Judgment :- JANARTHANAM, J. The appellant is accused in S.C. 173/87 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai 2. On committal, he was found guilty under S. 302, IPC, convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for life 3. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present action had been resorted to 4. Brief facts are (a) The Scene village Mulliyarendal is situate within the jurisdictional limits of Ilayankudi Police Station, 10 k.ms. on the South west. Munaiventri is an adjacent village situate one mile away from the scene village. These two villages are separated by a lake going by the name Mulliyarendal Kanmoi (b) One Santhiyagu Udayar, (since deceased), a resident of Mulliyarendal is the father of P.W. 1. His wife is one Siranmani. The accused is none else than his brother-in-law, being the brother of his wife. He is a resident of Munaiventri Village. He owns lands in both the villages. He is owning certain holdings of lands of Punja cultivation at Mulliyarendal Kanmoi area. P.Ws. 2 and 3, it is said, also own punja lands owned by the accused in the vicinity of Mulliyarendal Kanmoi lake (c) There is no school at Mulliyarendal Village. There is a Government Higher Secondary School at Munaiventri. P.W. 1 is a school going student. He was then stated to be studying X standard. He used to attend the School at Munaiventri daily by going in his bicycle. He used to park his bicycle in the house of the accused, who is none else than his uncle. In the evening he used to take the bicycle, which had been parked in the house of the accused and return to his village (d) The accused, it is said, has married one Arulmary. The spouses, it is said, did not at all live together and they, in fact, were stated to have been living separately. The accused was stated to be living in his village Munaiventri along with his mother, while his wife Arulmary had been living in her native village Tiruvarangam. It appears mediation efforts were undertaken by the deceased initially and the efforts so taken faced dismal failure. The accused was stated to be living in his village Munaiventri along with his mother, while his wife Arulmary had been living in her native village Tiruvarangam. It appears mediation efforts were undertaken by the deceased initially and the efforts so taken faced dismal failure. Though Arulmary, wife of the accused was living in her native-village, her jewels remained with her husband the accused(e) Some one month prior to the occurrence, which event happened on 16-8-1986, it appears, the accused of his own accord went to Tiruvarangam met his wife there, handed over her jewels and entreated her to come along with him and live in the matrimonial abode. Though his wife accepted the jewels, as returned by her husband the accused, yet she refused to come along and reside with him in his house. The accused appeared to have felt aggrieved with the conduct of his wife in not returning back to the matrimonial abode, not withstanding the fact that he returned the jewels belonging to her. He appeared to have represented this matter to the deceased some 20 days prior to the occurrence and requested him to intervene and settle the dispute between him and his wife. The deceased, it is said, was not at all amenable to such a course. He appeared to have told the accused that since he himself on his own accord returned the jewels to his wife and entreated her to come along and reside with him, he could not interfere when his wife was not willing to reside with him. When the deceased stated so, the accused appeared to have taken it as an affront or insult and since then, there appeared to be some sort of want of cordial atmosphere between them (f) Some three days prior to the occurrence, P.W. 1 as usual went to his school at Munaiventri, parked his bicycle at the house of his uncle the accused, attended the school and returned to the house of the accused in the evening to take back the bicycle parked there, and found to his dismay that the bicycle was missing and when asked, the accused was stated to have given evasive replies. P.W. 1, placed in such a predicament situation, simply returned by walk to his house and apprised this matter to his father the deceased. P.W. 1, placed in such a predicament situation, simply returned by walk to his house and apprised this matter to his father the deceased. Thereafter, some two days passed by and during the two days P.W. 1 was stated to have attended the school by walk(g) On the morning of the third day, i.e., to say on the morning of the day of occurrence, P.W. 1 along with his father the deceased, went to the house of the accused so as to question him as to what had happened to the bicycle of P.W. 1 that had been parked there some three days before. On reaching the house of the accused, the deceased appeared to have asked the accused as to what had happened to the bicycle. The accused initially told the deceased that he knew nothing about the missing of the bicycle. Thereafter, at the mediation of P. W. 5 and one Santhiyagu, the accused after some resistance initially, however retrieved the bicycle, which was kept in the adjacent house and handed over the same to P.W. 1 (h) After the return of the bicycle, P.W. 1 and the deceased appeared to have gone to the bazar for the purpose of purchasing provisions. After purchasing the provisions, P.W. 1 and his father went to their village in the bicycle. P.W. 