the witness-box pointed out the accused as the person who had stabbed Parama Thevar. No doubt all these statements of P.W.4 were recorded by diciphering the signs given by P.W.4, and the deciphering was done by P.W.3. This witness has completely corroborated the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in all material particulars as regards the occurrence proper. She also identified M.O. 1 as the knife used by the accused in stabbing Para ma Thevar. In cross-examination P.W.3 has stated that she had not told the police, in terms of speech, the name of the accused. This witness has completely corroborated the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in all material particulars as regards the occurrence proper. She also identified M.O. 1 as the knife used by the accused in stabbing Para ma Thevar. In cross-examination P.W.3 has stated that she had not told the police, in terms of speech, the name of the accused. No doubt this witness says that she went to the police station when the body was carried on a cot to the police station by some witnesses. She also states that she had been to the hospital. To a question put to her to the effect that the electriclights were not burning in the street on the night of occurrence, this witness categorically stated by signs that they were burning. The suggestion that she was not at all present at the scene of occurrence and that she was deposing falsely was flatly denied by her. When asked with reference to the photograph of Parama Thevar, she states that this Parama Thevar used to wear a towel always and that the towel he was having on the date of occurrence fell down. 42. Mr. Selvam the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant criticised the evidence of this witness stating that she was not able to mention the name of anybody by signs. P.W.1, according to the learned Counsel, definitely stated that this witness did not come to the hospital and hence the evidence of P.W.4 cannot be accepted. The very same argument that her name does not find in Exhibit P-2 has been repeated by the learned Counsel. As regards the recovery of M.O. 20, the learned Counsel submitted that it is highly doubtful since Exhibit P-25 the mahazar for the recovery of M.O. 20 reached the Court only on 30th January, 1980. We are not able to appreciate the contentions raised by Mr. Selvam as regards P.W.4. It is unnecessary for the prosecution to have pitched upon P.W. 4 for giving evidence in this case. Since she was at the Mari-amman temple at the time of the occurrence the police thought it fit to examine her with the help of P.W.3 and put her as a witness for the prosecution. P.W. 19 the Inspector examined P.W.4 on 11th April, 1979. Since she was at the Mari-amman temple at the time of the occurrence the police thought it fit to examine her with the help of P.W.3 and put her as a witness for the prosecution. P.W. 19 the Inspector examined P.W.4 on 11th April, 1979. There was no doubt delay in examining this witness But the investigating officer P.W.19 states that she had to be taken to the Deaf and Dumb School and the Inspector took her to the said school on 11th April, 1979 and examined her with the help of P.W.3. The evidence given by P.W.4, a dumb girl, infuses confidence in our mind. She had known the accused previously. There is absolutely no motive for her to point out the accused as the person who had stabbed Parama Thevar. There is nothing in her cross-examination to discredit her test money. 43. The evidence of P.W.5 is that he had arranged the ear-boring ceremony for his daughter on the occurrence day between. 6 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. This witness states that Parama Thevar, P.W.1, P.W.2 and many others attended that function. No doubt, P.W.5 says that Parama Thevar gave Rs. 25 as present at the function. By about 8.45 p.m. that night, P.W.1 and parama Thevar left the house of P.W.5. Within a short time thereafter, P.W.5 heard the noise He rushed to the scene of occurrence and found Parama Thevar lying with stab injuries. When he went there, he saw P.W.1, P.W. 2 and the dumb girl P.W. 4 at the scene of occurrence. This witness also states that he went along with the dead body to the Police station. 