Judgment :- S.K. Krishnan. J. A.Vijayasankar, the appellant herein, on being aggrieved by the judgment convicting him for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., has filed this appeal. 2. The short facts leading to the conviction could be summarised as follows: a) The deceased Rajendran and P.W.1 Manimegalai got married six years prior to the date of occurrence. Out of the wedlock, two children were born to them. The father of the deceased is one Kandasamy. Vijayasankar, the accused is the son of one Arumugam, who is the younger brother of the said Kandasamy. The accused, a young man, was studying in the school. All are residing in the same village by name Kaveti Ranganpalayam. P.W.1 Manimegalai and her husband deceased Rajendran were engaged in making rope for coconut fibre. The deceased Rajendran and P.W.1 borrowed Rs.1000/- as loan from the accused. A promissory note was executed by the deceased in favour of the accused. b) After some time, the accused demanded for repayment of the loan. The deceased was not able to repay the loan in time. For demanding the loan amount, the accused used to visit the house of P.W.1 frequently in the absence of her husband. When P.W.1 and the deceased were not able to repay the loan, the accused began to pressurise P.W.1 to become his concubine so that he would not demand for the repayment of the loan. Submitting to the pressure, P.W.1, in course of time, developed illicit intimacy with the accused. This illegal affair continued for some time. Later, the deceased came to know about their illicit intimacy. He beat P.W.1 and sent her to her parents' house. The accused used to visit her parents' house also and continue to have relationship. Due to the continued illicit intimacy, a male child was born to P.W.1 and the accused. Without knowing the same, the brother of P.W.1 wanted the deceased to compromise the matter and managed to convince the deceased to allow her to join with him. Accordingly, P.W.1 along with the child joined her husband. c) Even thereafter, the accused used to visit the house of P.W.1 in the absence of the deceased Rajendran. Having got angered by the act of the accused, the deceased approached village Panchayatdars to convene a panchayat. Accordingly, P.W.3, one of the Panchayatdars convened the panchayat and summoned both the accused and P.W.1. c) Even thereafter, the accused used to visit the house of P.W.1 in the absence of the deceased Rajendran. Having got angered by the act of the accused, the deceased approached village Panchayatdars to convene a panchayat. Accordingly, P.W.3, one of the Panchayatdars convened the panchayat and summoned both the accused and P.W.1. When they were enquired in the presence of the villagers, both the accused and P.W.1 confessed that they had illicit intimacy and due to that, the new born child was born to them. Finally, the Panchayatdars decided that the deceased should take care of his two other children born to him and the accused should take the third child and P.W.1 with him and also should pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the deceased. However, at the end of the panchayat, the mother of the accused did not agree for the Panchayatadars' decision and left the panchayat abruptly by taking the accused along with her. d) Five days later, the brother of the accused along with his men came to the house of P.W.1 and attacked P.W.1 by throwing stones on her. With reference to this, a case was registered. She was taken to the Omalur Hospital by the deceased. She was there for about 17 days taking treatment. e) One day prior to the Pongal, i.e. on 15.1.1994, P.W.1 Manimegalai was sitting in the house and grinding out the flour. The deceased also was inside the house. At that point of time, the accused came to the house of the deceased and sitting on the floor, engaged in the conversation with P.W.1. For taking water, a common motor was used by all including the accused and deceased families. The said common motor was under repair. When P.W.1 asked the accused as to why repairing work was not done, the accused stated that each family has to pay Rs.300/- for doing the repair work and it will take one or two days. On hearing those words, the deceased Rajendran found fault with the accused and shouted at him as to why he was asking Rs.300/- for a common motor. P.W.1 asked the deceased as to why he is scolding the accused when he had stated that he would repair the motor within a day or two. On hearing those words, the deceased Rajendran found fault with the accused and shouted at him as to why he was asking Rs.300/- for a common motor. P.W.1 asked the deceased as to why he is scolding the accused when he had stated that he would repair the motor within a day or two. This conduct of P.W.1 in support of the accused, irked the deceased who retaliated by asking as to why she is supporting the accused. Then, he took a sugarcane and beat her three times. Then, the deceased left the house. f) Few minutes later, the accused came near to P.W.1 and told her that she was beaten by the deceased in his very presence