1 rode the bicycle and the deceased was seated in the pillion of the said bicycle. The time was about 11-00 a.m. then. They were proceeding towards their village. When they covered half of the distance, they were able to sight the accused sitting on the road side culvert, having in his possession M.O. 1 aruval (i) The accused on seeing P.W. 1 and the deceased coming in a bicycle with all sorts of warmth requested the deceased to come along with him to his punja lands, where he had grown Karuvela trees. He appeared to have told the deceased that there was no need at all for P.W. 1 to come along with them and he could proceed to the village in the bicycle. There was some reluctance on the part of the deceased. Such a reluctance exhibited by the deceased was caught over by the accused, in the sense of himself catching hold of his hands and taking him towards his punja lands in the Kanmoi area, where he had grown Karuvela trees. There was some reluctance on the part of the deceased. Such a reluctance exhibited by the deceased was caught over by the accused, in the sense of himself catching hold of his hands and taking him towards his punja lands in the Kanmoi area, where he had grown Karuvela trees. Obviously, the deceased being closely related to the accused, was unable to accede to the request of the accused in seeing the Karuvela trees grown in his punja lands. The deceased then did not appear to have entertained any sort of suspicion on the move of the accused. However, P.W. 1 without making a move towards the village in the bicycle suspecting the move of the accused, halted for some time and followed the deceased, his father and the accused(j) The deceased was going ahead, while the accused was proceeding behind him, followed by P.W. 1. After traversing some distance, all of a sudden and quite unexpectedly, the accused inflicted a cut on the neck of the deceased by means of M.O. 1 aruval and after the receipt of the cut, the deceased fell down. The accused again inflicted indiscriminate cuts on the neck of the deceased and the net result was that the head got severed from the body. It was about 12 noon then. On seeing such a terrific sight, P.W. 1 raised hue and cry, which attracted the attention of P.Ws. 2 and 3, who were then available in their lands. They rushed towards the place and to their dismay, they saw the body of the deceased with the head severed from the trunk. At that time they had the fortuitous opportunity of seeing the accused running towards south with M.O. 1 aruval in his hand. M.O. 2, 8, Cubit dhoty, M.O. 3 shirt and M.O. 4 towel were worn by the deceased then (k) P.W. 1 thereafter went to the village, informed his mother and others as respects the occurrence. P.W. 1 along with his mother and others returned to the scene. When they were available in the scene, one Chinnappa Vathiyar came there and he, in turn, represented to P.W. 1, that it would be better to lodge an information before P.W. 8, the Village Administrative Officer of Mulliyarendal village, residing at Nedunkulam. P.W. 1 along with his mother and others returned to the scene. When they were available in the scene, one Chinnappa Vathiyar came there and he, in turn, represented to P.W. 1, that it would be better to lodge an information before P.W. 8, the Village Administrative Officer of Mulliyarendal village, residing at Nedunkulam. Thereafter, P.W. 1, along with the said Chinnappa Vathiyar, went to Nedunkulam (l) They reached the house of P.W. 8 at 1-00 p.m. P.W. 1 gave a report as respects the occurrence, which was reduced into writing by P.W. 8 as per his narration. Exhibit P.1 is the statement. Exhibit P. 1 had been attested by Chinnappa Vathiyar. Thereafter, P.W. 8 along with Chinnappa Vathiyar went to the scene and had seen the body of the deceased with head separated from the trunk. He prepared a special report, (sic)(m) P.W. 9 was the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Illayankudi police station. At 2-30 p.m. while he was in charge of the police station, he received Exhibits P.1 and P. 9 sent by P.W. 8 through the village menial. On the strength of Exhibit P. 1, he registered a case in Crime No. 214/86 for an alleged offence under S. 302, IPC. Exhibit P. 8 is the printed FIR. He despatched Exhibits P. 1 and P. 8 to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Paramakudi. One Selvaraj was the then Inspector of Police, Ilayankudi Circle. He informed him of the occurrence. At about 3-00 p.m. the said Inspector of Police came to the police station, received the copy of the FIR and took up further investigation of the case. P.W. 9 assisted the said Inspector in his investigation (n) After inspecting the scene, the Inspector prepared Exhibit P. 10 observation Mahazar in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer, P.W. 8. He drew Exhibit P. 14 a rough sketch of the scene. He seized from the scene M.O. 5 blood stained earth under Exhibit P.11 Mahazar. Exhibits P. 10 and P. 11 were attested by P.W. 8. Between 4-30 p.m. and 6-00 p.m., he held inquest over the body of the deceased. During inquest, he examined P.Ws. 1 to 3. Exhibit P. 15 is the inquest report. Thereafter, he examined P.W. 5 and others (o) After the inquest was over, he handed over the body of the deceased to the Constable P.W. 5 along with Exhibit P. 2 requisition. During inquest, he examined P.Ws. 1 to 3. Exhibit P. 15 is the inquest report. Thereafter, he examined