44. No doubt, in cross-examination, this witness states that at the Police Station P.W.1 informed the Assistant Sub-Inspector about the occurrence and that the Assistant Sub-Inspector recorded the statement given by P.W.1. He also states that the thumb impression of P.W.1 was taken in the Police Station. Mr. Selvam made much comment about the evidence given by this witness to the effect that the Assistant Sub-Inspector had taken a statement at the Police Station itself. No doubt, there is discrepancy between the evidence of this witness and that of P.Ws.1 and 17 on this aspect. But, we are not inclined to attach much importance to this portion of the evidence given by P.W.5 which, may be due to his faulty memory. No doubt, there is discrepancy between the evidence of this witness and that of P.Ws.1 and 17 on this aspect. But, we are not inclined to attach much importance to this portion of the evidence given by P.W.5 which, may be due to his faulty memory. There is a specific statement made by this witness that he decorated the pandal in his house with electric lights for the function on the occurrence night. The fact that P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the deceased left the house of P.W.5 at 8-45 p.m. has been amply proved by the evidence of P.W. 5. It has also been proved by the evidence of P.W.5 that the deceased was lying with stab in-juries at Kokkulathachi Lane when he rushed and saw him after hearing the cry of P.W.1. 45. Then, we have the evidence of P.W.6. He is residing at Kokkulathachi Lane having a shop-cum-residence there. By 9 p.m. on the occurrence night, he hard a noise coming from the lane. When he looked he saw the accused running with a knife in his hands. He also noticed bloodstain-son his clothes. When he again heard the noise from the lane, he went to the scene of the occurrence wherefrom the noise was emanating. When he went there, he found parama Thevar lying dead in a pool of blood with stab injuries. When he went to scene of occurrence, it is in the evidence of P.W.6 that he saw P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 and others. This witness went to the Police station along with the dead body. 46. No doubt, this witness, in cross-examination has stated that he never questioned the accused when he was running with a knife in his hands and with clothes bloodstained. Mr. Selvam, the learned Counsel for the appellant, commented that it is very difficult for P.W.6 to identify the accused and also the accused carrying a knife with him and running with blood-stained clothes especially at that hour of the night. Mr. Selvam also pointed out that this witness had not told the investigating officer about the presence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 at scene of occurrence. During investigation, it is quite possible that this witness had confirmed himself to state what all he saw in relation to the occurrence proper. Nothing has been elicited in cross-examination to discredit the testimony of P.W.6. 1, 2 and 4 at scene of occurrence. During investigation, it is quite possible that this witness had confirmed himself to state what all he saw in relation to the occurrence proper. Nothing has been elicited in cross-examination to discredit the testimony of P.W.6. It would not have been difficult for P.W.6 to notice the accused running with a knife in his hands and with blood-stained clothes, inasmuch the lane in which the incident occurred and wherein the shop of P.W.6 situate in a very narrow lane, and there was enough light to watch the persons passing through. The prosecution witnesses have clearly deposed that there was enough light emenating from the decorations made at P.W.5’s house and also from the street electric lamps which were burning. Thus, we are able to see that the accused had been seen by P.W.6 running from the scene of occurrence with a knife in his hands and also with bloodstained clothes. 47. It is in the evidence of P.W.7 that he came immediately after the occurrence after hearing the noise in the Kokkulathachi Lane. He saw Parama Thevar lying with stab injuries. This witness is specific that when we went there, P.W.1 told him about the occurrence proper. Nothing has been elicited in cross-examination of this witness to discredit his testimony. The evidence of P.W.7 is clear and cogent and his evidence establishes conclusively the presence of P.W.1 at the scene of occur-ence and also P.W.1 informing him immediately after the occurrence as to what all had happened. 48. From the foregoing discussions we have made, regarding the evidence on record to implicate the accused in the crime, we are convinced that these witnesses are speaking the truth and there is absolutely nothing against them to discredit their testimony. There was enough light and the accused had been known to all the witnesses even prior to the occurrence. P.W.1, who is no other than the widow of the deceased, need not implicate the accused falsely leaving the real culpcit, when especially her presence at the scene has been conclusively proved by the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7. 50. P.W.1, who is no other than the widow of the deceased, need not implicate the accused falsely leaving the real culpcit, when especially her presence at the scene has been conclusively proved by the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7. 