Judgment :- (Appeal against the judgment dated 25.11.2003 made in S.C.No.206 of 2001 on the file of Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri District at Krishnagiri.) M. Jeyapaul, J. The accused, who was convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC, is the appellant before this Court. The accused was convicted for the aforesaid offence and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence. 2. The charge as against the accused is that on 08.02.2000 at about 8.30 pm at Sundatty to Abery pathway, the accused, who was piqued over the persistent demand made by Chinnanna to return a sum of Rs.1 lakh received by way of hand loan, attacked him with an intention to cause his death with bill hook and caused his instantaneous death and thereby, he committed an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. On the side of the prosecution, as many as 13 witnesses were examined, besides marking 15 documents and 14 material objects. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in on the side of the defence. 4. The brief text of the case of the prosecution as reflected in the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution is as follows: (i) Akkayammal-P.W.2 is the wife of Chinnanna, since deceased. Meenakshi-P.W.4 is the daughter and Munikrishnan-P.W.3 is the son-in-law of P.W.2 and the deceased. The brother of the accused had married the daughter of deceased and P.W.2. (ii) About four or five years prior to the occurrence the accused Mallappa @ Mallesan got a hand loan of Rs.1 lakh for the purpose of developing his properties from the deceased Chinnanna. Prior to the occurrence, the deceased Chinnanna approached the accused and demanded the money back. First the accused replied that the deceased could collect the amount from the brother of the accused, who is the son-in-law of the deceased. Thereafter, he sought proof for the amount alleged to have been paid to him by the deceased. (iii) Chinnanna thereafter approached the Panchayatdhars and requested them to conciliate the money dispute between the accused and himself. The accused who appeared before the Panchayatdhars, one among them was Rajappa-P.W.9 and informed them that he was not willing to part with any money. The accused also had declared that he would put the deceased to death, as he had chosen to demand money now and then. The accused who appeared before the Panchayatdhars, one among them was Rajappa-P.W.9 and informed them that he was not willing to part with any money. The accused also had declared that he would put the deceased to death, as he had chosen to demand money now and then. (iv) About four or five days thereafter, i.e. on 08.02.2000, at about 7.00 pm, Chinnanna went to the shop of Pappammal-P.W.6 at Abery and sought for match box and beedi. Pappammal-P.W.6 informed him that those articles were not available at her shop and as match box is not available in her shop, she asked the deceased to get two match boxes for her also. (v) The deceased Chinnanna came down to the shop of Lakshmaiah-P.W.7 at Sundatty village and purchased, at about 8.00 pm on the said day, 3 bundles of Beedies and 4 match boxes. Meenakshi-P.W.4 had been married to Munikrishnan-P.W.3 who has settled at Sundatty. The deceased having informed Lakshmaiah-P.W.7 that he was proceeding to the house of his daughter in the same village, came down to her house. (vi) The deceased Chinnanna having spent few minutes with her daughter Meenakshi and his son-in-law Munikrishnan at Sundatty wanted to get back to his village, as his wife Akkayammal-P.W.2 was all alone in his house. Unusually Mennakshi-P.W.4 and Munikrishnan-P.W.3 expressed their desire to accompany the deceased to his village Sundatty as it was pitch dark. They also carried a torch light along with them to guide themselves in the dark. When the deceased, P.Ws.3 and 4 were proceeding from Sundatty to Abery village, the accused emerged all of a sudden from the pathway and attacked the deceased Chinnanna with a billhook-MO1 on left head and left ear. Thereafter, the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence armed with billhook. (vii) Venkatesappa-P.W.8 was residing in a house close to the scene of occurrence. On hearing the noise, he came out of his shop and witnessed the accused taking to his heels with a billhook. The villagers gathered over there and thereafter P.Ws.3 and 4 went to Abery village and informed Akkayammal-P.W.2 that the accused committed murder of Chinnanna. (viii) Akkayammal-P.W.2 having come down to the scene of occurrence saw the dead body of her husband and she received advice from the villagers and decided to go in the early morning to the Village Administrative Officer to lodge a complaint. (viii) Akkayammal-P.W.2 having come down to the scene of occurrence saw the dead body of her husband and she received advice from the villagers and decided to go in the early morning to the Village Administrative Officer to lodge a