P.W. 5 and others (o) After the inquest was over, he handed over the body of the deceased to the Constable P.W. 5 along with Exhibit P. 2 requisition. He then accordingly, handed over the body of the deceased along with Exhibit P. 2 requisition to Doctor P.W. 4, Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to General Hospital, Paramakudi, for the purpose of autopsy (p) P.W. 4 Doctor, in fact, conducted the autopsy at 11-00 p.m. Exhibit P. 3 is the post mortem certificate he issued (q) On 17-8-1986 at 2-00 p.m. the Inspector arrested the accused at the junction of Keezha Nettur. On interrogation, the accused was stated to have voluntarily given a confession statement under S. 27 of the Evidence Act. The admissible portion of the said confession statement is Exhibit P. 12. Pursuant to Exhibit P. 12, the accused took out and produced M.O. 1 aruval, which was kept concealed south of the Kanmoi outlet. The same was seized under Exhibit P. 13 Mahazar. The shirt, which the accused was then found wearing, was found stained with blood. His shirt M.O. 6 was also seized under the cover of Exhibit P. 16 Mahazar. (r) The Inspector then sent Exhibit P. 4 requisition to the Judicial II Class Magistrate's Court Paramakudi for sending the incriminating material objects to the Chemical Examiner for the purpose of analysis(s) P.W. 7 was the then Head Clerk, attached to the Judicial II Class Magistrate's Court, Paramakudi. On receipt of Exhibit P.4 requisition, he separately packed and sealed all incriminating materials, pursuant to the directions of the learned Magistrate and sent the same to the Chemical Examiner for the purpose of analysis under the original of Exhibit P. 5, Office copy of the letter. Exhibits P. 6 and P. 7 are respectively the reports of the Chemical Examiner and the Serologist (t) After completing the formalities of investigation, the Inspector filed the final report under S. 173(2) Cr.P.C., before Judicial II Class Magistrate, Paramakudi on 17-9-1986 for an alleged offence under S. 302, IPC (u) Subsequent to the filing of the charge sheet, the said Inspector of Police expired and P.W. 9 who assisted the Inspector during investigation, had ..... spoken to the aspects of investigation done by the said Inspector 5. spoken to the aspects of investigation done by the said Inspector 5. On committal, learned Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, framed a charge under S. 302, IPC, against the appellant/accused 6. The accused when questioned as respects the charge so framed, denied the same and claimed to be tried 7. The prosecution in proof of the charge so framed, examined P.Ws. 1 to 9, filed Exhibits P. 1 to P. 16 and marked M.Os. 1 to 6 8. The accused, when questioned under S. 313, Cr.P.C. as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, denied his complicity in the crime. He did not opt to examine any witness on his behalf 9. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, after taking into consideration the relevant materials placed on record and after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the accused and learned Public Prosecutor, however, rendered the verdict as stated above 10. Mrs. J. Sundarakanchani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would, with all vehemence submit that motive is after all a desire to activate one to achieve the end desired and the motive ascribed in a criminal case is the touch stone against which quality of the evidence adduced has to be judged to come to a conclusion and viewed in that line, the motive alleged in the case on hand, can by no stretch of imagination, be construed to be of such a magnitude for the accused to go to the extent of murdering the deceased, who is none else than his sister's husband and further when the deceased, an elderly gentleman, having worldly wisdom, could not be expected to have accompanied the accused without understanding the senister purpose, if any, in his mind and to say that P.W. 1, a blossoming youth of about 16 to 17 years at the time of occurrence could not be stated to have had the wordly wisdom and knowledge to suspect the move of the accused, while his father was being taken towards the punja lands, where Karuvela trees were grown and judged in his perspective, it is highly improbable for P.W. 1 to have been present in the scene and had the fortuitous opportunity of witnessing the occurrence 11. Mr. R. Raghupathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, repel such submissions 12. Mr. R. Raghupathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, repel such submissions 12. We may now delve deep into the rival submissions of either counsel and enter into the arena of discussion, in the light of the materials available on record 13. There is no pale of controversy at all that the accused, who married to one Arulmary, belonging to Tiruvarangam, lived for ephemeral moments with his wife and the sordid fact was that the spouses were living separately for more than a decade, ever since the marriage, in the sense of the wife living at her native place Thiruvarangam and the accused living in his village Munaiventri, along with his mother. Yet another fact, about which there is no dispute at all, is that the deceased tried his level best to pacify and settle the dispute between the accused and his wife. The efforts taken by him met with colosal failure and the accused continues to live in his own house separated from