Judgment :- (Appeal against the judgment dated 18.08.2003 made in S.C.No.1 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri.) S. Tamilvanan, J. The appeal is directed against the Judgment, dated 18.08.2003, made in S..C. No.1 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri. 2. The appellant herein is the sole accused in the sessions case referred above, who was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- with default sentence. As per the prosecution case, the appellant on suspicion that the deceased Noorsha had illicit intimacy with his wife, with the intention to kill him, took Noorsha to his garden land belongs to the appellant on 09.10.1998 and at about 5.30 p.m to 5.45 p.m, inflicted multiple injuries on the vital parts of the deceased by bill hook and caused his death, and thereby committed an offence of murder, punishable under Section 302 IPC. 3. The following point was framed by the learned Sessions Judge : " Whether the charge for an offence under Section 302 IPC against the accused has been proved beyond reasonably doubt? Whether the accused is guilty of the above mentioned offence with which he stands charged? If so, what is the punishment that can be awarded to the accused ? " 4. In order to establish the guilt against the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses, apart from marking 13 Exhibits and 8 material objects to establish their case. Neither oral, nor any documentary evidence was let in, at the instance of the appellant herein. 5. The brief facts and evidence of the prosecution case leading to the conviction are as follows : (i) The deceased Noorsha, brother of Kadher Basha, P.W.1, and Thimmarayappa, the appellant / accused were once friends and the appellant used to take the deceased Noorsha to his garden land, thereby the deceased Noorsha had developed intimacy with the wife of the appellant. On suspicion, the appellant did not speak with the deceased for some time, then they were in talking terms. On 09.10.1992, at about 4.00 pm, the appellant on the pretex of his elder brother wanted to meet the deceased for digging pits for planting coconut saplings, had taken the deceased Noorsha to his garden land from his house. On suspicion, the appellant did not speak with the deceased for some time, then they were in talking terms. On 09.10.1992, at about 4.00 pm, the appellant on the pretex of his elder brother wanted to meet the deceased for digging pits for planting coconut saplings, had taken the deceased Noorsha to his garden land from his house. At about 6.00 pm, P.W.2, rushed to the residence of P.W.1 and informed P.W.1, that his brother Noorsha was done to death , by inflicting multiple cut injuries and that the dead body was found in a pit of the garden land belongs to the appellant. Immediately, P.W.1, his parents and others went to the scene of crime and found the dead body of Noorsha in a pit with various cut injuries, then P.W.1 went to Shoolagiri Police Station and gave oral complaint, that was reduced into writing, wherein he affixed his thumb impression, the same was marked as Ex.P.1. The said complaint was registered by the Head Constable, who was in charge of the police station on 09.10.1998 at about 8.00 pm, in Cr.No.611/98, under Section 302 IPC. The Inspector, Shoolagiri Police station, P.W.10, after receiving the First Information Report, Ex.P.11, took up the investigation and proceeded to the scene of crime. (ii) Accordingly, on 10.10.1998 at about 2.00 am, the Investigating Officer, P.W.10, went to the scene of crime, as it was night time, he could not do anything, hence, again he went to the scene of crime at about 6.30 a.m. on the same day and prepared observation mahazar, Ex.P.2 in the presence of P.W.5 and one Riaz. The rough sketch prepared by the Inspector, P.W.10 was marked as Ex.P.12. He recovered a blood staind crow bar, M.O.5, blood stained spade, M.O.6, blood stained earth, M.O.7 and sample earth, M.O.8 from the scene of crime in the presence of the witnesses, under a mahazar. Between 7.30 a.m. and 10.30 a.m, he conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased Noorsha in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses. The inquest report prepared by him was marked as Ex.P.13. Then, the dead body of Noorsha was sent by the investigating officer for postmortem to the Government Hospital, Hosur, through the constable, P.W.7 with a requisition letter for conducting post-mortem. The inquest report prepared by him was marked as Ex.P.13. Then, the dead body of Noorsha was sent by the investigating officer for postmortem to the Government Hospital, Hosur, through the constable, P.W.7 with a requisition letter for conducting post-mortem. (iii) On the 10.10.1998, at about 3.30 p.m, P.W.10, the inspector on information went to Shoolarigiri-Hosur main road near Koneripalli bus stand and arrested the appellant in the presence of P.W.6 and one Ramesh. While he was enquired, the appellant voluntarily gave a confession statement. (iv) The confession statement given by the appellant was recorded by P.W.10, in the presence of the witnesses, P.W.6 and Ramesh. Pursuant to the