Judgment : SIVASUBRAMANIAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS, Criminal Appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed in S. C. No. 110 of 1984 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. The accused/appellant was tried for an offence under Section 302 I. P. C. He was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned Sessions Judge. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case in brief is as follows: The deceased Karunakara Pandian was the resident of Karuppanuthu village and P. W. I Annathai is his wife. P. W. 2 is the sister of P. W. 1 and she got married 10 the accused. Due to certain misunderstandings between the husband and the wife, P. W. 2 returned to her parent house and lived with them. Therefore, the Accused filed a petition before the Civil Court at Tenkasi for restitution of conjugal rights. A notice was issued by the counsel for the accused to P. W. 2. The deceased took P. W. 2 to an Advocate P. W. 5, of Tenkasi and made arrangements to defend the matrimoninal case filed by the Accused against P. W. 2. A Vakalath was given to P. W. 5 in which P. W. 2 had signed. Ex. P-4 is the copy of the petition and Ex. P-5 is the notice received by her. About six months before the occurrence, the deceased borrowed a sum of Rs. 500/-from the accused which remained unpaid. When the accused demanded the money, the deceased stated that it was adjusted towards the supply of cigarette, coffee etc. , to the father of the accused. The accused stated that the deceased had spoiled his family life and refused to return the money borrowed from him and that therefore he warned that he would kill him by saying: ** (Sic being in other local language) This was known to P. Ws. 1 and 2. ( 3 ) ON the date of the occurrence, at about 10. 00 P. M. P. Ws. 1 and 2 were sleeping inside the house of the deceased with a child, while the deceased was sleeping outside. At about 2. 00 A. M. on 26-7- 1982 in the early morning P. Ws. 1 and 2 heard a noise of the deceased saying that the accused had cut him. 00 P. M. P. Ws. 1 and 2 were sleeping inside the house of the deceased with a child, while the deceased was sleeping outside. At about 2. 00 A. M. on 26-7- 1982 in the early morning P. Ws. 1 and 2 heard a noise of the deceased saying that the accused had cut him. ** (Sic being in other local language) This was heard by the neighbour P. W. 3 Ramasamy also. On hearing the said noise P. Ws. 1 and 2 ran outside the house. There was a hurricane light burning in the kitchen of the Tea Shop which was a part of the residential house. P. W. 1 shouted that the accused had cut stating: ** (Sic being in other local language ) On hearing this the accused turned back, went towards south and then turned westwards with Aruval. P. W. 3 who also came out of the house, saw the accused going with the Aruval. At that time electric lights were burning nearby. P. Ws. 1 to 3 saw a deep cut on the neck of the deceased and within a minute deceased passed away. As there was no Village Administrative Officer in the village, report could not be given immediately. Apart from that P. W. 1 was in the stage of advanced pregnancy and therefore P. Ws. 1 and 2 could not go to the Police Station. At about 7. 00 A. M. P. W. 1 along with Thavasi Thevar went to the Police Station at Panavadali and reported the matter to the Head Constable P. W. 9. When she complained the matter it was reduced to writing in Ex. P-I and the same was recorded as Crime No. 116 of 1982 on the file of the Panavadali Police Station under Section 302 I. P. C. He prepared printed First Information Report and sent to the Courts and other officers concerned. Ex. P.-12 is the printed First Information Report and the same was sent to the court through P. W. 10. A wireless message was given to the Inspector of Police P. W. 11. First Information Report reached the court at 10. 00 A. M. ( 4 ) P. W. 11 Inspector of Police received information about the murder at 8. 30 A. M. on 267-1982. After receiving copy of First Information Report he took up the investigation of the case. A wireless message was given to the Inspector of Police P. W. 11. First Information Report reached the court at 10. 00 A. M. ( 4 ) P. W. 11 Inspector of Police received information about the murder at 8. 30 A. M. on 267-1982. After receiving copy of First Information Report he took up the investigation of the case. He visited the scene of occurrence inspected the same at 9. 15 A. M. and prepared an observation Mahazar Ex. P.-6 attested by P. W. 6 and another. Ex. P.-13 is the rough sketch of the scene of occurrence. On the same day between 10. 00 A. M. and 12. 00 Noon, he held inquest in the presence of Panchayatdars, during which P. Ws. 1 to 3 were examined. Ex. P. 14 is the inquest report prep3red by him. The deadbody was despatched to the Government Hospital through the constable P. W. 7 along with a requisition Ex. P.-2. P. W. 11 recovered M. Os. 1 and 3 to 7 under Mahazar Ex. P.-7 attested by P. W. 6 and another. Accused was not available for arrest. ( 5 ) P. W. 4 Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital, Sankarankoil, received the intimation Ex. P-2 and conducted autopsy on the dead-body of Karunakara Pandian at 2. 