Mrs.A.Subbulakshmy, J.: The accused stands charged for the offences under Secs.302 and 506, Part II, I.P.C. in that on 23.1.1992 at about 6.30 p.m. at Ariyakoundampatti East Street, the accused with the intention of committing murder of one Mallika stabbed her with knife and caused death to her and during the course of the same occurrence, he has also criminally intimidated the witnesses Mahalakshmi and Shanthi by threatening them to cause death or grievous injuries. 2. On the side of prosecution, 13 witnesses were examined and the case of prosecution on the evidence of P.Ws. is as follows: P.W.1 is the aunt of the deceased Mallika. The deceased Mallika is the sister’s daughter of P.W.1. P.W.2 is the sister of the deceased Mallika. After the death of the mother of the deceased, P.W.1 brought the deceased and her sister to her house and she was bringing them up. The deceased was residing in the house of P.W. 1 and her family members. P.W.2 was married to one person at Salem and she did not live with him and she also came back and is residing with P.W.1. The accused is the father of one Kannan for whom the accused negotiated with P.W.1 to get Mallika since deceased married to him. As the said Kannan’s conduct was not satisfactory, P.W.1 refused for the alliance. 20 days prior to the occurrence, marriage of the deceased Mallika was fixed with one Alagesan of Meiyanur village and engagement also had taken place. After some days after the engagement on one Sunday at about 6.00 p.m., the accused came to the house of P.W.1 and asked her as to why she refused to give Mallika the deceased in marriage to his son. P.W.1 stated that she did not like that boy. The accused challenged that as to how the marriage would happen and left that place. Three days thereafter, when the deceased was cleaning vessels in front of P.W.1 house P.W.1 went to take water from a tap which was 25 feet away from her house and at that time the accused had come from his house towards the house of P.W.1 which is about 143 feet away and came near the deceased Mallika. P.W.2 was taking bath at that time in P.W.1’s house. The accused pulled the tuft of the deceased Mallika and stabbed her on stomach with knife M.O.1. P.W.2 was taking bath at that time in P.W.1’s house. The accused pulled the tuft of the deceased Mallika and stabbed her on stomach with knife M.O.1. At that time P.W.1 and her uncle’s daughter P.W.3 came running to the scene of occurrence shouting that P.W.1’s mother also came out. The accused threatened them to stab them also if they go nearer and he has stated that the girl who was not available to his son should not be available for anybody. By uttering these words, the accused stabbed the deceased Mallika with M.O.1 knife on her leg and hand and on hearing the noise of P.W.3 and others, the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. The intestine of the deceased Mallika had come out. P.W.2 who was taking bath inside the house of P.W.1, on hearing the noise, came to the scene of occurrence and found the deceased with bleeding injuries and the intestines having come out. P.W.3 also witnessed the occurrence. P.W.1 and others pushed the intestine of the deceased inside the stomach and covered it with saree and bed sheet on her stomach. and took her in an auto to Salem Government Hospital. The father of the deceased who had come there accidentally and one Perumayi took the deceased to the hospital in an auto. P.W.1 took another auto and went to the place where her husband was working and she took her husband went to the hospital. By the time. P.W.1 reached the hospital, the deceased Mallika was dead. P.W.8 the doctor who examined the deceased found her dead and sent the death intimation Ex.P-11 and accident report Ex.P-12 to the police. P.W.1 gave complaint to the Suramangalam police station under Ex.P-1. P.W.11 received Ex.P-1, registered it in Crime No.43 of 1991 under Sec.302, I.P.C. prepared F.I.R. Ex.P-15, sent it through P.C. to the court and copies to the concerned authorities. P.W.12 on receipt of the F.I.R. took up investigation, drew rough sketch Ex.P-16, prepared observation mahazar Ex.P-3 in the presence of P.W.4, seized blood stained earth M.O.6, and plain earth M.O.7 under mahazar Ex.P-4 in the presence of witnesses, held inquest on the dead body and prepared inquest report Ex.P-2 examined witnesses and sent the dead body of Mallika for post mortem along with requisition Ex.P-13 through P.W.10. P.W.9 doctor conducted post mortem on the dead body of Mallika and found the following injuries: “(1) An incised wound of irregular shape 1-1/2” deep in right upper arm anteriorly. (2) Punctured wound 2” length depth 6 cm in the right mid auxiliary line of the chest involving 11th rib also. (3) An incised wound in right thigh laterally 2” length involved upto bone deep exposing the bone. (4) Three abraded area of irregular shape above the red injury. (5) An incised wound in left forearm 6” x 1-1/2” cm muscle deep posteriorly near