confession given by the appellant, he was taken to a place on the southern side nearby a bridge on the Thirumalai Gouni Kotta - Koneripalli Road at about 5 p.m, where the appellant took out one blood stained bill hook (Motchu) M.O.1, which had been hidden in a nearby bush and handed over the same to Inspector, P.W.10, who recovered the same from the appellant, under the cover of a mahazar Ex.P.3, in the presence of the said witnesses. P.W.3 turned hostile. (v) The wife of the deceased who was examined as P.W.4, has deposed that the deceased and the accused were once close friends and subsequently, enmity arose between them due to money dealings and they were not in talking terms, on the date of occurrence at about 3 p.m, the accused came to her house and informed the deceased, that his elder brother, the president of the village panchayat asked him to bring the deceased. Accordingly, her husband Noorsha went along with the accused to Thimarayappa Garden. Subsequently, P.W.2 came and informed that Noorsha was done to death and that his body was found in a pit in the said garden with bleeding injuries. P.W.2, further informed that he had seen the appellant running away from the scene of crime. On hearing the news, P.W.4, fell unconscious and hence, she did not know anything about the complaint given by P.W.1. Only on the next day, she was enquired by the Police. (vi) P.W.5 is one of the witnesses to the observation mahazar, Ex.P.2. He signed as witness along with one Riaz. On hearing the news, P.W.4, fell unconscious and hence, she did not know anything about the complaint given by P.W.1. Only on the next day, she was enquired by the Police. (vi) P.W.5 is one of the witnesses to the observation mahazar, Ex.P.2. He signed as witness along with one Riaz. As per his evidence, he was brought to the scene of crime in a police jeep and that the observation mahazar, Ex.P.2 was prepared by P.W.10 in the presence of himself and the said Riaz. (vii) P.W.6 was one of the witnesses to Ex.P.4, the admissible portion of confession statement recorded by P.W.10, leading to the recovery of the blood stained bill hook (motchu), M.O.1. According to him, the appellant gave the confession statement before P.W.10 in the presence of himself and one Ramesh, the admissible portion of the confession statement was marked as Ex.P.4. Pursuant to the confession, when he was taken to the place stated by the appellant, he took out the bill hook (motchu), M.O.1, hidden in a bush and handed over the same, which was recovered by the Inspector, P.W.10, under Ex.P.3, in which he signed as witness along with the said Ramesh. (viii) P.W.7 was the Head Constable attached to Shoolagiri Police Station, who on the direction of the investigating officer, P.W.10, had taken the dead body of Noorsha to the Government Hospital, Hosur and entrusted the same to the duty Doctor along with a requisition letter for conducting postmortem. After postmortem, he recovered the apparels, namely, Jetti, Banian and Lungi, M.O.2 to M..O.4 recovered from the dead body and handed over the same to the investigating officer. (ix) P.W.8 was the Head Clerk attached to the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Hosur, who sent the material objects for chemical analysis on 24.03.2003, as directed by the Judicial Magistrate. Ex.P.5 is the letter given by the investigating officer requesting the court to send the case properties for chemical analysis, Ex.P.6 is the office copy of the covering letter of the Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Hosur, under which the case properties were sent to the Assistant Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Salem for chemical analysis. Ex.P.7 is the Chemical Examination Report and Ex.P.8 is the Serology Report received by the Judicial Magistrate, the same were marked through P.W.8. Ex.P.7 is the Chemical Examination Report and Ex.P.8 is the Serology Report received by the Judicial Magistrate, the same were marked through P.W.8. (x) The Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Hosur, who conducted autopsy on the body of Noorsha was examined as P.W.9. The postmortem certificate issued by the Doctor was marked as Ex.P.10. The Doctor who conducted the postmortem has found the following symptoms on the dead body of Noorsha : “ External Injuries : (1) an incised wound on the back of right elbow measuring 4”x3”x bone deep; (2) two incised wounds over the front of the right side shoulder each measuring 5”x3”x bone deep: (3) an incised wound on the right thigh measuring 3” x 1 ½ “ x.1”; (4) an incised wound on the left side of neck measuring 4”x6”x6” deep; (5) an incised wound on the back of neck measuring 6”x6”x6” deep; (6) two incised wound over both ears measuring 4”x1/4” x 1” leaving only a part of pinna on both sides attached; (7) two incised wounds over the front of the left side shoulder; (8) an incised wound over the left upper back measuring 6”x3”x4”; (9) an incised wound over the left forearm measuring 6”x 3”; and (10) an incised wound over the lower jaw measuring 3”x2”x1”. Hyoid bone intact. Ribs no fracture, Heart - 250 gms, right chambers few of