50. Apart from the abovesaid clinching pieces of evidence by way of eye-witnesses regarding the occurrence proper, we have other circumstantial evidence in the case to establish the guilt of the accused P.W. 19 arrested the accused on 12th April, 1979 at about 5 p.m. at a place called Pethaniapuram. On arrest, the accused gave a statement. The admissible portion of the said statement is Exhibit P-6. In Exhibit P-6 the accused has stated that if taken he would produce the bloodstained knife and dothi. In pursuance of Exhibit P-6, the accused took P.W 19 and P.W.10 to a Hanumar temple nearby. By the side of the Hanumar temple there is a cow shed belonging to one Arumugham. From the manure pit in that cow-shed, the accused took out and produced M.O.1 along with its sheath M.O.12. The same were recovered by P.W. 19 under Exhibit P-7 mahazar, attest-ed by P.W.10. In the mahazar Exhibit P-7 it is stated that the knife and the sheath were recovered from the manure pit. As regards the description of the knife, Exhibit P-7 states that it has a furrowed wooden handle. The breadth and length of the knife has also been given in Exihibit P-7. It was about 6.30 p.m. on 12th April, 1979 when P.W. 19 recovered M.Os. 1 and 12. On the same day, the accused took P.W 19 and others to the house an Ekali by name Mozhai, who said to be the dhobi of the accused. From the house the dhobi the accused produced M.O. 13 his dothi. 51. The statement made by the accused and the recovery of M.Os.1, 12 and M.O. 13 is spoken to by the mahazar witness P.W. 10. He states that at about 4.30 p.m. he was near a brick-kiln belonging to one Mayandi near Pethaniapuram. At that time, according to the evidence of P.W 10, P.W.19 the Inspector of Police arrested the accused. On arrest, the accused gave a voluntary statement. In that statement the accused offered to produce a knife and blood-stained dothi. This witness attested the admissible portion of the statement Exhibit P-6. At that time, according to the evidence of P.W 10, P.W.19 the Inspector of Police arrested the accused. On arrest, the accused gave a voluntary statement. In that statement the accused offered to produce a knife and blood-stained dothi. This witness attested the admissible portion of the statement Exhibit P-6. He accompanied P.W.19 and the accused to the places where-from the accused produced M.Os.1, 12 and 13. This witness completely corroborates the evidence of the investigating officer as regards the arrest of the accused, the recording of the statement from the accused and recoveries of M.Os.1, 12 and 13. No doubt, in cross-examination, it was elicited from him that he had not told the Police about the recovery of M.O.12 when examined by the investigating officer. The witness completely denied the suggestion that the accused was arrested at 4 a.m. on 12th April, 1979 in a bus proceeding from Periakulam to Palani. We do not find anything in cross-examination to discredit the testimony of this witness. 52. Mr. Selvam, the learned Counsel appearing for appellant, submitted that the failure to mention the recovery of M.O.12 while this witness was examined by the Police is fatal to the prosecution case. Mr. Selvam also submitted that the accused was arrested by about 4 A.M. on 12 April, 1979 and he relied on the telegrams sent by two Advocates to higher authorities. No doubt, these telegrams (copies) have been filed along with the statement made by the accused under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. But they have not been proved as per the Evidence Act. The defence could have as well examined the Advocates who would be in a position to substantiate the defence theory of the arrest of the accused. That would have definitely strengthened the defence contention regarding the arrest and recovery of M.Os. 1, 12 and 13. But we do not have any such evidence on record. Nor the marking of the telegrams by themselves would prove the arrest of the accused as alleged by the defence. In the absence of any evidence on. record contra to the evidence of the prosecution regarding the arrest of the accused any recovery, we have to believe the evidence of P.W.19 and that of P.W. 10. Further we are convinced that the evidence of P.W.19 and P.W.10 are truth worthy and genuine. In the absence of any evidence on. record contra to the evidence of the prosecution regarding the arrest of the accused any recovery, we have to believe the evidence of P.W.19 and that of P.W. 10. Further we are convinced that the evidence of P.W.19 and P.W.10 are truth worthy and genuine. 