complaint. The Village Administrative Officer, Krishnappa-P.W.1 was at his office in Kathereppalli at about 5.00 am on 09.02.2000. Akkayammal-P.W.2, came to his office at that point of time and gave a statement Ex.P-1 to him about the occurrence. He recorded the statement verbatim and thereafter he prepared a report Ex.P-2. He came down to the scene of occurrence and having seen the dead body proceeded to Shoolagiri Police Station and submitted the statement-Ex.P-1 and also his report-Ex.P-2 at about 7.00 am on the same day before the Inspector of Police-P.W.13. He registered a case in Crime No.57 of 2000 under Section 302 IPC and prepared Printed First Information Report-Ex.P-13 and despatched the same to the Learned Judicial Magistrate and the copies thereof to officials. (ix) P.W.13 rushed to the scene of occurrence and drew rough sketch-Ex.P-14 in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer-P.W.1. At about 9.30 am on the said day, he prepared Observation Mahazar-Ex.P-3 in the presence of aforesaid witnesses. He also recovered beedi bundles-MOs-1 to 3, Match boxes-MOs-4 to 6 and 8, Blood Stained Earth-MO9 and Sample Earth-MO10 under relevant seizure mahazars in the presence of the aforesaid Village Administrative Officer. (x) P.W.13 held inquest on the dead body of Chinnanna and prepared inquest report-Ex.P-15. He entrusted the dead body to the constable-P.W.12 along with a requisition to be handed over to the Doctor attached to Hosur Government Hospital for the purpose of postmortem examination. (xi) Dr. Gandhi-P.W.5 having received the requisition conducted autopsy on the dead body of Chinnanna, commenced postmortem examination at 3.00 pm on 09.02.2000. He found the following injuries and other symptoms on the dead body during the course of postmortem examination. "Appearance found at the Post-Morterm:- Body of a Male lying on its back. Eyes closed mouth closed. Tongue inside Bleeding from the Nostrils fresh bleeding from the Left side Ear present. EXTERNAL INJURIES:- 1) There is a Bone and Brain deep Lacerated wound cut injury on the Left side parietal region size 30x20 cm with blot clots. 2) There is a cut injury in the Left Ear Lobe in the pinna size 5 x 4 cm. Tongue inside Bleeding from the Nostrils fresh bleeding from the Left side Ear present. EXTERNAL INJURIES:- 1) There is a Bone and Brain deep Lacerated wound cut injury on the Left side parietal region size 30x20 cm with blot clots. 2) There is a cut injury in the Left Ear Lobe in the pinna size 5 x 4 cm. 3) There is a cut injury Left side of skull Behind the Left Ear Lobe connected to wound No.2 deep to Bone Level. INTERNAL EXAMINATION:- Hyoid Bone -- Intact, No Fracture ribs, Heart Chambers Empty. Lungs Right 500gs, Left 450 gms congested. Stomach - Partially digested Ragi 200 ml, No smell of Chemical. Liver - 1000gms C/s congested. Kidney - 80gms congested. Bladder empty. Skull - Fracture of Left Parietal Bone. Membrahes - Cut at Parietal region. Brain and cavity contains lot of blood clots. Left parietal lobe of brain Lacerated, No fracture of base of skull. Post-Mortem - 4.00 p.m. ended. 1) Stomatch 2) Small Intestine 3) Liver 4) Kidney 5) Spleen - Kept for analysis. Dead 20 to 22 hrs prior to P.M." He having completed the autopsy issued Postmortem Certificate-Ex.P-6 and opined therein that the deceased appeared to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to left parietal bone and brain. P.W.12-Postmortem Constable recovered the apparels-MOS-11 to 14 from the dead body and entrusted the Inspector of Police-P.W.13 for the purpose of further investigation in this matter. (xii) On 27.02.2000 at about 9.00 am, P.W.13 arrested the accused at Kamanthoti bus stand in the presence of yet another Village Administrative Officer, G.B.Yadu-P.W.10 and obtained confession statement from the accused. On the basis of the admissible portion Ex.P-8 in the confession statement given by the accused, billhook-MO7 was recovered from the house of the accused. P.W.13 remanded the accused and the material objects to judicial custody and he also submitted requisition-Ex.P-9 for the purpose of sending the material objects for Chemical Examination. The Head Clerk, N.Geetha-P.W.11 despatched the material objects along with covering letter-Ex.P-10 to the Chemical Examiner for examination. Chemical Report-Ex.P-11 and Serology Report-Ex.P12 were received by the Court. (xiii) The Inspector of Police-P.W.13 having completed the investigation laid the final report as against the accused on 30.03.2001 under Section 302 IPC. The Head Clerk, N.Geetha-P.W.11 despatched the material objects along with covering letter-Ex.P-10 to the Chemical Examiner for examination. Chemical Report-Ex.P-11 and Serology Report-Ex.P12 were received by the Court. (xiii) The Inspector of Police-P.W.13 having completed the investigation laid the final report as against the accused on 30.03.2001 under Section 302 IPC. The incriminating portion found in the testimony of the prosecuting witnesses were brought to the notice of the accused in the form of questionnaire and the accused responded saying that a false case was foisted on him. He also feigned ignorance of the whole occurrence spoken to by the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution. 