his wife. It appears the pangs of separation however was hovering in the mind of the accused 14. After the passage of sands of time, it so struck him that it would be better to live a life with his wife and perhaps towards that end, he thought fit to meet his wife and settle the dispute between themselves without the intervention of anybody and he, in fact, was stated to have gone to the house of his wife some 30 days before the occurrence, met her, handed over her jewels in his possession all along and entreated her to come along and live with him in the matrimonial abode. Though the wife accepted the jewels as returned by the accused, yet she was not at all willing to go and live with the accused. The hopes of the accused to have a life with his wife after long passage of sands of time had been dashed to pieces. The silver lining, in such a hope, did not once and for all fail and therefore, he again sought the helping hand of the deceased to mediate and settle the dispute between him and his wife some 20 days prior to the occurrence. Such a request, emanating from the accused did not at all make the deceased to take a step further in the direction, as desired by the accused. The reason was rather obvious 15. Such a request, emanating from the accused did not at all make the deceased to take a step further in the direction, as desired by the accused. The reason was rather obvious 15. As already stated, the Himalayan efforts taken by the deceased initially to mediate and settle the dispute between the accused and his wife, faced dismal failure only because of the attitude of the accused, in the sense of himself not willing to have an amicable and peaceful matrimonial life with his wife. He allowed the time more than a decade to pass. That apart, even when the accused wanted to return the jewels to his wife and make a request to her to come along and live with him in the matrimonial abode, the accused did not at all seek the help of the deceased. In such a situation, the deceased appeared to have curtly refused the request of the accused in mediating and settling the dispute between himself and his wife, by stating that the accused, who had gone to the house of his wife of his own accord for the purpose of returning the jewels and entreating her for her return to the matrimonial abode alone should solve the tangle and after hearing such a reply naturally the accused felt aggrieved at the act of the deceased 16. Since then, it appears the pent up feelings in his mind had been recoiling and waiting for an appropriate moment to burst up. As quirk of fate would have it, an occasion arose for him to give vent to such feelings in a silent way, when the deceased, along with P.W. 1 went to his house to question him as to the missing bicycle. Initially the accused denied knowledge of the missing bicycle. Some how or other at the mediation effected by P.W. 5 and one Senthiyagu, the respectable persons of the village, the accused was able to retrieve the bicycle, which was kept inside the adjacent house and handed over the same to P.W. 1. The steps taken by the deceased in retrieving the bicycle to P.W. 1 from the accused might appear to be a trivial incident. The steps taken by the deceased in retrieving the bicycle to P.W. 1 from the accused might appear to be a trivial incident. The accused appearing to be fickle minded, perhaps thought it fit, if the bicycle of P.W. 1 was not returned under the pretext or facade of the same missing, there was every likelihood of the deceased coming to his house for retrieving the bicycle 17. As expected, the deceased also went to the house of the accused on the morning of the day of occurrence. When the deceased came to his house, the accused would, however, retrieve the bicycle, kept in the adjacent house and return the same to P.W. 1. Even then, the accused pretended to such an extent thought he did not exhibit his anger towards the deceased for his curtly replying that he would not mediate and settle the dispute between him and his wife and turned him out 18. As the design of plan got exhibited by his awaiting the arrival of the deceased along with P.W. 1 in the very bicycle, he returned, by sitting in a culvert on the road leading to Mulliyarandal. The innocent deceased along with P.W. 1 went to the bazar, purchased provisions and returned to the village by sitting in the pillion of the bicycle ridden by P.W. 1. When P.W. 1 and the deceased approached the culvert where the accused was sitting, the accused, posing an air of innocence, requested the deceased to see the punja lands of his, where he had grown the karuvela trees. The deceased, though a man of worldly wisdom and having mental maturity, was not having the I.Q. to decipher the design and plan of the accused and he simply followed the accused. The I.Q. of P.W. 1, though he was young as a blossoming youth of 16 to 17 years at the relevant time was such to understand the nefarious design or the plan of the accused and he, in fact, did not proceed on his bicycle, though he was asked to do so by the accused and that he did was what after allowing the deceased and the accused to proceed towards the punja lands of the accused, he also accompanied them 19. As anticipated by P.W. 1, the petty-fog mined accused, all of a sudden and quite unexpectedly with M.O. 1 aruval, which he was having in his hand, inflicted a cut on the neck of the deceased and the deceased, after receiving