52-A. The dothi M.O.13 was recovered in pursuance of the statement given by the accused. No doubt, the Ekali Mozhai who was the dhobi of the accused from whom M.O. 13 was taken out by the accused and produced, has not been examined. But the fact that M.O.13 was produced at the instance of the accused in pursuance of his statement to the Police is there. This M.O. 13 dothi contains, on an examination in this Court, three dots in one corner. The prosecution has examined P.W.9 who is a dhobi, who states that in the clothes of the accused the identifying mark of three dots have been put. No doubt, this may not have much relevance if M.O. 13 had been recovered otherwise than on the statement made by the accused to the Police. Inasmuch as the accused’s clothe? would bear three dots as the identifying mark, and in view of the fact that the dothi M.O. 13 seen by us in Court, has three dots, this would also support the prosecution case. This dothi produced by the accused, according to the reports of the Chemical Examiner and the serologist Exhibits P-15 and P-16, contained human blood of B group which is that of the deceased. 53. Further, the soori-knife M.O.1 and also the sheath M.O. 12 recovered on the statement made by the accused, contained human blood. But the grouping was not possible for the blood found on these items. 54. Thus, the recoveries of M.Os. 1, 12 and 13 are very clinching circumstances implicating the accused in the crime. No doubt the Chemical Examiner in his report has stated that the handle of the knife M.O.1 is made of horn. In the recovery mahazar Exhibit P-7 it has been stated that the sorri knife has a furrowed wooden handle. We have seen M.O.1 in this Court. For a naked eye, it looks only like a wooden handle. Further, this handle is furrowed. The other descriptions given in Exhibit P-7 are correct. In the recovery mahazar Exhibit P-7 it has been stated that the sorri knife has a furrowed wooden handle. We have seen M.O.1 in this Court. For a naked eye, it looks only like a wooden handle. Further, this handle is furrowed. The other descriptions given in Exhibit P-7 are correct. The mere fact that in Exhibit P-15 the handle of M.O. 1 is described as a horn handle, cannot in any way affect the prosecution case, in view of the facts and circumstances we have discussed above. 55. No doubt, P.W.10 had in his statement under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code, mentioned only a bout the knife and not about the sheath. But in his evidence he has spoken to the recovery of the knife and the sheath together. In Exhibit P-7 the recovery of both the sheath and the knife has been mentioned. Thus, we are convinced that M.Os.1, 12 and 13 were seized on production by the accused in pursuance of his statement to the police. 56. As regards the towel M.O.8, we are not able to attach any importance to the same since P.W.9 the dhobi is not able to connect the dhobi marks on M.O.8 as those of the accused. Further, the evidence of P.W.4 to the effect that the towel of the deceased also fell down at the scene of occurrence creates doubt as regards the ownership of M.O.8. Hence, we can safely omit this aspect of the prosecution case. 57. Mr. Selvam made much comment about the delayed examination of the witness by P.W.19. He also referred to the decision in G.B. Patel v. State of Maharashtra1 wherein the Supreme Court has held: “Delay of a few hours, simpliciter, in recording the statements of eye-witnesses may not, by itself, amount to a serious infirmity in the prosecution case. But it may assume such a character if there are concomitant circumstances to suggest that the investigator was deliberately marking time with a view to decide about the shape to be given to the case and the eye-witnesses to be introduced. But it may assume such a character if there are concomitant circumstances to suggest that the investigator was deliberately marking time with a view to decide about the shape to be given to the case and the eye-witnesses to be introduced. Thus under the facts and circumstances of the case delay in recording the statements of material witnesses, casts a cloud of suspicion on the credibility of the entire warp and woof of the prosecution story.” It has been further held: “Normally, in a case where the commission of the crime is alleged to have been seem by witnesses who are easily available, a prudent investigatory would give to the examination of such witnesses precedence over the evidence of other witnesses”. We do not think the facts of the decision would apply to the present case. P.W.1 who is an eye-witness to the occurrence had given the Exhibit P-2. We have already dealt as to why the names of P.Ws.2 and 4 were not mentioned in Exhibit P-2. The investigating officer P.W.19 examined these witnesses promptly the next day by 8. a.m. The evidence of P.W. 19 is clear and cogent as regards the examination of the witnesses and we do not find any delay in examining the eye-witnesses in the present case. After taking up investigation by a bout 11 p.m. on 9th April, 1979, the Inspector visited the scene, prepared an observation mahazar, drew up a rough sketch of the scene, recovered material objects, proceeded to the hospital, held an inquest between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m. on 10th April, 1979, again visited the scene of -occurrence by about 8 a.m. and examined P.Ws.2, 5, 7 and 8. He examined P.W.4 11th April, 1979, since he had to take her to the Headmistress of the Dumb and Deaf School at Ellis Nagar, Madurai, in order to decipher the signs made by P.W.4. regarding the occurrence proper, she being dumb. Thus we do not find any delay or any sinister idea the part of the prosecution to shape the eye-witnesses for the purpose of giving evidence in the case. We have already discussed the eye witness account to the occurrence and have held that the witnesses are truthful witnesses. 