Judgment : Per M. CHOCKALLINGAM, J. 1. An appeal from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.1Thanjavur, in S.C. No. 94 of 2003, wherein the appellant, sole accused, stood charged, tried and found guilty as per the charge of murder and awarded life imprisonment. 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus : (a)the deceased Vennila, was the wife of P.W.1 and the accused is the cousin brother of the deceased. P.W.2 is the brother of P.W.1. They were all living in nearby houses at Sundaraperumal Koil, Old Street, Anna Nagar. The usual practice of the accused was to come in a drunken mood and to have quarrel with his wife; but, he was under the impression that it was the deceased who was responsible for those quarrels. On the date of occurrence namely 28.8.2001, at about 7.30 p.m.. when the deceased was serving food for her children, the accused came there with an aruval and uttered “you were responsible for the wife quarrelling with me, and therefore, I should finish off you”. So saying, he attacked her on the neck with the aruval, and when she raised her hand to ward off the same, he gave the second blow on the wrist. This was witnessed by P.W.1 to 4. On seeing them, the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. She met with the death instantaneously. Then, P.W.1, proceeded to Swamimalai Police Station, where P.W.12, the Sub Inspector of Police, was on duty. He recorded the statement of P.W.1 under Exhibit P.1 on the strength of which a case came to be registered in Crime No. 242 of 2001 under Section 452 and 302 of I.P.C. The printed First Information Report Ext. P.12 was despatched to the Court through a Constable. Following the same, a copy of Exhibit P.12 was also sent to P.W.13, the Inspector of Police, attached to the said Police Station. (b)P.W.13, on receipt of the copy of the FIR, took up the investigation, proceeded to the spot at 10.00 p.m.. made an Inspection of the place of occurrence and prepared Exhibit P.13, the observation mahazar, and Exhibit P.14, the rough sketch. The dead body was subjected to inquest by the Investigator in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars, and he prepared Exhibit P.15, the inquest report. made an Inspection of the place of occurrence and prepared Exhibit P.13, the observation mahazar, and Exhibit P.14, the rough sketch. The dead body was subjected to inquest by the Investigator in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars, and he prepared Exhibit P.15, the inquest report. Thereafter, the dead body was sent to the Government Hospital for the purpose of autopsy. (c)P.W.5 the Medical Officer, attached to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Kumbakonam, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Vennila and found the following injuries: “(1)A blood stained deep incised injury over the backside of neck, extending from the posterior border of sterna mastoid muscle on the right side extending obliquely downwards on the back towards left upto the posterior border of sternomastoid muscle on the left side, exposing the deeper structures including the cut ends of posterior longitude in alignment and the spinal cord. The spinal cord was found transected at the vertebral level between 04 and 05. The anterior longitudinal ligament was found to be intact. Dimensions of wound was 12 × 4 cm depth - upto anterior longitudinal ligament. (2)An oblique incised injury 4 × 3 × 2 cms starting from just below the middle 1/3 of Right forearm in front medially, extending downwards laterally upto the outer aspect of wrist exposing the tendon, muscles and cut ends of radial artery”. The Doctor has given Exhibit P.2, the post-mortem certificate, with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of Spinal Shock due to complete transaction of spinal cord in between the vertebral levels C4 and C5, 18 to 24 hours prior to post-mortem. (d)During investigation, the accused was arrested on 29.8.2001 on the very day of the crime, when he made a confession voluntarily in the presence of two witnesses. The said confessional statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer, the admissible portion of which marked as Exhibit P.16. Pursuant to the confessional statement, the accused came forward to produce M.O. 1 aruval, which was the weapon of crime, and it was recovered by the Investigator. Then, the accused was sent to Court for judicial remand. The said confessional statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer, the admissible portion of which marked as Exhibit P.16. Pursuant to the confessional statement, the accused came forward to produce M.O. 1 aruval, which was the weapon of crime, and it was recovered by the Investigator. Then, the accused was sent to Court for judicial remand. All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead body, and M.O.1 aruval, which was recovered from the accused pursuant to the confession, were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences Department, as a result of which the Chemical Analysts reports and Serologists report were also received by the Court, which were marked as Exhibits P.9 to P.11, respectively. On completion of investigation, the Investigator filed the final report. 