5. The learned senior counsel for the accused would submit that there is inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report by P.W.2. It is quite unnatural for a woman who had not seen the occurrence to proceed at about 4.00 am in the early morning to meet the Village Administrative Officer to lodge the complaint, when other closely related ocular witnesses were present at the scene of occurrence. As P.W.4 has categorically deposed before the Court that she accompanied her father only on the fateful day, there is doubt as to whether P.Ws.3 and 4 would have gone along with the deceased at the time when the occurrence took place. Referring to the testimony of P.W.6-the Shop keeper having shop at Abery Village, the learned senior counsel would submit that there would have been no occasion for the deceased to approach P.W.6 for the purpose of purchasing beedi, since, as per the version of P.W.6, she had closed the shop even in the morning at 10.00 am as there was no sufficient stock in the shop. For the aforesaid reasons, the learned senior counsel would submit that a case has been foisted on the accused taking advantage of the animosity between the deceased and the accused due to some money dispute. 6. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the testimony of the ocular witnesses P.Ws.3 and 4 and the evidence of Venkatesappa-P.W.8 who saw the accused fleeing from the scene of occurrence armed with the weapon would clinchingly establish that it was only the accused who committed the murder. The shopkeepers-P.Ws.6 and 7 have categorically stated that the deceased approached them at the relevant point of time to purchase beedi and match boxes. The shopkeepers-P.Ws.6 and 7 have categorically stated that the deceased approached them at the relevant point of time to purchase beedi and match boxes. There is no unnaturalness in the company given by his own daughter and son-in-law during night hours from one village to another village. Therefore, he would submit that the Trial Court has rightly returned a verdict of conviction which does not require interference. 7. It is a case where the prosecution has come out with ocular testimony through P.Ws.3 and 4. P.W.4 is the daughter of the deceased and P.W.3 is the husband of P.W.4. Pappammal-P.W.6 has spoken to the fact that the deceased came to her shop at 7.00 pm and sought for beedi and match boxes. It is her categorical version that she informed him that no stock of those articles were available in her shop. Of course at one stage during the course of cross examination she would state that she closed her shop at 10.00 am itself as sufficient stock was not available in her shop. Again she reverted to her original stand that the deceased approached her at 7.00 pm on the fateful day and sought for beedi and match boxes. The fact remains the small shop of Pappammal-P.W.6 was located in her very house. In villages even if the shop is closed, when the shop is annexed along with the house, the villagers used to go and ask for some articles. It is not the version of Pappammal that the deceased had not approached seeking those articles. Therefore, in the above circumstances, even if the shop of Papammal had been closed at 10.00 am in the morning, we cannot rule out the possibility of Chinnnanna approaching her seeking those articles. 8. The testimony of Lakshmaniah-P.W.7 reinforces the version of Pappammal-P.W.6. Lakshmaniah-P.W.7 has cogently spoken to the fact that at about 8.00 pm on the fateful day, the deceased Chinnanna approached him and purchased beedies and match boxes. Pappammal had not only informed the deceased that there was no stock of match box in her shop, but she had asked the deceased to purchase some match boxes for her also. The investigating officer had seized the match boxes and the beedi bundles at the scene of occurrence. Pappammal had not only informed the deceased that there was no stock of match box in her shop, but she had asked the deceased to purchase some match boxes for her also. The investigating officer had seized the match boxes and the beedi bundles at the scene of occurrence. Therefore, the prosecution has established the fact that the deceased Chinnanna had been to Sundatty village for the purpose of purchasing beedi and match boxes. 