Judgment :- D. Murugesan, J. The appellant (A-1) was charged for the offence under Sections 341 & 302 IPC and the other accused (A-2) was charged for the offence under Sections 341, 302 read with Section 34 IPC in S.C.No.300 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.2), Thoothukudi. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant (A-1) alone for the offence under Sections 341 & 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 341 IPC and to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment, but acquitted the other accused (A-2) of all the charges. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal. For convenience, the appellant will be hereinafter referred to as "the accused" in this order. 2. Following are the few facts giving rise to the implication of the accused for the above offence:- The deceased-Sundaram and his wife-Valli, P.W.1, were residing in a garden land belonging to one Komu Ammal. The said Komu Ammal erected a fence and also planted five tamarind trees in the said garden. The accused Krishnan had quarrelled with the deceased Sundaram as to the fencing of the garden, as it had prevented him from using the land as a pathway. When the deceased replied that he has not fenced the land and it was only the owner of the land Komu Ammal who had fenced the land. Just six months prior to the date of occurrence, the accused again threatened the deceased that he will cut him, as he has fenced the land and prevented his entry through the land belonging to Komu Ammal. Hence he developed enmity with the deceased. It appears that on the date of occurrence ie., on 1.5.2004 at about 19.00 hours, when the deceased and P.W.1 were carrying dinner to their daughters house, the accused along with one Shanmugam (A-2) came in the opposite direction. The street light was burning. When the deceased and P.W.1 were near Devars house, while A-2 Shanmugam caught hold of the deceased, the accused, by taking an aruval which was hidden on the back, cut the deceased on his left palm and left neck. The street light was burning. When the deceased and P.W.1 were near Devars house, while A-2 Shanmugam caught hold of the deceased, the accused, by taking an aruval which was hidden on the back, cut the deceased on his left palm and left neck. He also caused indiscriminate cut injuries on the face and other parts of the body of the deceased with the aruva. The accused and Shanmugam ran away from the scene after leaving the aruval in that place. The deceased fell down. 3. P.W.1, thereafter, went to the police station at about 20.45 hours and lodged a complaint, Ex.P-1 to the Head Constable, P.W.12, who registered the same in Cr.No.132 of 2004 for the offence under Sections 341, 302 & 506(ii) IPC. The printed First Information Report is Ex.P-10. He despatched the copies of the printed First Information Report to the higher officials and to the Court. 4. P.W.14, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the express report at 22.00 hours, went to the scene of occurrence at 22.15 hours and prepared an Observation Mahazar, Ex.P-11 and drew a rough sketch, Ex.P-13. He seized the blood stained aruval, M.O.3, blood stained earth, M.O.4 series and sample earth, M,O.5 series under an Athatchi, Ex.P-12 in the presence of the witnesses. At 24.00 hours, he conducted inquest over the body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars and the witnesses viz., P.Ws.1, 2 & Komu and recorded their statements. The inquest report is Ex.P-14. Thereafter, he sent the body to the Srivaikundam Government Hospital through a Constable PC 1887 along with the requisition Ex.P-2 to the doctor for conducting post-mortem. 5. P.W.8, Civil Surgeon, on receipt of the requisition and the body, commenced post-mortem on the body of the deceased at 12.15 p.m. on 2.5.2004 and found the following external injuries:- "(1) A cut injury of 3 x ½ x ½ cms.in the right forearm 5 cms.above wrist. (2) A cut injury of 4 x 2 x 3 cms.in the centre of the back of right forearm. (3) A cut injury of 15 x 2 x 3 cms.from the tip of left hand little finger upto the wrist on the palm aspect. (2) A cut injury of 4 x 2 x 3 cms.in the centre of the back of right forearm. (3) A cut injury of 15 x 2 x 3 cms.from the tip of left hand little finger upto the wrist on the palm aspect. (4) A cut injury of 15 x 6 x 8 cms.from the middle of left lower jaw towards the back of neck on the left side cutting the spinal cord, great vessels and muscles of the side. (5) A cut injury of 12 x 1 x 3 cms.from the middle of the nose towards outer angle of eye. (6) A cut injury of 2 x ½ x ½ cms.over the middle of upper lip. (7) A cut injury of 5 x 1 x 5 cms.right side scalp above forehead. (8) A cut injury of 3 x ½ x ½ cms.left side of forehead. (9) A cut injury of 4 x 2 x 2 cms.in the centre of back. (10) A cut injury of 8 x 4 x 5 cms.from behind the right ear lowdown to the middle of neck." He issued the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-3 with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died 12 to 20 hours prior to post-mortem due to shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries sustained. 6. P.W.14, the Inspector of Police, continuing with his investigation, after getting information as to the whereabouts of A-2 Shanmugam on 3.5.2004, went to Mangalakurichi bridge and arrested A-2 in the presence of witnesses at 12.45 hours. A-2 took the police party to the village and identified the scene of occurrence and also the place where the aruval was left. Thereafter, he came to the police station at 14.00 hours and remanded A-2 to judicial custody. In the meantime, the accused surrendered before the Tiruvadanai Court on 4.5.2004. He sent the seized material objects for chemical analysis through a requisition, Ex.P-4 to the Court. He examined the post-mortem doctor and recorded his statement. On 30.5.2004, after completing the investigation in the case, he laid the charge sheet before the Court for the offences as stated above. 7. When the accused and A-2 were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., as to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied them as false. No witness was examined and no document was marked on their side. 8. 