the elbow. (6) Incised wound 3” length x 1 cm x 1” depth in left anterior aspect of forearm. (7) In left hypochondrium region adjoining lumbar region an incised wound 8” x 2 cm through which intestines seen protruding outside. (8) In left limber region - an incised wound 6” x 1 cm x 2”. (9) An irregular incised wound extends 12“from Sub umbical region to medial aspect of left thigh abdominal sub cutaneous tissue exposed and Muscle deep in thigh left thigh lateral aspect 1” x 1 cm” muscle deep.” The doctor has issued Ex.P-14, post-mortem certificate gave opinion that the deceased would have died due to shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries caused to her and the injuries are possible by stabbing with M.O.1 knife, He has also stated that the Injury in the liver in due to causing of injury No.2 and death would have caused due to injury Nos.7 and 8. After the post mortem, P.W.10 recovered the dresses worn by the deceased. P.Ws.5 and 6 produced the accused with the knife M.O.1 on 30.1.1991 and P.W.12 recovered it under form No.95 Ex.P-17 attested by P.Ws.5 and 6. P.W.12 sent the M.Os. to court and gave requisition Ex.P-7 for sending them for chemical analysis. P.W.7 the head Clerk of the Magistrate Court, Thiruchekodu, on receipt of the M.Os. along with Ex.P-7, sent the M.Os.1 to 7 along with the court letter Ex.P-8 for chemical analysis and received the chemical analysis report Ex.P-9 and serological report Ex.P-10. P.W.13, after completing the investigation, laid charge sheet against the accused. 3. P.W.7 the head Clerk of the Magistrate Court, Thiruchekodu, on receipt of the M.Os. along with Ex.P-7, sent the M.Os.1 to 7 along with the court letter Ex.P-8 for chemical analysis and received the chemical analysis report Ex.P-9 and serological report Ex.P-10. P.W.13, after completing the investigation, laid charge sheet against the accused. 3. Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem conducted the trial and found the accused guilty under Secs.302 and 506, Part II (two counts) and convicted and sentenced the accused for life imprisonment for the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. and R.I. for two years under each of the counts under Sec.506, Part II, I.P.C. and the sentence to run concurrently. 4. The present appeal is directed by the appellant/accused against that conviction and sentence. 5. Point for consideration is whether the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge is sustainable. 6. According to the prosecution, the accused with the intention of causing death to one Mallika stabbed her and caused death to her and in the course of same offence, he criminally intimidated the eye witnesses P.Ws.2 and 3 by threatening them to cause death or stab injuries. 7. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of eye witnesses regarding the place of occurrence is not corroborated on account of absence of blood stains in the place of occurrence and the evidence of eye witnesses is also not corroborated by the evidence of the doctor P.W.9 who conducted post mortem and the eye witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 have also not mentioned the name of the accused to Perumal father of the deceased who took the deceased to the hospital and so, the evidence of eye witnesses is not reliable, P.Ws.1 to 3 could not have witnessed the occurrence and so, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge is not sustainable. 8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that P.Ws.1 to 3 are eye witnesses and when there is direct evidence available in this case viz., the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 who have witnessed the occurrence, no more corroboration is necessary and the evidence of eye witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 clearly proves the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 9. The deceased is the sister’s daughter of P.W.1. P.W.2 is the sister of the deceased. 9. The deceased is the sister’s daughter of P.W.1. P.W.2 is the sister of the deceased. After the death of the mother of the deceased, P.W.1 was bringing up the deceased and her sister P.W.2. P.W.2 was given in marriage to one person at Salem, but she did not live with him and she came back to P.W.1’s house and was living with her at the time of occurrence. The accused is the father of one Kannan for whom the accused negotiated with P.W.1 to get Mallika since deceased married to him. As the said Kannan’s conduct was not satisfactory, P.W.1 refused for the alliance. P.Ws.2 and 3 have spoken to the same effect. So, it is the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 that there was marriage negotiation to give the deceased in marriage to the accused’s son and P.W.1 did not accept for that. 20 days prior to the occurrence, marriage of the deceased Mallika was fixed with one Alagesan of Meiyanur village and engagement had also taken place. After some days after the engagement on one Sunday at about 6.00 