Judgment :- The Appellant/accused who was tried for an offence punishable under S. 302 IPC before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, North Arcot District at Vellore, in S.C. No. 140 of 1988, has come forward with his appeal challenging the Correctness and validity of the Judgment of conviction and sentence rendered against him by the learned Sessions Judge on 24-2-1989, finding him guilty for the offence under section 304(II) IPC and thereby sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. 2. It is stated that one Balakrishnan, examined as P.W. 1 and Chandrasekaran, the deceased are the sons of one Venkatachalam, a resident of Vakkanampatti Village, near Jolarpet were engaged in manufacturing beedies out of the tobacco leaves for the cost of labour being supplied by one Govindaraj of the same Village. The appellant/accused by name Anandan was also doing the same job like P.W. 1 and his brother P.W. 2 is the wife of P.W. 1 P.W. 3 is the elder sister of the above said employer by name Govindaraj and all are the residents of the same village in the same locality. The prosecution claims that there was no prior or existing enmity or misunderstanding among themselves. The occurrence in this case is said to have happened on 2-1-1988 at or about 9.30 p.m., a few feet away from the house of the said Govindaraj. Just before the occurrence, it was stated that P.Ws. 1 and 2 had been to the house of Govindaraj situated in Ariya gounder street, Vakkanampatti, and were talking with P.W. 3 in the front vasal in the shine of the tube light that was on in the street at that time. They were there at that time in order to get the beedi leaves for next day's work. The deceased Chandrasekaran was also waiting to get the beedi leaves from Govindaraj and since he was not available, he was sitting in the pial of the opposite house. At that time, the appellant said to have gone to the said place and asked for the supply of beedi leaves from P.W. 3. P.W. 3 had refused to supply the same for the reason that he had not at ended the work previously and had stated that since her brother Govindaraj was not available, without his consent she would not concede to his request. P.W. 3 had refused to supply the same for the reason that he had not at ended the work previously and had stated that since her brother Govindaraj was not available, without his consent she would not concede to his request. This resulted in a wordy quarrel among the two and at that time it was claimed that the deceased intervened and asked P.W. 3 as to why she was talking with him and directed her to go inside. Accepting this, P.W. 3, went inside the house. After the deceased Chandrasekaran left the place and crossed about 20 to 30 feet from the house of P.W. 3 and when he was nearing the vacant land belonging to one Kottapuliyan, the appellant/accused followed him, pulled his hand from the back and questioned him as to why he supported P.W. 3. When the deceased turned towards the appellant, the appellant took out a knife M.O. 3 from his shirt pocket and stabbed on the chest of the deceased Chandrasekaran. On witnessing this overt act of the appellant, P.Ws. 1 and 2 approached the accused and deceased by shouting. On hearing this shouting, P.W. 3 also came out of the house and saw the injured victim lying on the ground and P.W. 1 pressing a towel on the left chest of the victim. P.Ws.1 to 3 have narrated the said facts in detail. Then, P.W. 1 lifted the deceased upon his shoulder to some distance as the said place was not wide enough for any vehicle to come there but however, in the middle not able to lift him further, he placed the victim in the pial of one Govindasamy where the blood stains were found spread. On getting a car P.Ws. 1 and 2 along with his father brought the injured Chandrasekaran to the Government Hospital, Tiruppattur at about 10 p.m. on that day, where the doctor examined him and found him dead already. Accordingly, his body was placed in the mortuary. P.W. 1 then rushed to Jolarpet Police Station, where P.W. 10, the Sub Inspector of Police, at about 11 p.m. on that day received the complaint Ex. P. 1 given by P.W. 1 and registered it in Jolarpet P.S. Crime No. 2 of 1988 for the offence under S. 302 IPC and prepared the printed FIR Ex. P.W. 1 then rushed to Jolarpet Police Station, where P.W. 10, the Sub Inspector of Police, at about 11 p.m. on that day received the complaint Ex. P. 1 given by P.W. 1 and registered it in Jolarpet P.S. Crime No. 2 of 1988 for the offence under S. 302 IPC and prepared the printed FIR Ex. P. 2 and then sent the FIR and express report to the Court and higher officials and proceeded to the scene of crime immediately. 