58. Mr. regarding the occurrence proper, she being dumb. Thus we do not find any delay or any sinister idea the part of the prosecution to shape the eye-witnesses for the purpose of giving evidence in the case. We have already discussed the eye witness account to the occurrence and have held that the witnesses are truthful witnesses. 58. Mr. Selvam finally submitted after reading the evidence of the doctors and the post-mortem certificate that the injuries on the deceased could not have been inflicted by the weapon like M.O.I. P.W.12 is the doctor who examined injured Parama Thevar when first brought to the hospital by about 10 p.m. on 9th April, 1979. According to this doctor, he noticed six injuries, and out of them injuries 4 and 5 were incised, injuries land 2 were lacerated, injury 3 was an abrasion and injury 6 was a scratch. P.W.13 the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination has mentioned six-injuries and as regards injury No. 1 be has stated that the edges were regular and the lower end was angular and the upper end was irregular. To the question put by the Court, the doctor P.W.13 stated that the cause for the upper end of the injury being irregular was due to the blunt edge of the weapon M.O.1. When this doctor was cross-examined by the defence on this aspect, he stated that a stab injury is also caused by a blunt weapon just like a crow-bar and such injuries also have irregular edges. Mr. Selvam, pointing out the evidence of P.W.12 who has stated that injury No.1 was a lacerated one, submitted that M.O.1 could not have caused such a lacerated injury. In this connection, Mr. Selvam cited the decision in Harchand Singh v. State of Haryana1. The Supreme Court, in that decision, has observed: “Two accused were arraigned in the assault on the deceased as a result of which the latter died. The prosecution in support of its case examined two sets of eyewitnesses. The evidence of one set consisted of the testimony of three eye-witnesses who were not present at the time of the occurrence according to the fourth eyewitness who according to the prosecution case was with the deceased at the time of the assault. This fourth eye-witness was also shown to be an unreliable witness by the other evidence produced by the prosecution”. This fourth eye-witness was also shown to be an unreliable witness by the other evidence produced by the prosecution”. It was held: “It was a case wherein one set of evidence condemned the other set leaving the Court with no reliable and trustworthy evidence upon which the conviction of the accused might be based”. 59. This decision has no bearing to the facts of the present case. The evidence of the eye-witnesses has clearly established that the accused stabbed the deceased with M.O.1 soori-knife and as a result thereof Parama Thevar died. Even apart from that fact, the evidence of P.W.13, the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination can be taken as authoritative one inasmuch as he could have noticed the injuries and the details thereof much better than doctor P.W.12 who had to see the injured at the hospital soon after he was brought to the hospital. There is absolutely no. cross-examination for P.W.13. We have seen the knife of M.O.1 for ourselves in Court. It is blunt at one side. While pulling it after stabbing, some lacerations are possible. Reference to Modi on Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology is not necessary in this context, since We agree with the doctor P.W. 13 who conducted the postmortem examination. 60. Mr. Sivalingam, the learned Public Prosecutor cited the decision reported in Husaina v. State of U.P.1in which there was divergent of opinion between two doctors. In that case, the Supreme Court has observed: “It seems to us that if the witnesses are believed, the so-called inconsistency in the opinion of the two doctors loses much of its force, specially as the appellant could have used the blunt side of the spade. The learned Counsel for the appellant has not been able to show any convincing reason why the eye-witnesses should not be believed. They all support the prosecution case, as set out in the beginning of the judgment”. It is clear from the above decision of the Supreme Court that the contradiction between the evidence of P.Ws.12 and 13, even if it has any relevance, assumes little importance, inasmuch as the eye-witnesses have clearly implicated the accused in the crime. Their evidence, according to us, is genuine and straight-forward. 