such a cut fell down. The accused was not rest content in inflicting such a cut alone, but he went to the extent of inflicting indiscriminate cuts on the neck of the deceased to such an extent that the head got severed from the trunk. P.W. 1 could not be expected to do anything, except to make a hue and cry, obviously with a view to attract the attention of others to come to the rescue of the deceased and he in fact, did such a thing admirably which attracted the attention of P.Ws. 2 and 3, who were then available in their lands situate adjacent to the lands of the accused. By the time they came, the accused quenched his thrust of vengence against the deceased in severing his head from the body and was actually running towards south with M.O. 1 weapon in his hand. Therefore, they had the fortuitous opportunity of witnessing the accused running from the scene with M.O. 1 weapon and also seeking P.W. 1, having been present, making a hue and cry. In such state of affairs, it cannot at all be stated that there was no motive or desire at all for the accused to murder the deceased and it was quite conceivable in the circumstances as stated above, for P.W. 1, to have been present in the scene and had the fortuitous opportunity of his father being hacked to death by the accused in severing his head from the body 20. The presence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, in the field of the accused at or about the relevant time of occurrence is quite natural and probable. Nothing had been elicited in their cross-examination to make it appear that they, at the relevant point of time could not have been present in their fields. P.Ws. 2 and 3 did not at all state anything except their seeing the accused running away from the scene with M.O. 1. It is well nigh possible for them to depose to the entirety of the occurrence, if they wanted to do so. That they in fact, did not do. P.Ws. 2 and 3 did not at all state anything except their seeing the accused running away from the scene with M.O. 1. It is well nigh possible for them to depose to the entirety of the occurrence, if they wanted to do so. That they in fact, did not do. That itself is proof positive of the fact that they, in fact, said that they had seen and nothing further. Above all, for them, there is nothing to prefer between the accused and the deceased, who are closely related to each other 21. No doubt P.W. 1 is the son of the deceased. It should not be forgotten at this juncture that the accused is his mother's Own brother. P.W. 1 being placed in such a situation, could be stated to be interested in the cause and welfare of his father as well as his uncle, the accused. But for the occurrence having happened as seen by P.W. 1, there is no rhyme or reason to falsely implicate his own mother's brother, leaving out the real assailant. Further, the evidence of P.W. 1, if perused on a broad spectrum analysis, we rather feel, it rings the bell of truth and truth alone 22. The occular testimony of P.W. 1 gets the face lift and credibility by the lending assurance factor of a corroborative support rendered by the medical evidence available on record, in the shape of the testimony of the Doctor P.W. 4, coupled with Exhibit P. 8 post mortem certificate, in the sense of pointing out that the weapon like M.O. 1 Aruval could have been utilised in severing the head of the deceased. There is one more lending assurance circumstance of some significance is the shirt of the accused viz M.O. 6, seized from his person at the time of arrest contains human blood of 'B' group which is the same blood group as that of the deceased, as evidenced by the Serologist's report Exhibit P. 7, thereby indicating his presence and participation in the occurrence 23. From what has been stated above, it is thus crystal clear that it was the hand of the accused that was responsible for inflicting the brutal cuts on the neck of the deceased which resulted in the severence of his head 24. From what has been stated above, it is thus crystal clear that it was the hand of the accused that was responsible for inflicting the brutal cuts on the neck of the deceased which resulted in the severence of his head 24. Normally, after coming to the conclusion in criminal cases that it was the hand of the accused that was responsible for causing the overt acts on the person of the deceased, which resulted in his death, the usual question framed is as to what is the offence that has been committed by the accused. In a case of this nature, when especially the act of the accused, resulted in severing the head of the deceased from its trunk, such a question can never arise for consideration at all and even if it does arise, the only answer is that the overtact of the accused in inflicting indiscriminate cuts on the neck of the deceased by means of a lethal weapon, like M.O. 1 aruval and severing the head, reflects in an unequivocal way, the intention of the accused to murder the deceased bringing his act to come within clause I of S. 300, IPC, thereby liable to be punished under S. 302, IPC. In this view of the matter, the conviction and sentence as had been imposed upon the appellant accused by the court below for the offence under S. 302, IPC. cannot at all be interfered with25. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence, as had been imposed upon the appellant/accused by the Court below for an offence under S. 302, IPC are confirmed.