3. P.W. 11 the Inspector of Police, Jolarpet Circle, on getting the information of the registering of this Case at about 1 a.m. on 3-1-1988 took up investigation and had been to the scene of Crime. At about 4 a.m. in the presence of P.W. 9 and another Govindasamy, he has inspected the scene of Crime and prepared the observation mahazar Ex. P. 15 attested by the said two persons. The rough sketch prepared by him regarding the topography of the scene of crime has been marked as Ex. P. 17. Then, at about 5 a.m. from the pial of the house of one Govindasamy P.W. 11 recovered the blood stained portion of the cement flooring M.O. 6 and the sample cement mortar M.O. 7 under the cover of Ex. P. 16 test by P.W. 9 and another. Then, he had been to the Government Hospital, Thiruppattur and where he conducted the inquest over the corpse between 6 a.m. and 8 a.m. in the presence of Panchayatdars and prepared the inquest report Ex.P. 18. He examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and others during the inquest. Then, with a requisition Ex.P. 5 to conduct the autopsy over the dead body, he has despatched the same to the doctor through P.W. 7. On getting the requisition along with the dead body through P.W. 7, P.W. 6 Dr. Selvarajan, attached to the Government Hospital, Tiruppattur, conducted the autopsy over the dead body at about 10.30 a.m. on 3-1-1988 and during the autopsy, he found the following injuries upon the deceased. "External wounds A triangular stab wound seen over left side of chest near left shoulder below collar bone. Selvarajan, attached to the Government Hospital, Tiruppattur, conducted the autopsy over the dead body at about 10.30 a.m. on 3-1-1988 and during the autopsy, he found the following injuries upon the deceased. "External wounds A triangular stab wound seen over left side of chest near left shoulder below collar bone. Oozing of blood stained fluid seen through it." The wound is over 2nd left inter-costal space with a depth of 12 cms." On dissection it was found that the said wound is extending towards the skin to the 2nd inter-space close to sternum on left side and there was no fracture of ribs. Internally the pulmonary artery tissues showed a 1 cm. tear through which blood was seen pouring out. The pericardial sac was filled with blood. Lungs and heart were not damaged and blood stains were seen over them. The wounds over skin, 2nd interspace and pulmonary artery (12 cm long) fell in one straightline. 4. The doctor was of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to damage to pulmonary artery about 12 to 14 hours prior to post-mortem. Ex. P. 6 is the post-mortem certificate given by him. He would opine further that the injury found upon the person of the deceased could have been caused by a weapon like M.O. 3 and that from the nature of the injury found sustained the possibility of more blood coming out is ruled out. He would claim further that the stagnation of the blood inside was very much identified and from this very nature, it may not be possible for all the blood to come out immediately. Except a small oozing therefore, the possibility of large blood coming out was not there according to the. 5. P.W. 7, the Police Constable attached to Jolarpet P.S. would have it that he assisted P.W. 11 the Inspector of Police and he received the requisition and the dead body and handed it over to P.W. 6 and escorted the same during the autopsy and after that recovered M.O. 1 Towel, M.O. 2 dhoti with blue border, M.O. 4 dhoti with green border and M.O. 5 Jatti and handed over them in the Police Station and handed over the body to the relatives of the deceased. 6. 6. P.W. 11 examined one P.W. 4, who belongs to Poosarivattam Village, who is said to have seen the appellant/accused at about 10.30 p.m. on 2-1-1988 and before whom the appellant gave an extra-judicial confession after getting some water for drinking. The claim of P.W. 4 was that on the night of 2-1-1988 when he returned to his home after seeing a film, he was called by the accused and when he came out, he was asked to give some water for the accused and when the accused was found with heavy breathing and when questioned as to why, he had confessed that he had stabbed the deceased with M.O. 3 to the backdrop of the prosecution story. After recording his statement, P.W. 11 sent Ex. P. 7 requisition to the Court to send the case properties for chemical examination. He came to know that the accused had surrendered before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri. He got the custody of the appellant/accused by virtue of an order from Judicial Magistrate Tiruppattur on 19-1-1988. At about 2 p.m. on that day, he brought the appellant to the Police Station and when he examined him in presence of witnesses, it was claimed that the appellant/accused volunteered a confession statement and accordingly, the appellant took P.W. 11, P.W. 5 and another to the foot of Elagiri Hills and took out M.O. 3 knife from underneath a rock and produced it to the Inspector of Police, who recovered it at about 3 p.m. under the the cover of mahazar Ex. P. 4, which was also subjected to chemical examination subsequently. The admissible portion of the confession alleged to have been given by the appellant has been marked as Ex. P. 3. 7. P.W. 8 is the Head Clerk attached to the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Tiruppattur, has claimed that on 4-1-1988 he received Ex. P. 7 the requisition from P.W. 11 to send M.Os. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 for chemical examination and accordingly, on the directions of the Judicial Magistrate, he sent them under the original of the covering letter Ex. P. 8 and received Ex. P. 9 and Ex. P. 10, the report of the Chemical Examiner and Serologist. M.O. 3 was also subjected to chemical examination pursuant to Ex. P. 11, requisition given by P.W. 11 on 20-1-1988 under the covering letter Ex. P. 12. P. 8 and received Ex. P. 9 and Ex. P. 10, the report of the Chemical Examiner and Serologist. M.O. 3 was also subjected to chemical examination pursuant to Ex. P. 11, requisition given by P.W. 11 on 20-1-1988 under the covering letter Ex. P. 12. The Chemical Examiner's report and serologist's report was Ex. P. 13 and Ex.P. 14 respectively. Having thus completed the investigation by examining the witnesses and other formalities of investigation, P.W. 11 has filed the final report against the appellant for the offence under S. 302 IPC on 16-12-1988 before the Judicial Magistrate's Court. 8. When the appellant/accused was examined under section 313(a)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of the incriminating circumstances available against him in evidence, he had denied his complicity in the crime but however did not choose to examine any witnesses on his behalf. 9. Having recorded the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 11 and the documentary evidence Ex. P. 1 to Ex. P. 18 with the material objects M.Os. 1 to 7, in the context of the defence of total denial and considered the pros and cons of the whole case and the established circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge has found the appellant/accused not guilty for the offence under section 302 IPC but however, has held that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused/appellant for the offence under section 304 Part II I.P.C. and consequently, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years on 24-2-1989. Aggrieved at this, the present appeal is being canvassed. 10. I have heard the Bar for the appellant challenging the very correctness and validity of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and the learned Government Advocate for the Courts justifying the same. Both however relied on the adduced legal evidence and the various findings given by the learned trial Judge. 11. In the context of the above rival position, the only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the impugned judgment rendered by the learned trial Judge is vitiated for the reason of any laches or mis-appreciation of the evidence adduced and whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond the realm of doubt. 12. In the context of the above rival position, the only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the impugned judgment rendered by the learned trial Judge is vitiated for the reason of any laches or mis-appreciation of the evidence adduced and whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond the realm of doubt. 12. It is not in controversy that the prosecution witnesses except P.W. 4 and the deceased and accused are the residents of the same locality and that P.Ws. 1 and 2 with the deceased and accused were all engaged in manufacturing the beedi out of the beedi-leaves supplied by one Govindaraj for the cost of labour and all of them were living with their family in the locality of Vakkanampatti village. It is also not in dispute that the occurrence in this case, as claimed by the prosecution has happened at or about 9.30 on 2-1-1988 in the place where it was claimed to have occurred. Ex. P. 1 the complaint as well the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 on the one hand and the evidence given by P.W. 6 the doctor coupled with the Investigating Officer and P.W. 7 unassumingly establish the fact that the deceased Chandrasekaran has breathed his last due to the one stab injury caused upon his chest, which penetrated his internal organ without producing much of the blood being oozed out and that therefore the prosecution had established the one fact that the deceased Chandrasekaran was done to death by homicidal violence on the day and time claimed by the prosecution, and to this extent canalising the evidence of the entire prosecution is found to be acceptable as a whole. The only question that remains to be seen is whether the appellant/accused had any complicity in causing such homicidal violence. The answer for this question is available instantly from the consistent claim of P.Ws. 1 and 2 on the one hand with the res gestae narration of P.W. 3 on the other hand. True, it is a fact that P.Ws. 1 and 2 are husband and wife and P.W. 1 belongs to the same blood of the deceased through their father one Venkatachalam but to say that they are interested, it is noticed that P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have no axe to grind against the appellant/accused for any reason at any point of time. 1 and 2 are husband and wife and P.W. 1 belongs to the same blood of the deceased through their father one Venkatachalam but to say that they are interested, it is noticed that P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have