9. Akkayammal-P.W.2, Munikrishnan-P.W.3, Meenakshi-P.W.4 and Rajappa-P.W.9 have spoken in one voice that there was some enmity between the accused and the deceased in connection with the hand loan given by the deceased to the accused. It is their categorical version that the deceased was persistent in his demand of hand loan which he had already lent to the accused. Therefore, the motive part of the prosecution story has been established through those witnesses. Of course, P.W.4, who is the daughter of the deceased has stated that only on the fateful day, she had accompanied her father from Sundatty village to Abery village. There is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was sent all alone during night hours from Sundatty village to Abery village on any other occasion. P.Ws.3 and 4 have stated that as it was night time they had to accompany the deceased Chinnanna to the Sundatty village taking a torch light to guide them. Just because P.Ws.3 and 4 had no occasion to accompany the deceased to take him to his village earlier, we cannot disbelieve the ocular testimony of P.Ws.3 and 4, who have consistently spoken to the fact that they had accompanied the deceased on the fateful day. 10. Apart from the ocular testimony of P.Ws.3 and 4, we have the evidence of Venkatesappa-P.W.8. There is no reason to reject the testimony of the Venkatesappa-P.W.8, a natural witness who emerged from his house on hearing the noise of witnesses, while the accused was fleeing from the scene of occurrence armed with the weapon. The testimony of Venkatesappa-P.W.8 lends ample credence to the ocular testimony of P.Ws.3 and 4. 11. Of course, P.W.3 who had studied up to tenth standard had not chosen to accompany P.W.2 to the Village Administrative Officer for the purpose of giving report setting the law in motion. It is not as if Akkayammal-P.W.2 had gone to the Village Administrative Officer all alone. 11. Of course, P.W.3 who had studied up to tenth standard had not chosen to accompany P.W.2 to the Village Administrative Officer for the purpose of giving report setting the law in motion. It is not as if Akkayammal-P.W.2 had gone to the Village Administrative Officer all alone. It is found that she was accompanied by her close relative, while she proceeded to the Village Administrative Officer to lodge the report. P.W.3 would state that he had chosen not to accompany P.W.2 to the Village Administrative Officer as he thought that Akkayammal-P.W.2 herself would manage the affairs. But P.W.4 would state that when the assistance of Munikrishnan-P.W.3 was sought by P.W.2, P.W.3 expressed his apprehension and therefore Akkayammal-P.W.2 had to go along with another relative to lodge the report. Further it is found that Akkayammal-P.W.2 had sought the advice of the villagers who had informed her to go in the early morning to the Village Administrative Officer whose office is located about 4 Kms away from Abery village. Mostly the eye witnesses would approach the Village Administrative Officer or Police Station concerned to set the law in motion. But there are cases where the person who was informed of the occurrence by an ocular witness set the law in motion. Here in this case P.W.2 is not a stranger to the deceased Chinnanna. It is her responsibility, having come to know about the murder of her husband, to go to the Village Administrative Officer and set the law in motion. The Court does not find any artificiality on the part of the Akkayammal-P.W.2 in lodging the report when ocular witness were there in this case. 12. Coming to the Doctor's Medical Evidence, we find that the postmortem Doctor had noted a Lacerated cut injury on the left parietal region measuring 30 cms x 20 cms with blood clots and another cut injury on the Left Ear Lobe. Of course the postmortem Doctor has noted in the Postmortem Certificate that a cut injury was also found on the left side of the skull behind the left ear lobe. Eye witnesses have spoken to the delivery of two cuts by the accused on the person of the deceased. The Postmortem Doctor has categorically explained in the postmortem certificate that the third injury found on the left side skull behind the left ear lobe is well connected to the second injury. Eye witnesses have spoken to the delivery of two cuts by the accused on the person of the deceased. The Postmortem Doctor has categorically explained in the postmortem certificate that the third injury found on the left side skull behind the left ear lobe is well connected to the second injury. Therefore, the injuries noted down by the Doctor synchronize with the ocular testimony of P.Ws.2 and 3. 13. Of course the billhook was consigned to the Chemical Examiner for the purpose of Chemical Examination, but it is found that the billhook did not contain any blood stains. Therefore, the chemical examination report is of no avail for the case of the prosecution. But it is found the prosecution has established to the hilt that it was only the accused who committed the death of the deceased with the billhook-MO1. The Trial Court has rightly returned a verdict of conviction which does not warrant interference. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment passed in S.C.No.206 of 2001 on the file of Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri District at Krishnagiri is confirmed and the appeal stands dismissed.