61. Mr. It is clear from the above decision of the Supreme Court that the contradiction between the evidence of P.Ws.12 and 13, even if it has any relevance, assumes little importance, inasmuch as the eye-witnesses have clearly implicated the accused in the crime. Their evidence, according to us, is genuine and straight-forward. 61. Mr. Selvam submitted the decision in Datar Singh v. State of Punjab2said that the prosecution cannot get an advantage merely from the circumstance that the accused did not surrender or was not traceable for nearly one year. It is clear in our case that the accused was absconding when searched for by P.W.19 and others. He was arrested only on 12th April, 1979, at Pethaniapuram by about 5 p.m. in the presence of P.W.10. This, in our opinion, is a pointer towards the guilt of the accused. 62. The learned Public Prosecutor, apart from various other circumstances, which we have ourselves discussed supra, while dealing with the argument of Mr. Selvam, submitted that if the prosecution witnesses wanted to concoct the first information report, they would have well mentioned the names of P.Ws.2 and 4 in Exhibit P-2 itself. This according to the learned Public Prosecutor shows the genuine nature of the prosecution case. The Public Prosecutor also pointed out the decision reported in In re Ramiah3wherein a bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the non-mention of an eye-witnesses in the first in-formation report does not indicate that he was nowhere near the scene of occurrence. The Bench further held that the first information report is not expected to be exhaustive in regard to all the particulars and to contain a list of all witnesses. This decision will squarely apply to the facts of the present case. 63. Mr. Selvam would try to distinguish the decision in Husaina v. State of U.P.4, by stating that the occurence in the case occurred during night time while that in the Supreme Court case occurred during day-time. We are not convinced with this argument. There was enough light, as deposed by the prosecution witnesses to identify M.O. 1 and also for witnessing the occurrence. We have already discussed this aspect in the paragraphs supra. 64. The doctor’s evidence (P.W. 13’s) amply establishes that injury No. 1 with its corresponding internal injuries was necessarily fatal. Exhibit P-10 is the post-mortem certificate issued by the doctor P.W.13. We have already discussed this aspect in the paragraphs supra. 64. The doctor’s evidence (P.W. 13’s) amply establishes that injury No. 1 with its corresponding internal injuries was necessarily fatal. Exhibit P-10 is the post-mortem certificate issued by the doctor P.W.13. We have already extracted the injuries described by the doctor. We have also found that it was the accused who was responsible for inflicting injury No. 1 and the other injuries on the deceased. Hence it is clear that the accused has committed the ‘murder’ of parama Thevar. 65. From the foregoing discussion, we are convinced that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. The evidence of the direct eyewitnesses, coupled with the circumstantial evidence as regards the arrest of the accused and recoveries of M.Os.1, 12 and 13 at his instance, amply establishes the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 66. The mere fact that the accused had mentioned to the Magistrate that he was tortured by the Police and was not prepared to give a confessional statement before the Magistrate, will not in any way affect the prosecution case. The clinching evidence or the eye-witnesses establish the participation of the accused in committing the murder of Parama Thevar. 67. The prosecution, through the evidence of P.W.1, has clearly established as to how the deceased on seeing the accused, abused him in filthy language and wanted him to pay the arrears due from him. The accused seems to have retorted laying that the deceased spoiled not only his family but also his brother’s family. In the light of this evidence given by P.W.1, we do not think the extreme penalty of the law need by imposed upon the accused. 68. Hence the conviction under section 302, Indian Penal Code, imposed by the learned Sessions Judge is confirmed, and as regards sentence, the sentence of death is reduced to one of imprisonment for life. With this reduction in sentence, the Criminal appeal is dismissed. The Reference by the learned Sessions Judge is answered accordingly. Conviction confirmed. Sentence reduced to imprisonment for life. Appeal dismissed.