no axe to grind against the appellant/accused for any reason at any point of time. While it was said that all of them were engaged in the same business and avocation with no bickerings, misunderstanding or enmity, one would find it very difficult to expect P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 to have animosity in their mind in roping the accused/appellant falsely in this murder case. Mere interestedness or close blood relationship of the prosecution witnesses by themselves do not inspire any lack of confidence save when it was found tainted with any animosity or grudge to do so. In a similar way, the evidence of P.W. 3 also stands in a different footing but however in a very comfortable position to be believed. In short to say, there is no reason at all whatsoever found available to suspect or discredit the claim of P.W. 1 to 3 identifying the specific overt act of the accused/appellant in causing the fatal injury to the deceased. In the light of the naturality, the sequence, cogency and the preponderence of probability with the attendant circumstances, I fully subscribe my view with the findings of the learned trial Judge in believing the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 as a whole. With the result, I also hold that the prosecution had succeeded in its mission of establishing the complicity of the appellant/accused in the instant case. 13. P.W. 5 and 6 and 7 are not expected to assume any significant factor in this case except to provide a link in the investigation and to perfect the same before the Court of law. With regard to the extra-judicial confession claimed by P.W. 4 and P.W. 11 and the alleged recovery of M.O. 8 by P.W. 11 pursuant to the so-called confession given by the accused, as was demonstrably held by the learned Sessions Judge. I am also not in a position to accept the same and accordingly, reject the said claim of the prosecution. 14. I am also not in a position to accept the same and accordingly, reject the said claim of the prosecution. 14. Even then, after ignoring or eschewing the above said aspects, investigation done in the instant case is found to have been correct and there appears to be no delay in setting the law in motion. There are no serious laches in the investigation done by P.W. 11. In all to say, by the accounting of the eye-witnesses spoken to by P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the res gestae narration of P.W. 3 with regard to the circumstances prior and subsequent to the occurrence coupled with and substantiated by medical evidence through P.W. 6 as well as P.W. 11, the Inspector of Police by means of his investigation, it has been clearly established that the appellant/accused by his overt act alone caused the fatal injury to the deceased Chandrasekaran, which made him to succumb for the same, which resulted in the prosecution succeeding in its mission of establishing the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond all reasonable doubts. 15. The very attempts and efforts taken by the Bar for the appellant to create a doubt in the mind of the Court on basis of certain improbabilities and conjectures do not in my considered view render any help to improve the defence theory and therefore, their efforts are hereby rejected. 16. Coming to the adequacy and quantum of sentence, I have to necessarily accept the finding of the learned trial Judge for the simple reasoning that the unfortunate occurrence had happened all of a sudden out of sudden fashion. There appears to be no enmity or pre-existing bickering among the accused and the prosecution witnesses. In the absence of any pre-mediation and the sudden happening of the occurrence itself, I feel the finding of the learned trial Judge to be perfectly justifiable and can be accepted totally. I have no quarrel in accepting the finding of the learned trial Judge that the offence committed by the appellant/accused is culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Therefore, the conviction and sentence rendered against the appellant for the offence under section 304 Part II IPC with the quantum of rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years is held adequate and sufficient and can be justified from any point of view. Therefore, the conviction and sentence rendered against the appellant for the offence under section 304 Part II IPC with the quantum of rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years is held adequate and sufficient and can be justified from any point of view. There are no laches of any kind nor any excess found in the impugned judgment in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence committed by him. In short, for the various reasonings and observations and finding given by the learned trial Judgment, the impugned judgment has to be confirmed into as the present appeal has no merits at all. 17. In the result, for all the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. The Judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, North Arcot District at Vellore in S.C. No. 140 of 1988 on 24-2-1989, is hereby confirmed in toto.