7. When the accused and A-2 were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., as to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied them as false. No witness was examined and no document was marked on their side. 8. Before the trial Court, the prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined P.Ws.1 to 14, marked Exs.P-1 to P-14 and M.Os.1 to 5. P.Ws.3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 turned hostile before the trial Court. The learned Sessions Judge, having found that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against A-2 Shanmugam, acquitted A-2 of all the charges, but found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced him for the offence as stated above. Hence this appeal. 9. Mr.V.Kathirvelu, the learned counsel for the accused has contended that there was a delay in lodging the complaint and even according to P.W.1, she was carrying a thooku chatti at the time of occurrence and that the thooku chatti, which is a relevant material object, has not been recovered. The motive for the occurrence is only against the Komu Ammal, the owner of the garden land, and not against the deceased and the said Komu Ammal also has not been examined and the investigating officer has not visited and verified in regard to the tamarind trees near the scene of occurrence, which is fatal to the prosecution case. For the purpose of submission as to the failure on the part of the investigating officer to visit and verify in regard to the tamarind trees, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Subhash and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh ( AIR 1976 SC 1924 ) and so far as the non-recovery of the thooku chatti is concerned, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Meeta Harijan and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1998 Crl.L.J.119). 10. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submissions. 11. Sofar as the first contention as to the delay in lodging the complaint is concerned, it is seen that the occurrence had taken place on 1.5.2004 at 19.00 hours and, according to P.W.1, immediately after the occurrence, she went to the police station and lodged the complaint, Ex.P-1 to the Head Constable, P.W.12 attached to the Eral Police Station at 20.45 hours i.e., 1 hour and 45 minutes after the occurrence. This is most probably for P.W.1 to have reached the police station, though it is half a kilometre away from the place of occurrence, to lodge the complaint and, in the meantime, 1 hour and 45 minutes were consumed. In our considered view, the said delay cannot be considered to be one to disbelieve the very complaint itself given by P.W.1. That apart, the evidence of P.W.12, the Head Constable who has registered the complaint, is categorical that on receipt of the complaint, he prepared the First Information Report, Ex.P-10 and has forwarded the express reports to the Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikundam, who received the same at 3.30 a.m., on 2.5.2004. He is also categorical that the copies of the report were also forwarded to the Inspector of Police, P.W.14 for further investigation. From the above sequence of events, it is clear that P.W.1, who was the eyewitness to the occurrence, had reported the incident implicating the accused and one Shanmugam at 20.45 hours itself and the express reports also reached the Magistrate at 3.30 a.m. The evidence of P.W.14, Investigating Officer, is also categorical that he received the copy of the First Information Report from P.W.12 at about 22.00 hours and immediately, he rushed to the scene of occurrence at 22.15 hours and prepared the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P-11 and drew the rough sketch, Ex.P-13. Even if the delay of 1 hour and 45 minutes from the time of occurrence till the time of lodging the complaint is put against the prosecution, we are of the considered view that P.W.1, who is none other than the wife of the deceased and who is an eye-witness to the occurrence, would have taken that much time to reach the police station to lodge the complaint from the place of occurrence where her husband was lying with cut injuries. The time taken by her to lodge the complaint in the ordinary course is acceptable. Hence, we are not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for accused that there was a delay in lodging the complaint. 12. The learned counsel for the accused would submit that the very presence of P.W.1 in the scene of occurrence is doubtful and the conviction was not on the basis of her evidence, as she is an interested witness, more particularly, being the wife of the deceased in this case. 12. The learned counsel for the accused would submit that the very presence of P.W.1 in the scene of occurrence is doubtful and the conviction was not on the basis of her evidence, as she is an interested witness, more particularly, being the wife of the deceased in this case. The learned counsel would further submit that P.W.2 happened to be another witness and whose evidence was disbelieved by the trial Court and the other witnesses viz., P.Ws.3, 4, 5 , 6 & 7 also turned hostile leaving the only evidence of P.W.1 and, therefore, the conviction cannot be sustained on the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 alone. This submission falls to the ground, especially when P.W.1 implicated the accused in the complaint, Ex.P-1 at the earliest point of time and she is categorical as to the injuries said to have been caused by the accused. The evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the nature of injuries is corroborated by the evidence of the post-mortem doctor, P.W.8. In fact the post-mortem doctor is categorical in his evidence that the injury nos.4 & 10 are grievous in nature and would cause instantaneous death. He has also opined that the injuries said to have been sustained by the deceased could have been caused by aruval, M.O.3 and the said aruval also contains the human blood of the deceased. This is corroborated by the recovery of the aruval under the Athatchi, Ex.P- 12. Inasmuch as the evidence of P.W.1 implicating the accused for the offence and, more particularly, the injuries is corroborated by the medical evidence, merely because the other witnesses had turned hostile and the evidence of one witness was disbelieved by the trial Court, the accused cannot have the benefit of doubt for acquittal. 