blood left empty. Lungs - right 400 gms, Left 375 gms, C/s pale, liver - 1400 gms, C/s - pale stomach contains 200 ml of semi-digested rice food particles. Spleen 90 gms, C/s Pale, Kidney - 80 gms each. C/s. Pale bladder - empty, skull no fracture membrane intact, Brain - 1000 gms, no haemorrahage, C/s - Pale, Bone of the skull normal. Post mortem concluded on 4.00 pm on 10.10.98.” The Doctor, P.W.9 has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage, due to multiple injuries sustained by him. (xi) P.W.11, is the successor to P.W.10, Inspector of Police, attached to the investigating police station. After taking up the investigation, P.W.11 examined P.W.9, the doctor who conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased and issued Ex.P.10, postmortem certificate and recorded his statement. P.W.7, who had handed over the dead body for postmortem was also examined as P.W.11. After completing the investigation, he laid the final report against the appellant / accused under Section 302 IPC. P.W.7, who had handed over the dead body for postmortem was also examined as P.W.11. After completing the investigation, he laid the final report against the appellant / accused under Section 302 IPC. 6. The incriminating circumstances that are available in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses against the appellant were put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C, and while questioning about the same, the appellant denied each and every incriminating circumstance as false and contrary to facts. No witness was examined and no document was marked at the instance of the appellant. 7. Considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced in this case and the arguments advanced by both sides, the learned Sessions Judge held that the charge framed against the appellant / accused under Section 302 IPC has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and hence convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for lift and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo for a further period of six months Rigorous Imprisonment. Aggrieved by which, this appeal has been preferred by the accused. 8. The learned counsel Mr.S.Parthasarathi, appearing for the appellant herein contended that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence, since there was no eye witness to speak about the occurrence. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, there was no motive for the appellant / accused to commit the grave offence and that the motive alleged by P.W.4, wife of the deceased is contrary to the motive alleged by the complainant, P.W.1 in the complaint marked as Ex.P.1. According to him, the prosecution has not established the guilt against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. It is not in dispute that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. 9. The Honourable Supreme Court has held in Bibhachha v. State of Orissa reported in 2001 SCC (cri) 1132, that in a case solely based on circumstantial evidences, the guilt of the accused has to be established with the cumulative effect of all the circumstances, so as to undoubtedly indicate the guilt of the accused, excluding any other hypothesis. 9. The Honourable Supreme Court has held in Bibhachha v. State of Orissa reported in 2001 SCC (cri) 1132, that in a case solely based on circumstantial evidences, the guilt of the accused has to be established with the cumulative effect of all the circumstances, so as to undoubtedly indicate the guilt of the accused, excluding any other hypothesis. In the above referred case, the Honourable Apex Court has ruled thus : " We are of the view that the prosecution has proved that each one of the circumstances afore mentioned points to the guilt of the accused and the cumulative effect of all the circumstances too undoubtedly indicates guilt of the accused excluding any other hypothesis. More so, in this case, when the defence of the accused is one of the total denial. We have no good reason or valid ground to interfere with the impugned judgment." In the light of the decision, the chain of events of the circumstantial evidence adduced by prosecution has to be gone into. 10. As per the evidence, P.W.2, brother-in-law of the deceased on 09.10.1998, at about 5.30 p.m to 5.45 p.m, while he was proceeding by walk from Koneripalli to his native place Thirumali Gouni Kotta, heard some alarming voice from the nearby Thimarayappa Garden, belongs to the appellant, immediately, he rushed to the said Thimarayappa Garden, one Baiyachari and his son Nagabushanachary (P.W.5) also followed him, at that time, he found the appellant Thimarayappa, running towards Koneripalli with a bill hook (motchu) and P.W.2 also found Noorsha dead in a pit, nearby 30 feet away from a well, with multiple injuries on his shoulder, hand, both elbows and other parts of his body. The said Noorsha was found dead in the sitting posture at the scene of occurrence. Immediately, P.W.2, went to the village and informed about the same to P.W.1 at about 7.00 to 8.00 p.m on the same date. The evidence of P.W.2 is corroborated by P.W.1. On