30 P. M. on 26-7-1982. He found the following injury on the dead-body:a cut injury extending horn a point I lateral to Thyroid notch on the right side of the neck, to a point in the midline on the nape of neck at C. 4level. Major blood vessels of the neck are cut through along with the vessels C-4 Vertebra is also cut through on the laterla aspects. He was of the opinion that the deceased appeared to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury on the neck involving the major blood vessels of neck, and it would have occurred 12 to 24 hours prior to autopsy. Ex. P.-3 is the Post Mortem Certificate. M. Os. 2 and 8 were recovered from the dead-body and they were produced in the police station. ( 6 ) ON 29-7-1982 the Accused surrendered before the court. The material objects sent to the court were sent to the Chemical Examiner for Chemical Analysis along with the letter Ex. P-9. Ex. P.-10 is the report received from the Chemical Examiner while Ex. ( 6 ) ON 29-7-1982 the Accused surrendered before the court. The material objects sent to the court were sent to the Chemical Examiner for Chemical Analysis along with the letter Ex. P-9. Ex. P.-10 is the report received from the Chemical Examiner while Ex. P.-12 is the report from the serologist. P. W. 12 in the transfer of P. W. 11 took up further investigation in the matter and laid the charge- sheet on 31-10-1983 before the Court. ( 7 ) WHEN questioned under Section 313 Cr. P. C. the accused denied the occurrence. He did not examine any defence witness on his behalf. ( 8 ) LEARNED Sessions Judge alter careful consideration of the evidence let in, came to the conclusion that the charge against the accused has been proved and therefore convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. ( 9 ) THE only point to be decided by the Court is whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable court. ( 10 ) THE prosecution has let in evidence P. Ws. 1 to 3 to prove the occurrence. As far as the motive is concerned it has been established that P. W. 2, sister of P. W. 1, wife of the deceased was living with ha parents. As a result, certain misunderstandings arose between the deceased and the Accused in this case. Admittedly, P. W. 2 was not living in good terms with the accused and on the other hand she was living with her parents in the family of the deceased. Evidently, this was not liked by the accused. Apart from that he had lurking suspicion that P. W. 2 was having illegal intimacy with the deceased. Therefore he filed a, materimonial petition before the Civil Court at Tenkasi for restitution of conjungal rights. When P. W. 2 received a notice from the Advocate for the accused and a notice from the court, the deceased took her to Tenkasi and engaged P. W. 5 as her Advocate. A vakalath was also given by P. W. 5 which has spoken about the said proceedings. Therefore naturally the Accused was inimically disposed towards the deceased. This has been spoken to by P. Ws. 1 and 2. As a matter of fact it has not been denied that P. W. 2 was living with her parent and the deceased. A vakalath was also given by P. W. 5 which has spoken about the said proceedings. Therefore naturally the Accused was inimically disposed towards the deceased. This has been spoken to by P. Ws. 1 and 2. As a matter of fact it has not been denied that P. W. 2 was living with her parent and the deceased. In so far as certain monetary transactions between the Accused and the deceased, is concerned, it was argued on behalf of the Accused that it was not stated in the first information report and that it is a later development in the prosecution case. Therefore, that aspect of the matter need not be seriously taken note of. Even ignoring that aspect of the motive, we find that the Accused had sufficient motive against the deceased in this case. ( 11 ) IT is not in doubt that the deceased died as a result of the injury sustained by him on the date of the occurrence. The prosecution has examined P. W. 4 the Doctor who had conducted the Post Mortem. He found a cut injury extending from a point 1 lateral to Thyroid notch on the right side of the neck, to a point in the mid line on the nape of neck at C-4 level, and also major blood vessels of the neck are cut through along with the vessels C-4 Vertebra is also cut through on the lateral aspects. He was of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury on the neck involving the major blood vessels of Neck. As a matter of fact, counsel of death has not been disputed by the learned counter for the accused. Therefore the only question is whether the accused has committed the murder in this case. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel for the Accused strenuously contended that there is absolutely no witness in this case and therefore the interested testimony of P. Ws. 1 and 2 cannot be accepted. He pointed out that even according to the prosecution they went outside the house after hearing the noise and they could not have seen the Accused, cutting the deceased. Similar is the evidence of P. W. 3 who is a neighbour it is the specific case of P. Ws. 1 and 2 cannot be accepted. He pointed out that even according to the prosecution they went outside the house after hearing the noise and they could not have seen the Accused, cutting the deceased. Similar is the evidence of P. W. 3 who is a neighbour it is the specific case of P. Ws. 1 to 3 that they heard the noise of the deceased, stating that (Sic being in other local language ). Immediately hearing the said noise, all the three witnesses