3. The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charges were framed. The appellant/accused faced the trial, in which the prosecution marched 13 witnesses and also relied on 18 exhibits and 10 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which he flatly denied as false. No defence witness was examined on his side. The trial Court after hearing both sides, was of the opinion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and found the appellant/accused guilty as per the charge of murder and awarded the life imprisonment, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that in the instant case, though the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that in the instant case, though the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, P.W.3 turned hostile; that even as per the evidence of P.W.1 in the cross-examination, P.W.2 came to the spot only on information; and thus, P.W.2 could not have seen the occurrence at all; that what was available for the prosecution was the evidence of P.W.1 only; that the evidence of P.W.1 remain uncorroborated; that in the instant case, according to P.W.1 he went to the Police Station with a written report; but, according to P.W.12, who registered the case P.W.1 gave an oral statement which was reduced by him, and pursuant to which, the case came to be registered; that apart from that, from the evidence of P.W.1, it could be seen that the deceased was serving food for her children at the time of occurrence; but, it is not stated so in the F.I.R. That P.W.1 could not have been in the place of occurrence, in view of the inconsistent statement made and developments found in the evidence; that he was also on inimical terms with the accused; that the same was the main reason for foisting the entire case against him, and under the circumstances, it would be highly unsafe to rely the evidence of P.W.1 and to find the accused guilty. 5. 5. Added further the learned Counsel that in the instant case, the medical evidence did not support the prosecution case, since according to the Doctor, who gave opinion, after giving the cut of the neck, the spinal cord in between the vertebral levels C4 and C5 would have broken, and there is no question of person raising the hands; that in the instant case, according to the evidence of P.W.1, the first cut was given by the accused on the neck, and the second cut was given on the wrist; that according to the medical opinion, after the first cut was over, there was no possibility for the deceased to raise her hand suddenly, and she would have become incapable; that under the circumstances; the medical opinion also did not support the prosecution case; that in the instant case, the recovery of weapon was planted for the purpose of the prosecution case; that taking into consideration all these aspects, the lower Court should have accepted the defence version, given the benefit of doubt and acquitted the accused, but failed to do so, and hence, it has got to be considered by this Court. 6. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions. 7. It is not a fact in controversy that one Vennila, the wife of P.W.1, was done to death, and she died out of homicidal violence. In the instant case, following the inquest made by P.W.13 the dead body was subjected to Post-mortem by P.W.5, the Doctor, who has given his opinion that she died due to the spinal shock, as described in the post-mortem certificate. Apart from that, this fact that she died out of homicidal violence was never questioned by the accused either before the trial Court or before this Court and hence, it could be safely recorded that Vennila died on account of homicidal violence. 8. Now, the question that would arise for consideration would be whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. True it is, three witnesses were examined as eye-witnesses namely P.Ws. 1 to 3, out of whom P.W.3 turned hostile. Hence, the evidence of P.W.3 did not serve the purpose of the prosecution case. 8. Now, the question that would arise for consideration would be whether the prosecution has brought home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. True it is, three witnesses were examined as eye-witnesses namely P.Ws. 1 to 3, out of whom P.W.3 turned hostile. Hence, the evidence of P.W.3 did not serve the purpose of the prosecution case. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant, a perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 in the cross-examination would clearly convey that P.W.2 come to the place of occurrence only on information, and thus, the evidence of P.W.2 also did not serve the purpose of the case of the prosecution. Therefore what was available for the prosecution was that of P.W.1. The Court is mindful of the caution made by the Apex Court that in a case where there is solitary evidence and apart from that, the eye-witness is closely related to the deceased the test of careful scrutiny must be applied. In the instant case, even if this test is applied, this Court is of the considered opinion that the evidence of P.W.1 has inspired the confidence of the Court. According to P.W.1, he was present at the time of occurrence, and the deceased was serving food for her children, and at that time, the accused came there with an aruval and uttered the words “you were responsible for all these quarrels in our family, and therefore, you should be finished off”, and so saying, he attacked her on the neck with the aruval, and she also met with an instantaneous death. Thus the graphic narration given by P.W.1 who was also present, has got to be believed. Apart form that, his evidence also inspired the confidence of the Court. It is pertinent to point out that P.W.1 is also closely related to the accused. 