and therefore, he would finish off his life. So saying, he left the place. g) After finishing the work, P.W.1 slept inside the house along with her children. The deceased Rajendran slept in front of his house in a coir cot. It was at about 12.00 midnight. On hearing some murmuring noise from outside, P.W.1 woke up and came out of the house and to her shock and surprise, she saw the accused standing near the head of the deceased armed with a crow bar. P.W.1 began to shout. The accused threatened P.W.1 by saying that he has already finished the deceased by beating him and if she cries, she would also be beaten. He further asked P.W.1 to lift the deceased Rajendran in order to drop him into a well. P.W.1 objected to the same. Then, the accused P.W.1 not to divulge about the incident to anybody and asked for a promise under threat. She promised for the same out of fear. Then, the accused left the crowbar at the scene and went away. h) Thereafter, P.W.1 informed the neighbours P.W.6 and others. They applied some oil on the head of the deceased and bandaged the injury and information was sent to P.W.1's father-in-law and mother-in-law. Since it was mid night and they had no money, they decided to take the victim, the injured to hospital in the morning. Accordingly, the deceased was taken to the Omalur Government Hospital next day morning by father-in-law Kandasamy, P.W.1 and others. i) P.W.7, who was the duty Doctor at Omalur Hospital, admitted the injured on 16.1.1994 at about 2.00 p.m. as an in-patient and gave first aid treatment. Accordingly, the deceased was taken to the Omalur Government Hospital next day morning by father-in-law Kandasamy, P.W.1 and others. i) P.W.7, who was the duty Doctor at Omalur Hospital, admitted the injured on 16.1.1994 at about 2.00 p.m. as an in-patient and gave first aid treatment. The Doctor suggested that the deceased could be taken to Government Hospital, Salem. The persons accompanied did not accept to do so as they did not have sufficient money. P.W.7 issued Ex.P7 wound certificate. He also sent intimation Ex.P.8 about the admission of the victim. At 3.40 p.m., the deceased died. Thereafter, the Doctor P.W.7 sent death intimation Ex.P.9 to the Omalur Police Station. j) On receipt of the death information, one Mariappan attached to the Omalur Police Station went to the hospital and recorded Ex.P.1, the complaint from P.W.1 at 5.00 p.m. Then, the concerned jurisdiction Police Constable P.W.11 of Tharamangalam Police Station received the death intimation Ex.P9 at about 7.00 p.m. on 16.1.1994. He registered a case for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sent the report to the Inspector of Police. k) P.W.12, the Inspector of Police went to the scene of occurrence. Then, he prepared observation mahazar and drew rough sketch. He recovered bloodstained earth, sample earth, bloodstained cot and also crowbar M.O.1 under mahazar in the presence of P.W.4. On 17.1.1994, P.W.12 held inquest and examined P.Ws.1,2 and 4. Then, the dead body was sent for post-mortem. l) P.W.8 Doctor conducted post-mortem and issued Ex.P.11 post-mortem certificate, wherein he opined that the deceased Rajendran would have died of shock and haemorrhage due to head injury. m) On 20.1.1994 at 5.00 p.m., P.W.12 arrested the accused and on the basis of his confession, he recovered Ex.P.2, photo of the accused and P.W.1 and Ex.P.22 promissory note executed by the deceased in favour of the accused. Then, the material objects were sent for chemical analysis. After completion of the investigation, P.W.12 filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. n) On the side of the prosecution, 12 witnesses were examined, 22 exhibits were filed and 7 material objects were marked. o) When the accused was questioned with reference to the incriminating materials under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied his complicity in the crime and stated that a false case has been foisted against him. No evidence was adduced on his side. o) When the accused was questioned with reference to the incriminating materials under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied his complicity in the crime and stated that a false case has been foisted against him. No evidence was adduced on his side. p) Having analysed the materials available on record, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced him thereunder. Hence, this appeal. 3. Mr. V.Gopinath, the learned senior counsel, while assailing the judgment of conviction, would make the following submissions: (A) P.W.1 told the Doctor P.W.7, while the victim was admitted in the hospital that three known persons attacked the deceased, as mentioned in Ex.P7 Accident Register which is the earliest document. But, P.W.1 in Ex.P1 and in the deposition stated that the accused alone attacked the deceased. Even in Ex.P7, originally it was written as three unknown persons and it was corrected as three known persons. Therefore, the accused has been implicated on the basis of suspicion. Admittedly, P.W.1 is not the eye witness. (B) The occurrence took place at 12.00 mid night, but the complaint was given to the police on 16.1.1994 at about 5.00 p.m. There is an inordinate delay. This is not explained by the prosecution satisfactorily. (C) Though the complaint has been attested by two persons, viz., Selvam and Elumalai, they have not been examined. No reason has been given for their non-examination. (D) The evidence of P.W.1 cannot be relied upon as she did not think it fit to inform the occurrence to the neighbours and the relatives immediately after the occurrence and the delay in lodging the complaint would make it clear that Ex.P1 is a fabricated document making false allegations against the accused. 