13. So far as the submission as to the failure on the part of the investigating officer to recover the thooku chatti is concerned, here again, we are of the considered view that the same will not affect the case of the prosecution, if the prosecution case is otherwise well founded. The judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Meeta Harijan case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for accused was a case where P.W.5 therein spoke as to the use of torch in the place of occurrence while preparing the observation mahazar. The judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Meeta Harijan case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for accused was a case where P.W.5 therein spoke as to the use of torch in the place of occurrence while preparing the observation mahazar. Hence the High Court found that the non-recovery of torch would affect the prosecution case. However, in the case on hand, the non-recovery of thooku chatti will not in any way affect the prosecution case, as the M.O.3 aruval has been recovered and the implication of the accused is well established. It is not as if that the material objects which are found in the place of occurrence would be recovered for the purpose of establishing the prosecution case. Only such of those material objects which have a relevance to establish the prosecution case would be recovered. Though P.W.1 has spoken to in the cross-examination that she was carrying the thooku chatti while going along with her husband at the occurrence place, it cannot be considered to be that much vital material object to disprove the prosecution case. Hence, on the given facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the failure on the part of the Investigating Officer to recover the thooku chatti would be fatal to the prosecution case. 14. Coming to the motive aspect, it is true that the fencing was done by one Komu Ammal, the owner of the garden land, whereby the access to the land of the accused was closed. Nevertheless, the fact remains that in the said garden land P.W.1 and the deceased were only residing and there were frequent enquiries by the accused in regard to the fencing only with the deceased. It is the categorical evidence of P.W.1 that six months prior to the date of occurrence, the accused came and threatened the deceased with dire consequences and that the deceased would be cut by the accused if the fencing was not removed. As a sequence the accused had developed enmity only with the deceased and there is nothing on record to indicate that he had ever quarrelled with the said Komu Ammal to establish the motive between the accused and the said Komu Ammal. That apart, motive is only an added piece of evidence to decide the case coupled with the other materials available on record. That apart, motive is only an added piece of evidence to decide the case coupled with the other materials available on record. On the given facts and circumstances of the case, though the fencing was done by Komu Ammal, both the deceased and his wife P.W.1 were only residing in the garden and there were quarrels between the deceased and the accused only and the motive of the accused against the deceased is well established. Hence the non-examination of the owner of the garden Komu Ammal does not in any way affect the case of the prosecution as put forth through the mouth of P.W.1. 15. Lastly the learned counsel for accused has contended that the Investigating Officer did not visit and verify in regard to the tamarind trees found near the scene of occurrence and for the said purpose, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Subhash case (supra). The said judgment is distinguishable on the facts of the present case. In the present case, it is not as if the tamarind trees were in the close vicinity of the scene of occurrence, but was in a far off place. It is the evidence of P.W.14 that he visited the place and also verified the tamarind trees. But it is for the Investigating Officer to prepare the observation mahazar relevant for the prosecution case and it is not obligatory that in all cases all the places in and around the place of occurrence should be shown in the observation mahazar. Most probably, the Investigating Officer could have thought that the tamarind trees, which are far away from the scene of occurrence, are not relevant to be shown in the observation mahazar. As the defence has not put forth the case by placing reliance mainly on the tamarind trees, in our considered view, though the Investigating Officer has visited the scene of occurrence and merely because he has not shown the tamarind trees, that will not affect the case of the prosecution. 16. From the evidence of P.W.1, it is seen that the accused had caused injuries on the left palm, left neck, face and on the various parts of the body of the deceased. Probably A-2 Shanmugam was implicated for the offence since he caught hold of the deceased at the time when the accused had inflicted indiscriminate injuries on the deceased. From the evidence of P.W.1, it is seen that the accused had caused injuries on the left palm, left neck, face and on the various parts of the body of the deceased. Probably A-2 Shanmugam was implicated for the offence since he caught hold of the deceased at the time when the accused had inflicted indiscriminate injuries on the deceased. Considering the fact that the prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt against A-2, the trial Court has acquitted A-2, Shanmugam, of all the charges and we find no infirmity with the said acquittal. 17. For all the above reasons, we find no merits to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal fails and it is dismissed.