9. Now, at this juncture, the contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant that P.W.1 was on inimical terms with the accused, due to which there was an implication has got to be rejected for the simple reason that the occurrence has taken place at about 7.30 p.m. and the F.I.R. has come into existence at 9.00 p.m. by the registration of the case by P.W.12, the Sub-Inspector of Police. It is also pertinent to point out that the Police Station is situated within 5 kilometres from the place of occurrence. Thus, it is quite evident that the F.I.R. has come into existence immediately, and following the same the investigation also proceeded. It remains to be stated that at the time of inquest, conducted by the Investigator, all the witnesses have been examined, and the records were also available for the same. 10. The second contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution case has got to be discountenanced for the simple reason that according to P.W.1, the accused came there and gave a blow on the neck, and following the same, she met with the instantaneous death. The Doctors evidence is also perused by the Court. At this juncture, this Court is of the opinion that it would be more apt and appropriate to reproduce the final opinion of the Doctor found in the post-mortem certificate. “The deceased would appear to have died of SPINAL SHOCK due to complete transaction of spinal cord in between the vertebral levels C4 and C5, 18 to 24 hours prior to post-mortem”. This part of the documentary evidence what is found, coupled with the medical evidence adduced through the Doctor would be in full corroboration of the ocular testimony projected by the prosecution through P.W.1. It is further to be pointed out that in the instant case, M.O.1, aruval has been recovered from the place of occurrence on the very next day pursuant to the confessional statement recorded in the presence of two witnesses. One of the witnesses has been examined to that effect, and his evidence remains unshaken. Thus, this part of the evidence would also lend full support to the prosecution case connecting the accused with the crime. 11. Apart from all the above, M.O.1 has been subjected to chemical analysis along with the clothes of the deceased and also the blood stained earth. A perusal of the Serologists report would clearly indicate that the blood group found in the aruval M.O.1, recovered from the accused pursuant to the confessional statement, and in all the M.Os. recovered from the dead body, tallied with each other. This would be a strong point in favour of the prosecution. Thus, the scientific evidence also was in support of the prosecution case. recovered from the dead body, tallied with each other. This would be a strong point in favour of the prosecution. Thus, the scientific evidence also was in support of the prosecution case. Apart from that, the ocular testimony which was fully supported by the medical evidence, and also the recovery of the weapon of crime and the scientific evidence were in full support of the prosecution case pointing to the guilt of the accused. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is in abundance to accept the prosecution case. 12. Now, the question would arise as to the act of the accused. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that it was a case where there was a quarrel preceded, and hence, the act of the accused, even if proved by the prosecution, would not fall within the ambit of murder. The Court perused the materials available. After doing so, the Court has to necessarily negative this contention. The occurrence has taken place at 7.30 p.m.. in the house of P.W.1. The deceased is none else than the wife of P.W.1. Even according to the prosecution, it is an admitted position that there were quarrels between the accused and his wife, and he was under the impression that it was the deceased who was responsible for that. In the instant case, there is nothing to find or hold that there was any sudden provocation or any quarrel which led the accused to act suddenly, out of which he committed the crime. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the act of the accused in view of the evidence available has got to be termed only as murder, and the lower Court was perfectly right in recording a conviction for murder and awarding life imprisonment. 13. In view of what is stated above, this criminal appeal fails, and the same is dismissed, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the lower Court.