4. On these aspects, we have heard the Additional Public Prosecutor. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions urged by the counsel for the parties. 6. The main plank of the argument advanced by the learned senior counsel is that no reliance could be placed upon the evidence of P.W.1 in view of the infirmities found available in her deposition and as such, the conviction imposed upon the accused is not legal. 7. 6. The main plank of the argument advanced by the learned senior counsel is that no reliance could be placed upon the evidence of P.W.1 in view of the infirmities found available in her deposition and as such, the conviction imposed upon the accused is not legal. 7. At the outset, it shall be stated that P.W.1 had admitted that she came out of the house on hearing the murmuring sound of his husband who was taking bed outside of the house and saw the accused standing near the head of the deceased with a crowbar. As such, she did not come forward to tell that she saw the accused beating the deceased. If P.W.1 wanted to falsely implicate the accused, there is no difficulty for her to tell that she has witnessed the very occurrence itself. Therefore, merely because she has not deposed anything with reference to the beating the deceased by the accused, we cannot straightaway reject her evidence. If her evidence relating to the motive and the subsequent conduct of the accused as spoken to by P.W.1 is found to be reliable on the strength of the other corroborating materials, it can be safely concluded that the accused alone caused the injury on the head of the deceased, which resulted in his death. 8. Let us now analyse the evidence adduced by P.W.1 relating to the motive. 9. According to the prosecution, the deceased and P.W.1 obtained a loan of Rs.1,000/- from the accused. The said loan was not repaid in time. The fact that P.W.1 and deceased received loan from the accused has not been denied by the accused. On the other hand, the accused himself would state in Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement that he gave a loan of Rs.3,000/- to the deceased and P.W.1. Ex.P22 is the promissory note executed in favour of the accused from whom P.W.12, the Inspector of Police recovered after his arrest. This is also not challenged by the accused. From this, it is obvious that loan amount was obtained from the accused by the deceased family and the said loan was not discharged by the deceased in time. 10. On the pretext of demanding the loan amount, the accused used to visit the house of P.W.1, especially when the deceased was not available in the house. From this, it is obvious that loan amount was obtained from the accused by the deceased family and the said loan was not discharged by the deceased in time. 10. On the pretext of demanding the loan amount, the accused used to visit the house of P.W.1, especially when the deceased was not available in the house. When P.W.1 was unable to make the payment in time, the accused asked her to share the bed with him as he is ready to keep her as his concubine. Though initially she resisted, she at last succumbed to his pressure. Consequently, illicit intimacy developed between them. Later, on coming to know of this, the deceased drove her out to her parents' house. There also, the illicit intimacy continued. Out of that illicit intimacy, one male child was born. However, on the intervention of the brother of P.W.1 both P.W.1 and the deceased joined. Even then, the accused used to visit the house of the deceased and continue his illegal affair with P.W.1. This was reported by the deceased to P.W.3, one of the Panchayatdars. These facts have been stated by P.W.1 both in Ex.P1 and in her deposition. 11. In the panchayat, both of them confessed in the presence of the villagers that they had illicit intimacy and the child was born to them. On the basis of this statement, the Panchayatdars decided that the accused must take P.W.1 along with her new born child and the deceased must take care of the other two children and by way of compensation, the accused should pay Rs.30,000/- to the deceased. Ultimately, the mother of the accused was not agreeable and challenging the panchayat's decision, she abruptly left the panchayat, taking the accused with her. These facts have been clearly spoken to by P.W.3. Thus, the factum of continued illicit intimacy and a child was born to them due to that illicit intimacy and the decision of the Panchayatdars has been clearly spelt out through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3. 