rushed to the scene and saw the accused moving away from the scene of the occurrence with an Aruval in his hand. In the circumstances it is too much to say that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 is not sufficient to prove that was the accused who had cut the deceased. Learned counsel further submitted that, the deceased person shouted by mentioning the name of the Accused is only an after thought, in order to establish the identity of the Accused. According to him, the medical evidence shows that major blood vessels of the neck are cut through along with the vessels C-4 Vertebra is also cut through on the lateral aspect In those circumstances it was not possible for the deceased either to talk or to raise alarm as stated by eyewitnesses. But we find from the evidence of the Doctor that it was possible for the deceased to talk or raise alarm before his death. It is not possible to ignore the said explanation of the Medical Examiner that the deceased could have raised alarm on receiving injury. It is quite possible that the infliction of the injury and raising of the alarm should have been simultaneous, and such a possibility cannot be over-ruled in a case like this. If that is so P. Ws. 1 to 3, who had immediately rushed to the scene, could have seen the Accused leaving the scene of occurrence with the Aruval. We do not find any reason to suspect the testimony of P. Ws. 1 to 3, in this regard, especially when P. W. 3 is a neighbour of the deceased and he is not an interested witness in any manner. Further he had no motive to depose falsely against the Accused. Therefore the evidence of P. W. 3 is totally acceptable. Even to reject the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3, in this regard, especially when P. W. 3 is a neighbour of the deceased and he is not an interested witness in any manner. Further he had no motive to depose falsely against the Accused. Therefore the evidence of P. W. 3 is totally acceptable. Even to reject the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 there are absolutely no grounds except to say that they are close relations of the deceased being wife and sister-in-law. There was no reason why they should falsely implicate the Accused if really somebody else had committed the murder. Therefore we find that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 is totally acceptable and reliable. ( 13 ) A further contention was raised by the learned counsel for the accused stating that the presence of the hurricane light nearby was made out, for the purpose of the case since the investigating officer in this case did not mark the same in the rough sketch or in the observation mahazar prepared by him. According to him the hunicane light has been introduced to explain the possibility of the identification of the assailant by P. W s. 1 and 2. Even though the investigation officer has not shown the presence of the hurricane light in the observation mahazar, we find that it was recovered under the mahazar almost simultaneously. Therefore the mere omission to include in the observation mahazar is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that there could not have been a hurricane light as spoken to by P. Ws. 1 and 2. Apart from that, we find that in the First Information Report given by P. W. 1 there is a special reference to the hurricane light. During night time to have hurricane light is not something unnatural. Further P. W. 3 has categorically deposed that there was electric lights burning nearby and he was able to identify the Accused with the power of the said light. Neither the presence of the electric light nor the identification by P. W. 3 has been questioned during cross-examination of P. W. 3. It should be remembered that P. Ws. 1 to 3 knew the accused even before the occurrence and therefore it was not very difficult for them to identify the accused. Neither the presence of the electric light nor the identification by P. W. 3 has been questioned during cross-examination of P. W. 3. It should be remembered that P. Ws. 1 to 3 knew the accused even before the occurrence and therefore it was not very difficult for them to identify the accused. According to the evidence the accused turned back and saw P. W s. 1 and 2 when they raised the alarm. Therefore we are satisfied with the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 in so far as their identification of the accused in this case as assailant of the deceased is concerned. ( 14 ) LEARNED counsel for the accused submitted that it is quite unnatural for the accused to go in the night and cut the deceased in the presence of P. Ws. 1 to 3. If his intention was to commit the murder without the know ledge of others, it should not have been in the manner alleged by the prosecution. We are not able to accept the said contention. We do not know the mind of the accused at the time when he committed murder. Perhaps he would have thought that he could cut off the deceased and run away before anybody could see, as the deceased was sleeping outside the house on the day of the occurrence. ( 15 ) ON a careful consideration of the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution we are satisfied that the prosecution has proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt and we do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge. 16. In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.