Judgment :- T. JAYARAMA CHOUTA, J. The appellant Rajangam who has been tried for an offence of murder of one Natarajan by the Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam in Sessions Case No. 41 of 1987 and who has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by judgment dated 17-11-1987 has filed this appeal challenging the said conviction and sentence. 2. The prosecution case in brief for the purpose of disposal of the criminal appeal is as follows : The accused Rajangam and the deceased Natarajan were residents of Sivaramapuram in Mayiladuthurai within Kuttalam Police Station jurisdiction. The accused was a resident of Tanjore and he came and settled down in the said village since ten years. One Dhindan had leasehold right of fishing and he had not submitted the report relating to that properly and hence, there was a case against him for defalcation. A Panchayat was held in which the Panchayatdhars decided that the said Dhindan should be excommunicated and the Villagers should not help him in any way. A few days earlier to the occurrence (occurrence took place on 14-11-1986), a tree belonging to the said Dhindan had fallen into the compound of the deceased Natarajan. He asked Dhindan to remove the fallen tree and in that process, the deceased and his brother P.W. 1 have rendered their services for the removal of the said tree. This made the villagers, the accused in particular, to get infuriated against the deceased and P.W. 1. 3. On the date of the incident, i.e. on 14-11-1986 at about 12.00 midnight the accused went to the house of the deceased and called him to come out of the house asking him how he could render his services to the said Dhindan. P.W. 1 who is the brother of the deceased Natarajan heard this shout from his house. P.W. 2 is the wife of the deceased; P.W. 3 is the daughter of the deceased; P.W. 4 is the cousin of the deceased who is residing near the house of the deceased and P.W. 5 is the son of the deceased. Hearing the shout of the accused, all these people woke up and came out. P.W. 1 tried to pacify the accused and asked him not to shout and told him to come on the next day. However, hearing the shout, the deceased, who was inside the house came out and questioned the accused. Hearing the shout of the accused, all these people woke up and came out. P.W. 1 tried to pacify the accused and asked him not to shout and told him to come on the next day. However, hearing the shout, the deceased, who was inside the house came out and questioned the accused. Then he went to a distance, near the house of one Narayanasamy and sat for answering the call of the nature. At that time, the accused followed him and cut him with aruval on his neek, scalp, cheeks, chin and thigh. P.Ws. 1 to 5 who were present there took the injured in a ear to the Kuttalam Government hospital. P.W. 10 the doctor attached to them Government Hospital, Kuttalam treated the injured and since the condition of the injured was serious, suggested the injured to be removed to Mayiladuthurai Government Hospital. Accordingly, the injured was shifted in a taxi to the Mayiladuthurai Government Hospital, wherein the doctor suggested that he should be shifted to Tanjore Government Hospital for treatment. On the way to Tanjore, 15-11-1986 at about 5.15 a.m. he succumbed to the injuries. P.W. 1, the brother of the deceased, went to Mayiladuthurai police station and gave a complaint Ex.P. 1 before P.W. 11 the Sub Inspector of Police. On the basis of the said complaint Ex.P. 1 he registered a case in crime number 272 of 1986 for an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He prepared the first information report Ex.P. 12 and sent the same to his superiors as well as to the jurisdictional Court. P.W. 12 took the said first information report and forwarded the same before the Judicial Magistrate, Mayiladuthurai which was received by the Court at 9.00 a.m. P.W. 16 the Investigating Officer, on receipt of the said complaint went to the scene of occurrence and prepared the observation Mahazar Ex.P. 2 in the presence of P.W. 7. he also held inquest over the dead body and prepared a report Ex. P. 10 and during the course of inquest he recorded the statements of some of the witnesses. He made arrangements for the post mortem examination of the dead body through P.W. 14. The doctor P.W. 15 conducted autopsy at 11.30 a.m. on 16-11-86 and noticed the following injuries : 1. P. 10 and during the course of inquest he recorded the statements of some of the witnesses. He made arrangements for the post mortem examination of the dead body through P.W. 14. The doctor P.W. 15 conducted autopsy at 11.30 a.m. on 16-11-86 and noticed the following injuries : 1. An oblique cut wound seen over the right lower jaw 4 x 1 x 1/2 cms. 2. A linear cut wound seen over the right side of face from 2.5 cms. to the lateral right area of the nose extending upto the 1 cm. below the lower part of the right ear involving the lobe of the right ear 15 x 4 x bone deep with fracture of the mandible. 3. An oblique cut wound over the right temporal region 12 x 1 x bone deep with involvement of the skin over upper lobe. 4. A curved cut wound over the right parietal region 6 x 2 x bone deep with fracture of parietal bone. 5. An oblique cut wound over the left parietal region 8 x 1/2 x bone deep. 6. An oblique cut wound left cheek 6 x 2 x bone deep with involvement zygomatic bone. 7. A cut wound seen over the back of right side neck 8 x 1/2 x 1/4 cms. at its middle. 8. A cut wound seen over the right thigh middle 5 x 1/2 x 1/2 cms. on reflection of the scalp a contusion seen over the right parieto temporal and occipital regions multiple fracture fragments of the right parietal bone 7 x 5 cm brain exposed." He furnished his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of multiple injuries and head injury sustained by him and he issued the certificate Ex.P. 20. P.W. 16 arrested the accused on 16-11-1986 and on his statement seized M.O. 1 aruval. He also seized Dhothi of the accused in the presence of the witnesses. After completing investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused. 4. The Sessions Judge framed charges for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the accused pleaded not guilty. On behalf of prosecution P.Ws. 1 to 16 were examined, Exs. P 1 to P 22 were marked and M.Os. 1 to 9 were produced before the Court. No witness nor document was produced on behalf of the defence. On behalf of prosecution P.Ws. 1 to 16 were examined, Exs. P 1 to P 22 were marked and M.Os. 1 to 9 were produced before the Court. No witness nor document was produced on behalf of the defence. The plea of the accused was that he was not guilty. The Sessions Judge, after completion of trial and after putting the incriminating circumstances which were against the accused recorded his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. 5. We heard the learned advocate on behalf of the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent. They took us through the oral evidence and through the relevant documents. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the Court below was not justified in placing reliance on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 who were the eye-witnesses to the incident and close relations to the deceased, to convict the appellant without there being any independent witness. His further submission was that there was a delay in lodging the first information report and the said delay has not been properly explained by the prosecution. He also contended that the Sessions Judge was not justified in placing reliance on the recovery of M.O. 1 at the instance of the accused. He also brought to our notice that there was no motive for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased, in view of the admission of the prosecution witnesses. His last submission was that in case the Court comes to the conclusion that it was the accused, who had committed the offence, the punishment awarded to the accused should be reduced by bringing the offence under a different section. 6. We heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on these points. He submitted before us that the Sessions Judge was justified in placing reliance on the evidence of these witnesses. According to him, they are the natural witnesses, whose presence at the time of incident cannot be disputed. The incident took place in front of the house of the deceased wherein P.Ws. 2, 4 and 5 were residing and P.W. 1 was residing just opposite to the house of the deceased. Similarly, P.W. 4 is also a neighbour being the cousin of the deceased. Their presence at the time of the incident cannot be doubted. The incident took place in front of the house of the deceased wherein P.Ws. 2, 4 and 5 were residing and P.W. 1 was residing just opposite to the house of the deceased. Similarly, P.W. 4 is also a neighbour being the cousin of the deceased. Their presence at the time of the incident cannot be doubted. He further pointed out that the incident had taken place on 14-11-1986 and the accused was arrested on 16-11-1986 and at his instance, M.O. 1 the knife, which contained human blood was recovered and also that knife contained the blood group of the deceased. Similarly, the dhothi which was seized from the person of the accused also contained human blood. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there was no delay in lodging the complaint. The deceased died at 5.30 a.m. and the complaint was lodged at 7.30 a.m. in the police station which was received by the Court on 9.00 a.m. The Sessions Judge placing reliance on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 and the complaint in which the names of all the eye witnesses find a place, has come to the conclusion that it was the accused who had committed the murder of Natarajan and convicted him. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor the Sessions Judge has considered all these aspects and has come to the correct conclusion in holding that it was the accused who had committed the murder of Natarajan. 7. Let us examine the case in the light of the arguments advanced on both sides and on the materials placed before the trial Court. 8. It was not disputed either before the trial Court as well as before us that Natarajan met with the homicidal death in view of the evidence of P.W. 15 the doctor and Ex.P. 20 the certificate issued by him, wherein it is stated that the injuries sustained by the deceased were responsible for the death of the deceased Natarajan. 9. The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of the eye-witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 5. According to their version at midnight of 14-11-1986 when they were inside the house, the accused came there and started shouting at the deceased saying that he has rendered assistance to the said Dhindan. At that time the deceased was inside. P.W. 1 was also inside his house. 1 to 5. According to their version at midnight of 14-11-1986 when they were inside the house, the accused came there and started shouting at the deceased saying that he has rendered assistance to the said Dhindan. At that time the deceased was inside. P.W. 1 was also inside his house. He came out and tried to pacify the accused saying that it can be settled on the next day. The accused did not hear the advice of P.W. 1 and was continuously shouting. At that time, P.W. 2 who is the wife of the deceased, P.W. 3 the daughter of the deceased and P.W. 5 the son of the deceased came out of the house. P.W. 4 also came out of his house. They all witnessed the accused shouting. Hearing the said shouting the deceased Natarajan came out of the house and questioned the accused why he was shouting. He also went to a distance, near the house of one Narayanasamy and answered the call of nature. At that time, the accused, went there and cut him on his head, neck, thigh and in other parts of the body with aruval that he was carrying. Immediately, P.Ws. 1 to 5 shifted him in a car to the Kuttalam Government Hospital where first aid was given and he was asked to be shifted to Mayiladuthurai Government Hospital. Accordingly, in a taxi the injured was shifted to Mayiladuthurai Government Hospital and there the doctor suggested the injured to be taken to Tanjore. On the way to Tanjore, at 5.30 a.m. the injured succumbed to the injuries. P.W. 1 went to the police station and lodged a complaint as per Ex.P. 1 at 7.30 a.m. These witnesses have consistently narrated the incident and they have been cross-examined at length by the defence. Nothing useful has been elicited during the course of cross-examination to discard the evidence of the witnesses. These witnesses are natural witnesses and their presence at the time of occurrence cannot be doubted. In fact, in the cross-examination of P.W. 1 it is stated that on the previous day also the accused came there and shouted at the deceased. The complaint which was given by P.W. 1 contains all the details as spoken to by P.Ws. 1 to 5. Their names were mentioned in the complaint. 10. In fact, in the cross-examination of P.W. 1 it is stated that on the previous day also the accused came there and shouted at the deceased. The complaint which was given by P.W. 1 contains all the details as spoken to by P.Ws. 1 to 5. Their names were mentioned in the complaint. 10. The learned advocate for the appellant argued that there was a delay in lodging the complaint. He pointed out that while taking the injured to the hospital they will have to pass through the Kuttalam Police Station and no complaint was lodged in the said Police Station before going to the Kuttalam Government Hospital. We should bear in mind that the deceased was seriously injured. All the persons who were accompanying the deceased were none other than his close relatives. Their anxiety would be to see that the injured is shifted to the hospital to have medical aid immediately. Only when the doctor pronounced his death at 5.30 a.m. in the morning, P.W. 1 went to the police station and gave a complaint at 7.30 a.m. Hence, there was no delay in lodging the complaint. Even if there was a short delay, the said delay has been explained by the prosecution witnesses. Hence, there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was delay in lodging the complaint. 11. The next submission of the learned advocate for the appellant was that the accused has not selected car time to commit murder of Natarajan and it is hard to believe that during the night at 12.00 he would have come to the house of the deceased to assault him. We do not ? cline to give much importance to the submission whether is would have committed the murder at the day time or not view of the evidence of P.W. 1 to 5, the eye-witnesses, they clearly depose that it was the accused who came to the house of the deceased and assaulted him. In fact P.W. 1 has further admitted in the cross-examination that on the previous night also the accused came to the house and attacked him. The argument of the learned advocate for the appellant that the death of the deceased should not have occurred during night time has to be rejected. 12. His next submission was that the conduct of P.Ws. The argument of the learned advocate for the appellant that the death of the deceased should not have occurred during night time has to be rejected. 12. His next submission was that the conduct of P.Ws. 1 to 5 in simply watching the said occurrence is unnatural. We should not forget the fact that the accused was armed with a deadly weapon, M.O. 1, and the eye witnesses, who were present there, were unarmed and under these circumstances, we cannot expect the witnesses to go to the rescue of the deceased. Hence, there is no force in this contention also. 13. The learned advocate for the appellant further submitted that it is given in the evidence that the accused had motive against P.W. 1 also and that being so, he would not have left P.W. 1 after attacking the deceased. This argument has to force, in view of the fact the accused had come with an idea of attacking the deceased alone. In addition to the version of the eye witnesses, there is evidence pertaining to recovery P.W. 16 the Investigating Officer has stated that he arrested the accused on 16-11-1986 and at his instance he seized M.O. 1 aruval, which contained human blood and the dhothi which the accused was wearing also had human blood. This will add to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5. 14. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that if the appellant had really committed the murder of the deceased, he would have absconded from the place. His arrest within two days in the village next to the village in which the occurrence, took place is only artificial. The Investigating Officer, who had deposed to that effect has not been cross examined on this point. Further, there is evidence of the mahazar witness before whom the said statement was recorded and the M.O. was seized. Hence, this contention of the learned advocate for the appellant has no force. 15. Once we believe the version of P.Ws. 1 to 5 there is no escape for the accused. All those witnesses have consistenly stated that it was the accused, who had attacked the deceased. The statements are natural and corroborative of each other. Their names are mentioned in the complaint Ex.P. 1. No motive has been suggested for the witnesses to falsely depose against the accused. 1 to 5 there is no escape for the accused. All those witnesses have consistenly stated that it was the accused, who had attacked the deceased. The statements are natural and corroborative of each other. Their names are mentioned in the complaint Ex.P. 1. No motive has been suggested for the witnesses to falsely depose against the accused. The Sessions Judge, who had the benefit of hearing the evidence, placed confidence on their evidence and convicted the accused. No ground is made out to take a different view than the one that was taken by the Sessions Judge. After reassessing the entire evidence on the basis of the arguments of both sides and on the basis of the materials available on record, we are of the opinion that the Sessions Judge is right in convicting the accused. 16. The learned advocate for the appellant, further submitted that the act committed by the accused will not amount to murder, but would come under a lessor offence. We are not prepared to accept this contention. The accused has gone there, assaulted the deceased with the deadly weapon during late night and gave number of injuries on the vital organs of the deceased, when there was no provocation on the side of the deceased. All the while it was the accused who was shouting at him. Hence, we are of the opinion that the act committed by the accused is a clear case of murder. Hence, this contention has also to be negatived. 17. For the reasons stated above, we see no merit in this appeal. Hence this criminal appeal is dismissed. If the appellant is on bail, he has to surrender before the trial Court to undergo the remaining period of imprisonment. Appeal dismissed.