12. Though the illicit intimacy that the accused had with p.W.1 was denied by the accused, P.W.1 had emphatically said both in her chief examination and cross-examination that she had intimacy with the accused. In fact, the counsel for the accused went to the extent of suggesting that she had illegal affairs with several persons in the village. 12. Though the illicit intimacy that the accused had with p.W.1 was denied by the accused, P.W.1 had emphatically said both in her chief examination and cross-examination that she had intimacy with the accused. In fact, the counsel for the accused went to the extent of suggesting that she had illegal affairs with several persons in the village. Denying emphatically the same, P.W.1 withstood the lengthy cross-examination and asserted that she had illicit intimacy with only one person, namely the accused. 13. After panchayat, the accused instead of accepting the panchayat's decision, sent his men to attack the deceased family. On noticing that men sent by the accused coming towards them for attack, P.W.1 advised the deceased to leave the place and then, those persons attacked P.W.1 and caused injuries. She was immediately taken to hospital by the deceased and she was treated for 17 days. P.W.12, the Inspector of Police would state that with reference to that, a case was booked on her complaint against the persons belonged to the accused group. 14. On the date of the occurrence, i.e. on 15.1.1994 evening, the accused came to the house of P.W.1 and was in conversation with her. When P.W.1 asked the accused as to why the repairing work of common motor was not carried out. The accused asked for Rs.300/- for each. Then, the deceased got angry and shouted at the accused as to why he should give Rs.300/- for repairing charge of common motor. P.W.1 tried to pacify him stating that it is unnecessary to scold the accused as he told that he would carry out the repair within two days. On noticing the attitude of P.W.1 supporting the accused, the deceased beat her with sugarcane and left the place. Then, the accused told P.W.1 that the deceased beat her in his very nose and as such, he would not leave him and he would finish him off once for all. So saying, he went away. This fact has been mentioned both in Ex.P1 and in the evidence of P.W.1. 15. According to the prosecution, P.W.1 was sleeping inside the house along with the children and the deceased was taking bed in a coir cot outside the house. At about 12.00 mid night, she heard the murmuring sound from outside. So saying, he went away. This fact has been mentioned both in Ex.P1 and in the evidence of P.W.1. 15. According to the prosecution, P.W.1 was sleeping inside the house along with the children and the deceased was taking bed in a coir cot outside the house. At about 12.00 mid night, she heard the murmuring sound from outside. She came out and saw the accused standing near the head of the deceased carrying a crowbar with him. On seeing this, she began to shout. The accused threatened her that if she shouts, she would also be killed like the deceased. Then, he asked her to lift the deceased to drop in the well. When she did not incline to do the same, he threatened her and obtained a promise that she would not divulge the incident. Then, he left the crowbar at the scene itself and sped away. 16. P.W.2 is the brother of the deceased and P.W.6 is the neighbour. According to P.W.1, she woke up the neighbours and informed about the deceased lying down with injuries. Though she did not initially inform the cause of the injuries, ultimately, she informed P.W.2 that the deceased was attacked by the accused who threatened and obtained promise. P.W.2 also would corroborate this. On coming to know of this, her father-in-law and mother-in-law and relatives, all came to the scene. The first aid treatment was given. Since it was the night time, P.W.1 and others were not able to do anything. Next day, after collecting some amount, the victim deceased was taken to Omalur Hospital. P.W.7 Doctor gave initial treatment and sent Ex.P8 intimation to the police. At 3.40 p.m., the deceased died. Thereafter, P.W.7 sent death intimation Ex.P9 to the police. Only then, the Constable attached to Omalur Police Station came and recorded Ex.P1 from P.W.1 at about 5.00 p.m. These things have been spoken to by both P.W.1 and P.W.7 Doctor. 17. According to P.W.1, she and her father-in-law took the deceased to the Doctor P.W.7. P.W.7 mentioned the name of the father-in-law of P.W.1 in Ex.P7 Accident Register which would corroborate the evidence of P.W.1. Then next day, P.W.8 Doctor conducted post-mortem and issued Ex.P11 post-mortem certificate. 17. According to P.W.1, she and her father-in-law took the deceased to the Doctor P.W.7. P.W.7 mentioned the name of the father-in-law of P.W.1 in Ex.P7 Accident Register which would corroborate the evidence of P.W.1. Then next day, P.W.8 Doctor conducted post-mortem and issued Ex.P11 post-mortem certificate. He found the following injuries: "External injuries: (1) A-'V' shaped lacerated injury measuring 11 cm in length 3 cm in breadth and bone deep over the middle of the left parietal region. Internal injuries: On dissection of the wound blood clots present underneath the skin of the parietal region. (2) Depressed fracture 5 cm in diameter over the middle of the left parietal bone present and fracture extending to left temporal bone." According to P.W.8, the post-mortem Doctor, these injuries could have been caused by M.O.1 recovered from the scene by P.W.12 and M.O.1 was identified by P.W.1, P.W.4, the mahazar witness and also P.W.12, the investigating officer. Thus, it is clear that the evidence adduced by P.W.1 on each aspect has been corroborated by the other materials adduced through other witnesses. 18. It is contended by the learned senior counsel for the accused that initially, P.W.1 informed the Doctor that three known persons attacked the deceased. It is true that in Ex.P7 Accident Register relating to the deceased, it is written as "Alleged to have been assaulted by three known persons at about 12.00 (night) on 16.1.94." In the very same Accident Register, it is mentioned as "Brought by: Kandasamy -- wife informant". When P.W.1 was examined in the Court, she was cross-examined on this aspect. She would clearly state that the deceased was taken to the hospital by her father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law accompanied by her. She would deny that she gave a statement to the Doctor that three persons beat the deceased. 19. When we have got a substantive evidence of P.W.1 supporting Ex.P1, we cannot reject her evidence merely because that there is an entry in the Accident Register Ex.P7 as three known person attacked, which cannot be considered to be the substantive evidence. Further, if the Accident Register shows that only one person attacked and in the evidence, the prosecution improves stating more number of persons involved, then there is some point in contending that some more persons have been falsely implicated. Further, if the Accident Register shows that only one person attacked and in the evidence, the prosecution improves stating more number of persons involved, then there is some point in contending that some more persons have been falsely implicated. Such a doubt cannot be entertained in this case as the evidence of P.W.1 would show that she has implicated only one person, namely the accused, both in Ex.P1 and in her deposition. 20. It is contended that there is an inordinate delay. Even though there is some delay, it cannot be stated that it is inordinate and the same has not been explained. According to the prosecution, the occurrence took place at about 12.00 mid night. At that time, the deceased was alive. Only one injury was on the head. The first aid treatment was given by the villagers by bandaging the injury with kerosene soaked cloth. Next day, they collected amount towards the expenditure for medical treatment and then a Van was arranged and the deceased was taken to the Omalur Hospital. He was admitted at 2.00 p.m. Immediately, the police information Ex.P8 was sent. At 3.40 p.m. he died. P.W.7 sent death intimation. On receipt of the death intimation, the police rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement Ex.P1 from P.W.1 at 5.00 p.m. As such, there is no unexplained delay. 21. The point relating to the non-examination of the attestors, cannot be given any importance as the attestors in the complaint Ex.P1 are not the eye witnesses. They only attested for the presentation of the complaint to the police. With regard to the presentation of the complaint, the prosecution has produced P.W.1 to establish the same. Further, in consonance with the contents of Ex.P1, P.W.1 has given statement to P.W.12, the Inspector of Police during the course of inquest. The same thing has been reiterated in her deposition before the Court. 22. The reading of P.W.1's evidence as a whole would make it obvious that she is truthful witness and her entire evidence can be accepted as true. As indicated above, on behalf of the accused, number of questions have been put to P.W.1 during the course of her cross-examination making a character assassination. Despite that, she withstood the same and adduced the materials which are consistent with the other materials adduced by the prosecution. 23. As indicated above, on behalf of the accused, number of questions have been put to P.W.1 during the course of her cross-examination making a character assassination. Despite that, she withstood the same and adduced the materials which are consistent with the other materials adduced by the prosecution. 23. In view of the above discussion, we are constrained to hold that there is no merit in the appeal and the reasonings for the conviction given by the trial Court are perfectly justified. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Since the accused is on bail, the trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the custody of the accused to undergo the remaining period of sentence.