p.m. the accused came to the house of P.W.1 and asked her as to why she refused to give Mallika the deceased in marriage to his son. P.W.1 stated that she did not like that boy. The accused challenged that as to how the marriage would happen and left that place. Three days thereafter, when the deceased was cleaning vessels in front of P.W.1’s house P.W. went to take water from a tap which was 25 feet away from her house and at that time the accused had come from his house towards the house of P.W.1 which is about 143 feet away and came near the deceased Mallika. P.W.2 was taking bath at that time in P.W.1’s house. The accused pulled the tuft of the deceased Mallika and stabbed her on stomach with knife M.O.1 which he was having in his had. P.W.2 was taking bath at that time in P.W.1’s house. The accused pulled the tuft of the deceased Mallika and stabbed her on stomach with knife M.O.1 which he was having in his had. P.W.2 who was taking bath, on hearing the noise came to the scene of occurrence and at that time P.W.3 who was sitting outside with child also came running to the scene of occurrence shouting that When P.Ws.2 and 3 reached the scene of occurrence, the accused had threatened them that he would stab them also if they go nearer and stating that the girl who was not available to his son should not be available to anybody, the accused stabbed the deceased Mallika by M.O.1 on her leg, hip, hand and also private part. P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.W.1’s mother also came out. The accused ran away from the place of occurrence. The intestine of the deceased Mallika had come out. P.W.1 pushed the intestine inside the stomach and covered it with saree and bed sheet. The father off the deceased who had accidentally came there took the deceased to the hospital in an auto. P.W.1 took another auto and went to the place where her husband was working and she took her husband and went to the hospital. By the time P.W.1 reached the hospital, the deceased Mallika was dead. P. W.8 the doctor who examined the deceased declared her dead. So, P.W.1 gave complaint Ex.P-1 to the police. P.W.2 who was taking bath, on hearing the noise came out and saw the deceased with the intestine having come out. P.W.3 has also seen the accused catching hold of the tuft of the deceased and stabbing her with M.O.1, on her stomach. The evidence of eye witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 clearly proves that the accused stabbed the deceased on her stomach and other parts of the body and caused death to her and also threatened the eye witnesses to the occurrence. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 proves that the accused was aggrieved on P.W.1’s family because she refused to give the deceased in marriage to the son of the accused. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 proves that the accused was aggrieved on P.W.1’s family because she refused to give the deceased in marriage to the son of the accused. The words uttered by the accused at the time of occurrence that the girl who was not available to his son should not be available for anybody, stabbing the deceased Mallika on her stomach due to which act the intestine of Mallika had also come out clearly go to establish that the accused had the intention to do away with the deceased. The motive for doing away with the accused has been clearly established in this case. As P.W.1 refused to give Mallika the deceased in marriage in his son, the accused had intentionally caused death to the deceased by stabbing her with M.O.1 on her stomach. P.W.1 had seen the scene of occurrence. P.W.3 had also seen the accused stabbing the deceased. P.W.2 also immediately after the occurrence has come out and has seen the deceased with the intestine having come out. P.W.3 had also seen the accused with knife in the place of occurrence and he has also threatened P.Ws.2 and 3. P.Ws.1 to 3 eye witnesses have clearly spoken in their evidence that only this accused stabbed the deceased with M.O.1 and caused death to her. P.Ws.2 and 3 have also spoken in their evidence that the accused has also threatened them with dire consequences by keeping M.O.1 knife. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 clearly proves the offences under Sec.506, Part II, I.P.C. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 clearly establishes that the accused with the intention of causing death to the deceased, stabbed the deceased with M.O.1 knife and caused death to her. The words uttered by the accused at the time of occurrence clearly proves the intention of the accused to do away with the accused. The motive for the occurrence has also been clearly spoken by P.Ws.1 to 3. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is cogent and corroborative and their evidence clearly proves that only the accused stabbed the deceased with M.O.1 and caused death to her. The guilt of the accused for the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. and Sec.506, Part II, I.P.C. has been clearly proved by the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. 10. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is cogent and corroborative and their evidence clearly proves that only the accused stabbed the deceased with M.O.1 and caused death to her. The guilt of the accused for the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. and Sec.506, Part II, I.P.C. has been clearly proved by the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. 10. P.W.8 the doctor, immediately, after the deceased was admitted in the hospital, examined her and found her dead and sent the death intimation to the police under Ex.P-11 and gave the accident register copy Ex.P-12. The father of the deceased had taken the deceased to the hospital. He has stated to P.W.8 that one person stabbed the deceased and caused injuries to the her. counsel for the appellant pointed out that the father of the deceased had stated before the doctor as one person stabbed the deceased and he has not mentioned the name of the accused before the doctor P. W.8 in the first instance and it leads to considerable doubt with regard to genuineness of the prosecution case and if really the father of the deceased had known that only this accused had stabbed the deceased, he would have mentioned the name of the accused before the doctor P.W.8 and the non-mentioning of the name of the accused before the doctor P.W.8 vitiates the case of prosecution. 11. Normally, before the doctor, the name of the assailant will not be told, and the doctor would also state as some person, known or unknown person and the name would not be told before the doctor. The father of the deceased had come to the scene of occurrence only after the occurence and he accidentally camethere and P.W.1 has sent the deceased along with him to the hospital in an auto. With anxiety and with such a serious condition of the deceased, the father of the deceased had taken the deceased to the hospital and he would have been very anxious only in admitting his daughter in the hospital and the non-mentioning of the name of the accused before the doctor by the father of the deceased cannot be said to be a serious omission so as to vitiate the case of prosecution. When there is the evidence of eye witnesses available in this case to testify the fact that only this accused stabbed the deceased with M.O.1 and caused death to her, the non-mentioning of the name of the accused by the father of the deceased who had come to the scene of occurrence accidentally will not disprove the case of prosecution. On a perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 we find no reason to reject their testimony. They were present in the scene of occurrence and they have seen the occurrence. They have spoken clearly in their evidence with regard to the occurrence that only this accused stabbed the deceased with M.O.1 and caused death to her. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is cogent, consistent and believable. Their evidence clearly establishes the guilt of the accused in this case. 12. The doctor P.W.9 who conducted post mortem on the dead body of Mallika found on her ten cut injuries. The injuries caused by the accused on the stomach of the deceased was so serious that the intestine had come out. Even the injury on the left thigh was so deep. The deceased had sustained ten injuries throughout her body. The accused stabbed on her stomach, the vital part of the body from which intestine had come out. The nature of injuries caused by the accused on the deceased proves that death had been caused instaneously. The doctor P.W.9 had given opinion that the deceased would have died due to shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained by her. He has issued post mortem certificate Ex.P-14. He has also given opinion that M.O.1 would cause such injuries and the internal injury in the liver is due to injury No.2 and death would have been caused due to injury Nos.7 and 8 and all the injuries cumulatively would have caused death. The medical evidence proves that the accused stabbed the deceased and caused injuries and only due to the injuries caused by the accused, the deceased had died. 13. Counsel for the appellant point out that P.Ws.1 to 3 had spoken that the accused had stabbed the deceased even on her private part, but the doctor did not find any injury on her private part and, so, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is not corroborated by medical evidence. 14. Injury No.8 is injury on the lumbar region. 13. Counsel for the appellant point out that P.Ws.1 to 3 had spoken that the accused had stabbed the deceased even on her private part, but the doctor did not find any injury on her private part and, so, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is not corroborated by medical evidence. 