hearing the death of Noorsha, his brother, P.W.1, his parents and relatives along with the villagers for about 15 to 20 persons rushed to the scene of occurrence and found the dead body of Noorsha with multiple cut injuries in the pit of the garden land belongs to the appellant as informed by P.W.2. On hearing the death of Noorsha, his brother, P.W.1, his parents and relatives along with the villagers for about 15 to 20 persons rushed to the scene of occurrence and found the dead body of Noorsha with multiple cut injuries in the pit of the garden land belongs to the appellant as informed by P.W.2. Then, P.W.1 went to the shoolagiri police station and naratted the facts, which was reduced into writing, wherein P.W.1, affixed his thumb impression and the said complaint given by P.W.1 was marked as Ex.P.1. Though P.W.3 turned hostile, before treating him hostile, he deposed that he knew the deceased and the accused and that he saw the dead body of Noorsha, when the police carried away the same on the road. As per the evidence of P.W.1, he had last seen the deceased alive, with the company of the appellant at about 4.00 p.m on the date of occurrence, while the deceased was taken by the appellant to his garden land. While the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C, there was no explanation from the appellant, as to what had happened subsequently except his total denial, which cannot be accepted on the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. P.W.10, the Inspector of Police attached to the investigating police station, on receipt of the complaint and the copy of the First Information Report, Ex.P.11 proceeded to the scene of crime at about 2.00 a.m, and as he could not do anything in the mid night, again, he went to the scene of crime at about 6.30 a.m on 10.10.1998 and prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P.2 in the presence of P.W.5 and one Riaz. The rough sketch prepared by P.W.10, the Inspector, showing the scene of crime was marked as Ex.P.12. Between 7.30 to 10.30 a.m, the inspector, P.W.10, conducted inquest on the body of the deceased Noorsha in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses. The inquest report prepared by him was marked as Ex.P.13. After the inquest, he sent the dead body to the Government Hospital, Hosur, through P.W.7 with a requisition letter for postmortem. The aforesaid facts have been proved by oral and documentary evidence. 12. On 10.10.1998, at about 3.30 p.m, on the Shoolarigiri-Hosur main road near Koneripalli bus stand, he arrested the appellant in the presence of the witnesses P.W.5 and Ramesh, the other witness. The aforesaid facts have been proved by oral and documentary evidence. 12. On 10.10.1998, at about 3.30 p.m, on the Shoolarigiri-Hosur main road near Koneripalli bus stand, he arrested the appellant in the presence of the witnesses P.W.5 and Ramesh, the other witness. He recorded the confession statement given by the accused in the presence of the aforesaid witnesses and the admissible portion of the confession was marked as Ex.P.4. Pursuant to the confession statement given by the appellant, he was taken to the place nearby a bridge on Koneripalli Road at about 5 pm, where he took out a hidden blood stained bill hook (Motchu) M.O.1 from a nearby bush and handed over the same, which was recovered by P.W.10, the Inspector under seizure mahazar Ex.P.3, in the presence of the aforesaid witnesses and then the appellant was sent to judicial custody. 13. Subsequently, P.W.10 on receipt of the postmortem certificate, Ex.P.10, enquired the Doctor, P.W.9, who conducted postmortem and recorded his statement. He examined the Grade I, Constable, P.W.7, who had entrusted the dead body for postmortem before the doctor in the Government Hospital, Hosur, along with the requisition letter given by the Investigating Office. After completing the investigation, on 21.02.2001, the subsequent investigating officer, P.W.11, filed the final report against the accused under Section 302 IPC. 14. It is seen that the medical evidence corroborates the evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2, that on the date and time as stated by the prosecution, Noorsha, the deceased was done to death, by inflicting various cut injuries as found by P.W.9, who conducted the postmortem. The Doctor, who conducted postmortem has clearly opined in Ex.P.10, that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage, due to multiple injuries, which could have been caused by a sharp edged weapon like M.O.1. As per the Serology Report, Ex.P.8, the bill hook, M.O.1 recovered from the appellant on his confession statement contained human blood "A" Group, as found in the blood stained apparels, M.O.2 to M.O.5 recovered from the dead body of the deceased Noorsha. It has been established by the prosecution that M.O.1, the blood stained bill hook (motchu), which was recovered from the appellant by P.W.10, on the confession statement given by the appellant in the presence of P.W.6 and one Ramesh which could have had been used for committing the offence. It has been established by the prosecution that M.O.1, the blood stained bill hook (motchu), which was recovered from the appellant by P.W.10, on the confession statement given by the appellant in the presence of P.W.6 and one Ramesh which could have had been used for committing the offence. The admissible portion of the confession statement, Ex.P.4, was recorded and the material object marked as M.O.1 was recovered from the appellant by the investigating officer, P.W.10, under the mahazar Ex.P.3, in the presence of the aforesaid witnesses. As found by the learned Sessions Judge, we could fine that the M.O.1, has been recovered from the appellant in accordance with the procedure known to law. 15. As per the evidence of P.W.2, on 09.10.1998 at about 5.30 to 5.45 p.m, while he was proceeding by walk nearby the scene of occurrence, on hearing the noise from the garden land of the appellant, he rushed to the scene of crime, where he saw the appellant running with bill hook (motchu) towards Koneripalli and the said witness also found Noorsha dead in a pit with multiple injuries. He immediately went to the house of P.W.1, the brother of the deceased and informed the same. The evidence of P.W.1 and the complaint given by the P.W.1 and marked as Ex.P.1, would clearly corroborate the evidence given by P.W.2 without any contradiction. Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the conviction by the Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC is solely based on the cogent and reliable evidence of the prosecution witnesses. According to him, the prosecution evidence has established the complete chain of circumstances, which would be sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant without creating any reasonable doubt. 16. In this case, we could find that the circumstantial evidence is supported by medical evidence, Exhibits, and material objects marked on the side of the prosecution and that there is no delay in lodging the complaint and taking up the investigation. It is seen that the Head Constable Subramanian who received the complaint from P.W.1 and registered the case from P.W.1, could not be examined by the prosecution, due to his death, the same has been stated by the Investigating Officer, P.W.10 in his evidence. 17. It is seen that the Head Constable Subramanian who received the complaint from P.W.1 and registered the case from P.W.1, could not be examined by the prosecution, due to his death, the same has been stated by the Investigating Officer, P.W.10 in his evidence. 17. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the motive alleged by the prosecution is that the deceased had developed illicit intimacy with the wife of the appellant, which created enmity in the mind of the appellant, due to which the offence was committed, but the wife of the deceased, who was examined as P.W.4 has stated that there was dispute between the accused and the deceased in their money dealings. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, there is contradiction in the alleged motive by the prosecution. 18. As contended by the learned Public Prosecutor, we could find no contradiction in the evidence of P.W.4, since P.W.4 has categorically stated that her husband, the deceased and the accused were once friends and her husband, the deceased was doing business by selling cattles etc, and that there was misunderstanding between them , due to their money dealings. Being a Burdhanishi women, she might not have known about the illegal intimacy of the deceased with the wife of the appellant, as spoken to by the other witnesses. Further, P.W.1 has deposed in his evidence and also in Ex.P.1, that the deceased and the accused were once friends and that the deceased had also advanced money to the appellant, while he was constructing his house and also given two goats and two sheeps to the appellant, the same has been stated in Ex.P.1 as well as in the evidence of P.W.1. Therefore, we could find no contradiction in the motive alleged by the prosecution, so as to vitiate the prosecution case. 19. As found earlier, the medical evidence would clearly establish that the deceased Noorsha was done to death due to Homicidal violence. The complete chain of circumstantial evidence both oral and documentary without any break would clearly establish beyond any reasonable doubt that the appellant on the alleged date and time at the scene of crime, as stated by the prosecution, had attacked the deceased with the deadly weapon, M.O.1 and inflicted multiple injuries with an intention to cause his death and thereby committed murder, an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 20. 20. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no error or infirmity in the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge to interfere with the same, and therefore, the appeal fails. 21. In the result, confirming the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.1 of 2002 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, the appeal stands dismissed. If the appellant is on bail, the court below shall take immediate steps to secure the appellant / accused to undergo the balance period of the sentence imposed on him.