Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. The first accused in a case of murder in S.C.No.611 of 2001 on the file of the learned First Additional District Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, who stood charged along with the other ranked as A-2 under Section 302 r/w S.34 IPC, found guilty as per the charge and awarded life imprisonment, has challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence before this Court. 2. Theshort facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus: a) P.W.1 is the close relative of the deceased Balamurugan. Both P.W.1 and the deceased were eking out their livelihood by Auto driving. A person, by name Premkumar of M.K.Puram, used to visit Solaialagupuram, where he got an illicit intimacy with one lady. The same was warned by the residents of that area. On one occasion, the deceased also warned him. On 3.1.2001, the said Premkumar waylaid one Ramanathan and robbed. The same was informed to the police by the deceased and hence, the said Premkumar was in inimical terms with the deceased. b) Both A-1 and A-2 were the close associates of the said Premkumar. On 5.7.2001 at about 8.00 a.m., the deceased and P.W.1 went over to the Tea stall and after taking tea, they returned at about 8.30 a.m. from Jaihindhpuram to Vilasapuram Road. At that time, A-1 and A-2 came there and took the deceased. P.W.1 had followed them. At the place of occurrence, both the accused telling the deceased that it was you, who identified Premkumar to the police. So saying, both of them attacked the deceased with knife indiscriminately. On hearing the distressing cry, both the accused fled away from the place of occurrence. c) P.W.1 took the deceased in an Auto, informed about the occurrence to the father of the deceased and went to the Government Hospital. Despite short treatment, the deceased died. Immediately, an information was given to the respondent police station. P.W.16, the Sub Inspector of Police, rushed to the Government Hospital and recorded Ex.P.1, the statement of P.W.1, on the strength of which, a case came to be registered in Crime No.618 of 2001 under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P.20, the FIR, along with Ex.P.1, the complaint was sent to the concerned Judicial Magistrate. P.W.16, the Sub Inspector of Police, rushed to the Government Hospital and recorded Ex.P.1, the statement of P.W.1, on the strength of which, a case came to be registered in Crime No.618 of 2001 under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P.20, the FIR, along with Ex.P.1, the complaint was sent to the concerned Judicial Magistrate. d) P.W.17, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the FIR, took up the investigation, proceeded to the spot and inspected the scene of occurrence in the presence of witnesses. He prepared Ex.P.14, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.21, the rough sketch. M.Os, including the bloodstained earth and sample earth, were recovered in the presence of the witnesses under a cover of mahazar. He went to the Government Hospital and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.22, the inquest report. Following the same, a requisition was forwarded to P.W.9, the Doctor, attached to the Madurai Medical College, to conduct autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. e) Accordingly, P.W.9, the Doctor has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and has found the injuries. He has issued Ex.P.8, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injury sustained. f) Following the same, the Investigator came to know that both the accused surrendered before the court and hence, he has filed an application seeking police custody and the same was also ordered. Both the accused came forward to give confessional statements, which were recorded in the presence of the witnesses, the admissible part of the confessional statement of A-1 was marked as Ex.P.2 and that of A-2 was marked as Ex.P.3. Pursuant to the same, A-1 produced M.O.1, knife and A-2 produced M.O.2 knife, which were recovered in the presence of the witnesses under a cover of mahazar. g) There was an identification parade, on requisition, by the Judicial Magistrate concerned. At the time of identification parade, which was conducted on 10.08.2001, P.W.1 has clearly identified A-2 and all the identification parade proceedings were also marked as Ex.P.13. Both the accused were again sent for judicial remand. g) There was an identification parade, on requisition, by the Judicial Magistrate concerned. At the time of identification parade, which was conducted on 10.08.2001, P.W.1 has clearly identified A-2 and all the identification parade proceedings were also marked as Ex.P.13. Both the accused were again sent for judicial remand. All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence, from the dead body of the deceased and the M.Os recovered from the accused pursuant to the confessional statements, were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Science Department, on a requisition given by the Investigating Officer through the concerned court. Ex.P.18, the Chemical Analysts report and Ex.P.19, the Serologists report were placed before the concerned Judicial Magistrate. On completion of the investigation, final report was filed by the Investigator. 3. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution has marched 17 witnesses and relied on 22 exhibits and 6 M.Os. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false. No defence witness was examined. The trial court, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side, found both the accused guilty under Section 302 r/w S.34 IPC and awarded life imprisonment. Under these circumstances, the first accused has brought forth this criminal appeal before this Court. 4. Advancing his arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the motive for the occurrence; that according to the prosecution, one Premkumar and the deceased were in inimical terms, for which either A-1 or A-2 had nothing to do; that there was not even one eyewitness examined to prove the motive part; that the occurrence has taken place at about 8.30 a.m.; that the police station is situated within 100 meters from the place of occurrence; that the case was reported to the police at about 11.15 a.m. and the case was registered at 11.15 a.m and thus, there was a delay noticed, which remains unexplained. Added further the learned counsel that the Magistrate Court is also situated in the very same place, but the FIR reached the Court at about 6.55 p.m. and thus, there was a long delay, which also remains unexplained; that both the delays in registration of the case and also despatching the FIR to the Court would fatal to the prosecution case; that in the instant case, P.W.1 could not have been the eyewitness to the occurrence; that the evidence of P.W.1, which is solitary, when scrutinized properly, would indicate that he could not have seen the occurrence at all; that in the instant case, P.W.1 could not have been present in the occurrence place and his evidence did not stand the scrutiny of law; and that the lower court has not considered all these aspects of the matter 5. Added further the learned counsel that there was no identification parade conducted in respect of A-1, but, it was conducted to A-2 and under these circumstances, the lower court should have considered all the aspects of the matter, but it has erroneously found the appellant/accused guilty and awarded life imprisonment, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 6. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions. 7. TheCourt has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 8. It is not the fact in controversy that the deceased died out of homicidal violence. Apart from that, the prosecution, in order to establish the same, examined the post-mortem Doctor and the Doctor has also issued post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained. This fact was never questioned by the accused/appellant at any stage of proceedings and under the circumstances, without any impediment, it could be recorded that the deceased died out of homicidal violence. 9. In order to substantiate the fact that it was the accused, who stabbed the deceased at the place of occurrence and the deceased was taken to the hospital and he died in the hospital, the prosecution has examined P.W.1. He was the direct eyewitness to the occurrence and he narrated the entire occurrence in entirety and has given a graphic narration. He has also spoken about the conduct of Premkumar that the said Premkumar had illicit intimacy wit one lady and the same was warned. He was the direct eyewitness to the occurrence and he narrated the entire occurrence in entirety and has given a graphic narration. He has also spoken about the conduct of Premkumar that the said Premkumar had illicit intimacy wit one lady and the same was warned. Apart from that, it was the deceased, who identified the said Premkumar to the police. Since both the accused were the close associates of Premkumar, on the date of occurrence, both the accused came and took the deceased to the place of occurrence and stabbed him. This was witnessed by P.W.1 anddespite cross examination in full, the evidence of P.W.1 remains unshaken. Under these circumstances, the trial court has marshaled the evidence of P.W.1 and has found that his evidence was acceptable. 10. In the instant case, apart from the evidence of P.W.1, the prosecution had to its benefit the medical evidence, which has corroborated the ocular testimony. Apart from that, on the strength of the confessional statement given by A-1/the appellant herein, M.O.1, knife was recovered in the presence of witnesses and the scientific evidence is also in favour of the prosecution. 11. Now, all the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant require consideration. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, there was a delay in registration of the case. It is true, the occurrence has taken place at about 8.30 a.m. and the case came to be registered at about 11.15 a.m. But, this Court is unable to notice any delay for the reason that immediately after the occurrence, it was P.W.1, who took the seriously injured in an Auto and informed the occurrence to the father of the injured and later, went to the Government Hospital, where he was given treatment and despite treatment, he died. Immediately, on information received, the Sub Inspector of Police rushed to the Government Hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1 and registered the case. Hence, this Court is unable to notice any delay in registration of the case and the case was registered in its natural course. 12. The secondcontention is that there was a delay in the FIR reaching the Court. This Court is able to see that there was a delay. Hence, this Court is unable to notice any delay in registration of the case and the case was registered in its natural course. 12. The secondcontention is that there was a delay in the FIR reaching the Court. This Court is able to see that there was a delay. But, this Court is of the considered opinion that this delay, by itself, would not be sufficient to reject the prosecution case, unless it is shown that such delay has caused prejudice to the accused or any embellishment is made. Even in the earliest document, namely FIR, the name of A-1 was mentioned, but the name of A-2 was not mentioned. Hence, identification parade was conducted, in which P.W.1 has clearly identified A-2. Apart from that, in the instant case, the place of occurrence is shown as lane in the rough sketch, but it was shown as 30 feet width, which itself cannot be a reason to doubt the prosecution case. This Court is unable to notice any merit in the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant and hence, they have got to be raised to ground. Under these circumstances, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused by placing sufficient evidence. The trial court has marshaled the evidence properly and has found the accused/appellant guilty. In the instant case, it was the accused/appellant, who, along with A-2, took the deceased to the place of occurrence and stabbed him to death. Under these circumstances, the act of the accused/appellant was an intentional and pre-planned one. Hence, the lower court was perfectly correct in finding the accused/appellant guilty under Section 302 r/w S.34 IPC and awarding life imprisonment, which, in the opinion of the court, does not require any interference. 13. In the result, the criminal appeal fails and the same is dismissed.