14. Injury No.8 is injury on the lumbar region. Injury No.9 had gone upto muscle deep in the thigh and injury No.10 so also muscle deep injury. Injuries in the lumbar region and thigh portion are below the abdomen. Because the accused had stabbed the deceased on her thigh portion and abdomen portion, the witnesses who were present in the scene of occurrence viz., P.Ws.1 to 3 have stated about the private parts also. The doctor has found injuries in the thigh and abdomen portion. Non finding of any injury in the private part by the doctor will not establish that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 belies the case of prosecution. The doctor has found injury on the thigh and abdomen portion which are almost near the private part. So, the argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant in this aspect does not hold good when there is ample medical evidence to prove that there are injuries near the private part. 15. The defence theory is that one Ducka Ram who was with the son of the accused for effecting radio repair, on seeing that the deceased abusing the son of the accused and pulling him putting a towel on his neck, stabbed the deceased on her abdomen and because of that, the intestine had come out. The defence has examined the son of the accused as D.W.1 and the accused has also stated this in his statement filed during his examination under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. D.W.1 in his evidence states that the deceased Mallika forced him to marry her and pulled his neck by putting a towel on his neck and dragged him for about 20 or 25 feet and at that time the said Ducka Ram who came behind him stabbed the deceased Mallika on her stomach and the intestine had come out and he ran away from that place. D.W.1 further states that he does not know what happened to Ducka Ram and the deceased Mallika thereafter and he went and informed the matter to his father at Mettur who was there. D.W.1 further states that he does not know what happened to Ducka Ram and the deceased Mallika thereafter and he went and informed the matter to his father at Mettur who was there. He further states that on the next day, his father went to Salem junction to give complaint and he accompanied him and after coming to know that the deceased Mallika died, they went to Sooramangalam Police Station to give complaint and they gave complaint and the Inspector of Police asked him to bring the said Ducka Ram and the Inspector has stated that after arrival of the said Ducka Ram, he would be released, When D.W.1 went to bring Ducka Ram, he was not available on his house for three days. 16. If really, the occurrence had happened as stated by D.W.1, he would have immediately given complaint to the police, In the cross examination D.W.1 states that the said Ducka Ram did not stab the deceased with M.O.1 and only on the next day of the occurrence, himself and his father went to the police station. He further states that he informed the matter to Sooramangalam police station on Monday after searching of Ducka Ram for four days for which one constable also accompanied him. But, there is no record to show that D.W.1 also gave complaint and that complaint was registered and the police took up investigation on that case. There is no F.I.R. registered in that regard. So, the evidence of D.W.1 that one constable also accompanied him to search Ducka Ram is not believable. The clear admission by D.W.1 in his evidence that he did not give any complaint to the police authorities or to any higher authorities that only Ducka Ram murdered Mallika and for the first time in the court, he states that Ducka Ram murdered Mallika clearly proves that the version of the defence theory is not true and it cannot be accepted. D.W.1 himself admits in his evidence that Ducka Ram does not know Mallika prior to the occurrence and he belongs to Maharasthra. The said Ducka Ram is not known to Mallika. D.W.1 also has not given any complaint to the police that only Ducka Ram murdered the deceased. He himself has admitted that only for the first time in court, he has stated that Ducka Ram has murdered Mallika. The said Ducka Ram is not known to Mallika. D.W.1 also has not given any complaint to the police that only Ducka Ram murdered the deceased. He himself has admitted that only for the first time in court, he has stated that Ducka Ram has murdered Mallika. The evidence of D.W.1 is not at all believable and his evidence is not entitled to any credence and it has to be thrown out. 17. The evidence on the side of prosecution has clearly proved the guilt of the accused. There is unimpeachable evidence of eye witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 to speak with regard to the occurrence and their evidence clearly proves that only this accused stabbed Mallika on her stomach and other parts of the body and caused death to her. The medical evidence also supports the case of prosecution. The evidence on the side of prosecution has clearly proved he guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 18. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge.