Judgment :- (Appeal preferred against the judgment dated 29.9.2003 in S.C.No.141 of 1999 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Tindivanam.) M. Jeyapaul, J. The single accused, who was convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month respectively, moves the present appeal. 2. The charges as against the accused/appellant are that on 8.1.1999 at about 11.30 A.M., the accused having suspected the fidelity of his wife committed murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and with an intention to screen the evidence, the severed head of the deceased Anandayee was packed in an Urea bag and put it at the varandah of the Court premises of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Villupuram and thereby the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. On the side of the prosecution, as many as 29 witnesses have been examined and 44 documents and 20 material objects were marked. The accused also examined six witnesses on his side and marked as many as 10 documents. 4. The trial Court, having adverted to the evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that it was the accused, who committed murder and attempted to screen the evidence and thereby he committed the offences as stated supra. 5. The case in brief of the prosecution as reflected in the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution is as follows:- The accused Perumal is none other than the husband of the deceased Anandayee. Muthupurani (PW.9) is the wife of Kanniyappan (PW.13). Muthupurani (PW.9) complained to the accused that his wife paid a visit to the school of her husband demanding money. Thereafter, Muthupurani (PW.9) wrote a detailed letter to the accused adverting to the despicable conduct of his wife. Kanniyappan (PW.13) has also spoken to the fact that Anandayee used to come often to his school demanding money and the circumstances under which his wife wrote a strong letter to the accused. 6. Thereafter, Muthupurani (PW.9) wrote a detailed letter to the accused adverting to the despicable conduct of his wife. Kanniyappan (PW.13) has also spoken to the fact that Anandayee used to come often to his school demanding money and the circumstances under which his wife wrote a strong letter to the accused. 6. Ponnammal (PW.5) and Rajendran (PW.6) have spotted the accused at about 11.30 A.M on the fateful day along with his wife at the field of the accused. Pursuant to the quarrel, the accused beat his wife. Anandayee was taken to the motor pump room in the field of the accused. The accused thereafter left the scene of occurrence with a basket in his hand. Kanagavalli (PW.14) spotted Anandayee, wife of the accused going to her field at about 10.00 A.M carrying foodstuffs. She also spotted the accused coming from his field with a basket. When Kanagavalli (PW.14) asked about the content of the basket, the accused supplied an answer that the basket contained Palmirah fruits. She identified the said basket MO-8 before the Court. 7. Devadoss (PW.1) was the Village Administrative Officer of Chattampundi village. He received information on the way to his office that the trunk portion of the dead body of Anandayee was found in the motor pump set located in the field of the accused. He went along with Krishnan (PW.2) to the scene of occurrence and found the headless dead body in the Channel located by the side of the motor pump set. Silambarasan (DW.1) was present over there. He informed the Village Administrative Officer (PW.1) that his father murdered his mother. P.W.1 proceeded to Ananthapuram Police Station and lodged a report Ex.P.1. 8. The Sub Inspector of Police, Pradeepkumar (PW.22) received the complaint Ex.P.1 from PW.1 at about 3.00 P.M on 8.1.1999 and registered the case in Crime No.6/99 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He prepared the printed FIR Ex.P.21 and despatched the same through the Head Constable Annamalai to the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned and the higher officials. 9. Kulsar (PW.7) found the accused carrying a basket at about 12.30 P.M on 8.1.1999 and reached the main road. He turned hostile and therefore he was cross-examined by the prosecution. He prepared the printed FIR Ex.P.21 and despatched the same through the Head Constable Annamalai to the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned and the higher officials. 9. Kulsar (PW.7) found the accused carrying a basket at about 12.30 P.M on 8.1.1999 and reached the main road. He turned hostile and therefore he was cross-examined by the prosecution. Momala Bi (PW.8) saw the accused carrying a basket while she was standing along with Kulsar (PW.7) at Basha Tea Stall at about 12.45 P.M on 8.1.1999 and on the top of the basket she found Palmirah fruits. She also noted the blood stains on the left shoulder portion of the blue colour shirt worn by the accused. The accused boarded the K.R. Bus bound for Villupuram. 10. Ranganathan (PW.10) was working as a Clerk in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Villupuram. At about 3.00 P.M on 8.1.1999, he was informed by an Advocate by name Amirthalingam that an Urea bag was found at the varandah of the Court hall. The said Advocate and Ranganathan (PW.10) opened the Urea bag and found therein a head portion of the woman's dead body. He sent a report Ex.P.9 to the Town Police Station, Villupuram. 11. Pandurangam (PW.11), who was a Clerk attached to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Villupuram, saw the accused in the varandah portion of the Court hall on 8.1.1999. When enquired about his visit, the accused informed him that he had come down to see his Advocate. As per the instruction given by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Villupuram, he went to the Town Police Station over there and brought the Sub Inspector of Police to the Court premises. The accused was spotted by Pandurangan (PW.11) even at that point of time. 12. Mr.Ganesan (PW.28) the Inspector of Police, attached to Ananthapuram Police Station, received a copy of the printed FIR registered in Crime No.6/99 by Sub Inspector of Police, Pradeepkumar (PW.22) at about 4.15 P.M on 8.1.1999. He rushed to the scene of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P.2. He also drew a rough sketch Ex.P.35 reflecting the scene of occurrence. He held inquest on the trunk portion of the dead body of Anandayee and prepared inquest report Ex.P.36. He recovered the blood stained earth MO-6 and sample earth MO-7 under relevant seizure mahazar Ex.P.4 in the presence of PW.2 Krishnan. He also drew a rough sketch Ex.P.35 reflecting the scene of occurrence. He held inquest on the trunk portion of the dead body of Anandayee and prepared inquest report Ex.P.36. He recovered the blood stained earth MO-6 and sample earth MO-7 under relevant seizure mahazar Ex.P.4 in the presence of PW.2 Krishnan. He examined the other witnesses viz., Rajendran (PW.6), Kanagavalli (PW.14), Silambarasan (DW.1) and Ponnammal (DW.6) and recorded their statements. Having received the intimation that the head portion of the dead body was found at the varandah portion of the Court hall of Judicial Magistrate No.2, Villupuram, he rushed to the said Court hall and arranged to take photograph of the head portion of the dead body. He found the head portion of the dead body in a white colour Urea bag found placed at the varandah portion of the Court hall of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Villupuram. The nose screws were recovered under seizure mahazar Ex.P.5 in the presence of Krishnan (PW.2). He also drew a rough sketch Ex.P.37 reflecting the place where the Urea bag was found at the varandah portion of the Court hall. The relatives of Anandayee identified the head portion of the dead body as that of Anandayee. A separate inquest was conducted as regards the head portion of the dead body. He also prepared inquest report Ex.P.38. He made arrangements to take the trunk portion and the head portion of the dead body to the Government Hospital, Gingee. On 9.1.1999 at about 00.15 hours, he went along with the relatives of Anandayee and got the dead body identified by them. He held a separate inquest concerning the whole dead body at the Government Hospital, Gingee in the presence of Panchayatars and prepared a comprehensive inquest report Ex.P.39. Dr.Kalasree (PW.24) commenced the postmortem examination on the dead body of Anandayee at 1.00 P.M on 9.1.1999. She found the following injuries and other features on the dead body:- "Its condition then was cold Rigor mortis present in all 4 limbs. Postmortem commenced at 1.00 P.M on 9.1.1999. Appearances found at the postmortem: Decapitated body of an adult female lies on its back with all four limbs extended. Body is moderately nourished, severed head present adjacent to the decapitated body. Eyes partially closed. Tongue with in the oral cavity. Teeth completed No discharge from nose and ears. Postmortem commenced at 1.00 P.M on 9.1.1999. Appearances found at the postmortem: Decapitated body of an adult female lies on its back with all four limbs extended. Body is moderately nourished, severed head present adjacent to the decapitated body. Eyes partially closed. Tongue with in the oral cavity. Teeth completed No discharge from nose and ears. External injuries present in the head 1) Head decapitated from the body at C6 level. 2) Incised wound present at the neck in front at C6 level 10 x 2 cm. 3) Incised wound present over the ® Mandible skin tag hanging over. 4) Incised wound present over the (L) Mandible skin tag hanging over. External injuries present in the Body 1) Decapitation done at C6 level oesophagus, Larynx and C7 Vertibrae seen. 2) Abrasion over the ® knee joint. 3) Abrasion over the (L) knee joint. 4) Abrasion over the (L) Elbow joint. All the injuries are antemortem in nature. Internal Examination: 1. Head Skull No fracture. Meninges: intact, Brain: Normal, Neck Hyoid bone only part of the hyoid bone present and preserved. Thorax ribs no fracture, Lungs: Normal, Heart: all four chambers empty. Lungs: Normal, Spleen: Normal, Gall bladder: contested Stomach about 500 gm of undigested food particles present. Small and large intestine distended with gas. Kidneys: Both were normal. Urinary Bladder: empty, Uterus: non pregnant uterus. Ovaries and tubes: Normal, External Genitilia Normal. Extremities: NAD." Dr.Kalasree (PW.24) has expressed her opinion in her postmortem certificate Ex.P.26 that the deceased appeared to have died of Neuro Vascular Shock on account of severe hemorrhage from the severed trunk about 12 to 24 hours prior to autopsy. The Constable Mr.Arumugam (PW.21) recovered the apparels and valuables found on the dead body and submitted to the Inspector of Police PW.28 for the purpose of investigation in this matter. PW.28 recovered those objects under Form-95 (Ex.P.40). 13. PW.28 received communication that the accused Perumal surrendered before the Additional Sessions Court, Cuddalore. On 12.1.1999, PW.28 submitted a requisition to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gingee to send the material objects for the purpose of chemical examination. On the basis of the requisition given by the Inspector of Police PW.28, the learned Judicial Magistrate Mr.Chandrasekaran (PW.23) held test identification parade in the premises of Sub Jail, Gingee on 18.1.1999. He also examined Ramalingam (PW.20) who took photograph of the trunk portion of the dead body. On the basis of the requisition given by the Inspector of Police PW.28, the learned Judicial Magistrate Mr.Chandrasekaran (PW.23) held test identification parade in the premises of Sub Jail, Gingee on 18.1.1999. He also examined Ramalingam (PW.20) who took photograph of the trunk portion of the dead body. On the basis of the petition filed by the Inspector of Police PW.28, police custody of the accused was granted in this case for the purpose of investigation. PW.28, having taken police custody of the accused Perumal, examined the accused and recorded the confession given by the accused voluntarily in the presence of Jayapalan (PW.29). On the basis of the admissible portion Ex.P.7, in the confession statement given by the accused, the metal basket (MO-8) under relevant seizure mahazar Ex.P.8 in the presence of Jayapalan (PW.29) behind a dilapidated building of one Sahadevan was recovered. Thereafter the accused was remanded to judicial custody. PW.28 Ganesan, having completed the investigation in this matter, laid final report as against the accused Perumal under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code on 8.1.1999. 14. The accused has stoutly denied his role in the commission of offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code when he was questioned with regard to the incriminating portions found in the evidence let in on the side of the prosecution. The accused has averred in the statement filed by him under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that a false case was foisted on him, with the assistance of his adversaries in the village. His adversaries committed murder of his wife taking advantage of his absence. He had been to Tirupathi at the time when the occurrence had allegedly taken place in his village. He disputed the allegation that his wife had extra marital relationship. Kanniyappan (PW.13) had sought alliance of his wife Anandayee earlier, as his ambition did not fructify, he had declared openly that he would not permit Anandayee to live peacefully. As PW.13 Kanniyappan was admonished for the advances he made with young woman in a marriage party by Anandayee, he had decided to do away with the life of the wife of the accused. Muthupurani (PW.9) also sent her husband Kanniyappan (PW.13) to the field of the accused and attempted to spoil the reputation of his wife. As PW.13 Kanniyappan was admonished for the advances he made with young woman in a marriage party by Anandayee, he had decided to do away with the life of the wife of the accused. Muthupurani (PW.9) also sent her husband Kanniyappan (PW.13) to the field of the accused and attempted to spoil the reputation of his wife. A false allegation was made by her that there was extra marital relationship developed by Kanniyappan (PW.13) with Anandayee. The whole occurrence had taken place only on account of such adverse circumstances which prevailed, he contended. 15. On the side of the defence, Silambarasan (DW.1), the 12 year old son of the accused Perumal was examined. He has deposed that on the day of occurrence, the accused had been to Tirupathi. Selvam (DW.2) would state in his evidence that on 8.1.1999, he went to the house of the accused and found that the accused was not present. He went to the field of the accused and found on the way a crowd looking at the trunk portion of the dead body of the wife of the accused. The flower vendor Kannan (DW.3) has stated in his evidence that when he went near the field of the accused, he found a few persons dragged Anandayee by holding her tuft. Anandayee was crying for help. He having apprehended danger, took shelter behind a bush. He heard an exhortation to kill the person, but the sound died within 15 minutes. Thereafter the hooligans employed by Muthupurani (PW.9) and Kanniyappan (PW.13) having proclaimed that the life of the person was over went away. He did not find the husband of the accused at the scene of occurrence. Govinda Gounder (DW.4) would state that he accompanied the accused to Tirupathi on the fateful day. Varadharaja Pillai (DW.5) would state that a gigantic person with a huge mustache was found carrying Urea bag in the bus. When he enquired about the bad smell emanated from the bag, the said person replied saying that he was carrying meat. As he went to the premises of the Court to collect money from a person, carrier of Urea bag kept the same at the varandah portion of the Court hall and left. Ponnammal (DW.6) is the mother of the accused Perumal. She speaks about the enmity between Kanniyappan and the family of herself. 16. As he went to the premises of the Court to collect money from a person, carrier of Urea bag kept the same at the varandah portion of the Court hall and left. Ponnammal (DW.6) is the mother of the accused Perumal. She speaks about the enmity between Kanniyappan and the family of herself. 16. The trial Court having placed reliance upon the testimony of PW.5 Ponnimmal and PW.6 Rajendran who have witnessed the accused quarrelling with his wife and the evidence of Momala Bi (PW.8) who found the accused carrying a basket, the evidence of Pandurangan (PW.11) who spotted the accused at the time when he saw the Urea bag at the varandah portion of the Court hall, has come to the conclusion that it was the accused who committed the offences alleged against him. 17. The learned counsel appearing for the accused/appellant would submit that the failure on the part of Ramachandran (PW.4), who came to know about the occurrence at 11.30 A.M itself on the fateful day, to inform the police of the occurrence gives rise to doubt about the alleged time of occurrence. He would further submit that the delay in lodging the FIR creates suspicion in the case of the prosecution. As Ponniammal (PW.5) is related to Ramachandran (PW.4), she has come out with a false version that she spotted the accused lastly with the deceased. The Court Clerks PWs.10 and 11 have come out with a contradictory version relating to the time of information furnished to the police officials concerning the Urea bag found at the premises of the Court. Therefore, their testimony should not have been relied upon by the trial Court, he would submit. It is his submission that the Court below failed to note that one Janakiraman and Kanniyappan (PW.13) were the root cause for the whole occurrence. The defence evidence also will have to be given equal importance as that of the prosecution testimony. The alibi set up by the accused has been spoken to by the very son of the accused. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the testimony of the son of the accused DW1, he would further submit. The "last seen" theory put forth by the prosecution cannot be the sole basis for recording a conviction in this case. The alibi set up by the accused has been spoken to by the very son of the accused. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the testimony of the son of the accused DW1, he would further submit. The "last seen" theory put forth by the prosecution cannot be the sole basis for recording a conviction in this case. The learned counsel for the accused/appellant would further submit that the failure on the part of the police to arrest the accused who was spotted very much at the premises of the Court as per the prosecution witnesses speaks volumes about the falsity of the case of the prosecution. 18. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the "last seen" theory spoken to by PWs.5 and 6 is corroborated by the testimony of Kanagavalli (PW.14). Momala Bi (PW.8) has spoken to the fact that a basket was carried by the accused immediately after the occurrence. The said testimony provides a link to the "last seen" theory. Referring to the testimony of the Clerks working in the Judicial Magistrate Courts, he would submit that Pandurangan (PW.11) has spotted the accused at the time when Urea bag was found at the varandah portion of the Court hall. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Tindivanam has rightly come to the conclusion rejecting the defence plea that it was the accused, who has committed the offences alleged against him it is lastly submitted. 19. Ramachandran (PW.4) has, of course, stated that at about 11.30 A.M on 8.1.1999, Silambarasan (DW.1) came to his house and informed him that the headless dead body of his mother was found near his motor pump set. He had not thought it fit to inform the police forthwith. It is only the Village Administrative Officer (PW.1) having gathered some information about the location of the headless dead body of Anandayee near the motor pump set of the accused Perumal, rushed to the scene of occurrence and thereafter submitted a complaint Ex.P.1 at 2.00 P.M. Of course, Ramachandran (PW.4) being the Panchayat President of the village, should have informed the police about the occurrence facilitating the police officials to investigate the matter without any loss of time. All of a sudden, the villagers found a headless dead body. The son (DW.1) himself had come and informed Ramachandran (PW.4) that his mother's dead body was found headless. All of a sudden, the villagers found a headless dead body. The son (DW.1) himself had come and informed Ramachandran (PW.4) that his mother's dead body was found headless. The whole village would have been under shock having received such an explosive information. Even otherwise, the failure on the part of the village Panchayat President to inform the police forthwith will not definitely create a dent in the case of the prosecution. When the prosecution could establish the chain of circumstances incriminating the role of the accused in this crime, the lapse on the part of Panchayat President (PW.4) to set the law in motion pales into insignificance. Muthupurani (PW.9) and Kanniyappan (PW.13), the husband and wife by relationship, have spoken to the fact that the deceased Anandayee used to visit the school where Kanniyappan (PW.13) was working often to demand money. Disapproving the conduct of the deceased, Muthupurani (PW.9) had written a letter Ex.P.42 to the accused. The testimony of PWs.9 and 13 as such does not disclose the extra marital relationship of the deceased with Kanniyappan (PW.13). During the course of examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused himself has given a clean chit to the fidelity of his wife. Spurious allegations touching the chastity of wife had been unnecessarily made, he has contended. But Ex.P.42 speaks ill of the conduct of the deceased and demands action for the despicable behaviour of the deceased at the hands of the accused. This might have triggered the accused to plunge into action. But it is far-fetched an imagination to attribute motive for murder by P.W.9 and P.W.13. The vague contention of the accused projected through the mouth of defence that the henchmen of PWs.9 and 13 liquidated the deceased Anandayee does not appear to be believable. 20. Ponniammal (PW.5) and Rajendran (PW.6) belong to Chattampundi village where the accused is residing. PW.5 Ponniammal has seen the accused beating his wife at about 11.30 A.M on the fateful day. She had seen the accused dragging his wife Anandayee with no clothes on her except her jacket towards his motor pump set. She had seen the accused coming all alone thereafter with a metal basket (MO-5) containing Palmirah fruits. 21. Rajendran (PW.6) was also categorical that he witnessed the accused quarrelling with his wife in his field. She had seen the accused dragging his wife Anandayee with no clothes on her except her jacket towards his motor pump set. She had seen the accused coming all alone thereafter with a metal basket (MO-5) containing Palmirah fruits. 21. Rajendran (PW.6) was also categorical that he witnessed the accused quarrelling with his wife in his field. He has also seen the accused thereafter carrying a basket at about 11.30 P.M on the fateful day. 22. The aforesaid two witnesses have spotted the deceased Anandayee along with the accused. The quarrel between the accused and the deceased culminating in beating has been spoken to by those two witnesses. There is no plausible answer for such a clinching testimony flowed from the mouth of PWs.5 and 6. 23. The theory of alibi set up through DW.1 is found to be totally baseless. Govinda Gounder (DW.4) who would state that he accompanied the accused to Tirupathi on the fateful day, could not say specifically at which specific location the accused stayed along with him at Tirupathi. If at all the accused had stayed along with DW.4 at Tirupathi for three days, DW.4 would have come out with an acceptable answer to the question where actually the accused and DW.4 stayed for three days at Tirupathi. The evidence of P.W.11 also would go to show that testimony of D.Ws.1 to 4 is baseless. 24. There is no reason to disbelieve the natural version of PWs.5 and 6, who have last seen the deceased with the accused. The explanation offered by the accused that he had been to Tirupathi is found not acceptable. Rejecting the plea of alibi set up by the accused, we find that the accused has not come out with a convincing explanation as to what happened to his wife with whom she was last seen. 25. Kulsar (PW.7) and Momala Bi (PW.8) have partially turned hostile. Just because a witness has exhibited hostility, the entire text of his evidence need not be thrown out. That portion of the evidence which lends corroboration to the case of the prosecution can very well be relied upon by the Court. PW.7 has categorically stated that on 8.1.1999 at about 12.30 P.M, he saw the accused proceeding on the main road carrying a basket. 26. The evidence of PW.8 will have to be completely analysed by the Court. That portion of the evidence which lends corroboration to the case of the prosecution can very well be relied upon by the Court. PW.7 has categorically stated that on 8.1.1999 at about 12.30 P.M, he saw the accused proceeding on the main road carrying a basket. 26. The evidence of PW.8 will have to be completely analysed by the Court. PW.8 has also seen the accused proceeding hurriedly carrying a basket containing Palmirah fruits. She was categorical in her deposition that blood stains were found on the blue colour shirt worn by the accused at the time when he was boarding KR Bus bound for Villupuram. The above version of PW.8 was not subjected to cross-examination by the accused. Therefore, the aforesaid telling evidence of PW.8 connecting the accused from the scene of crime to the Court premises where the dead body was found remains unchallenged. The blood stains found on the apparel of the accused was also not disputed by the accused. If at all the accused had been to Tirupathi on 8.1.1999 as spoken to by DWs.1 and 4, PW.8 could not have found the accused boarding the bus with a blood stained shirt carrying a basket containing Palmirah fruits. The evidence of PW.8 which remained uncontroverted cuts the very root of the plea of alibi set up by the defence. No explanation has been given by the accused for the blood stained shirt he worn at the time when PW.8 spotted him boarding at bus bound for Villupuram. When nothing has been attributed to the testimony of Pws.7 and 8, the Court has to safely rely upon their testimony, which supports and lends corroboration to the case of prosecution. 27. Ranganathan (PW.10) was serving as a Clerk in the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Villupuram and Pandurangan (PW.11) was serving as a Clerk in Judicial Magistrate No.I, Villupuram at the time of occurrence. There is no necessity for them to come out with any concocted version before the Court with a view to bolster the case of the prosecution. They have spotted the Urea bag at the varandah portion of the Court hall of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Villupuram. The accused was known to Pandurangan (PW.11), as he had seen him attending regularly Judicial Magistrate Court, Gingee where he was earlier working. They have spotted the Urea bag at the varandah portion of the Court hall of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Villupuram. The accused was known to Pandurangan (PW.11), as he had seen him attending regularly Judicial Magistrate Court, Gingee where he was earlier working. PW.11 had seen the accused sitting at the varandah of the Court hall when the Urea bag found with a head portion of the dead body was spotted by the Court staff and others. It is his further version that even after the Sub Inspector of Police was brought to the varandah of the Court hall where the Urea bag was found, the accused was seen loitering over there. 28. The Inspector of Police, who was brought to the Court premises to take custody of the controversial Urea bag, would not have known the association of the accused with the Urea bag left unattended at the varandah of the Court premises. PW.11 also would not have at that point of time come to know the relationship of the head portion of the dead body with the accused. Therefore the accused was not arrested at the Court premises when he was found loitering even after the arrival of the Sub Inspector of Police. 29. It may look unnatural for an accused to loiter around the Court premises even when the police had come over there to take possession of the Urea bag left behind by him. The accused for reasons best known to him had the adaucity to bring the head portion of his wife in an Urea bag to the varandah portion of the Court premises itself. Either his boldness would have diluted the sense of apprehension, normally a person will be afflicted with when police come to a crucial spot concerning an offence or he would have tried to watch the course of action adopted by the police. 30. PW.10 would state that he had given a written complaint about the Urea bag found at the premises of the Court. PW.11 would speak to the fact that he went and brought the Sub Inspector of Police to take possession of the head portion of the dead body at the Court premises. PWs.10 and 11 were not working in the same Court. But the fact remains that the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1 and Judicial Magistrate Court No.2 were located in the very same premises. PWs.10 and 11 were not working in the same Court. But the fact remains that the Judicial Magistrate Court No.1 and Judicial Magistrate Court No.2 were located in the very same premises. PW.10 had acted as per the instruction of the Judicial Magistrate No.2 and PW.11 as per had acted as per the instruction of Judicial Magistrate No.1, we cannot found fault with their independent approach to the problem on spotting a head portion of the dead body in the premises of the Court. 31. The billhook (MO-12) had been recovered on the basis of the admissible portion found in the confession statement of the accused. The testimony of Dr.Kalasree (PW.24) in the background of her postmortem certificate Ex.P.26 would establish that the deceased had received antemortem injury before her death and the severence of head has ultimately caused neuro vascular shock which ultimately terminated her life. The medical evidence corroborates other chain of circumstances spoken to by the prosecution witnesses. 32. The delay in lodging the FIR is not always fatal to the case of the prosecution. Within 2-1/2 hours, FIR has been given of course not by PW.4 but by the Village Administrative Officer PW.1. We cannot expect the villagers who were in trauma on account of the ghastly murder in the village to set the law in motion at a super sonic speed. 33. There is no material inconsistency or inconformity worth mentioning in the evidence of the prosecution. 34. It is not as if the prosecution relied upon only the "last seen" theory. The other material evidence available on record would unerringly point only to the guilt of the accused. All the links in the chain of circumstances in a case of murder where there was no ocular witness are found complete in this case. The accused has not only committed murder but also attempted to screen the evidence by removing the head portion of the dead body to a different location. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Tindivanam has rightly come to a conclusion that the charges as against the accused stood proved. There is no warrant for interference with the well considered judgment returned by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Tindivanam in S.C. No.141 of 1999. 35. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Tindivanam has rightly come to a conclusion that the charges as against the accused stood proved. There is no warrant for interference with the well considered judgment returned by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Tindivanam in S.C. No.141 of 1999. 35. In the result, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam in S.C.No.141 of 1999 stands confirmed and the appeal stands dismissed.