Judgment :- R. Regupathi, J. The appeal is directed against the judgment dated 07.09.2006 made in Sessions Case No.164 of 2006 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, whereunder the appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under Section 341 I.P.C. and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved against the conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred before this Honble Court. 1. The case of the prosecution is that the accused on 6. 2005 at about 8.30 a.m. at Seenangorai, Nangavalli Taluk, in front of the house of the deceased Rukmani, on account of enmity with the deceased, are alleged to have obstructed the deceased and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 341 I.P.C. During the course of the same transaction, the first accused armed with a stick is alleged to have caused injury on the head of the deceased and the second accused armed with a billhook is alleged to have caused injuries on the head, neck and limbs of the deceased repeatedly and caused her death, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. 2. When the accused were initially questioned, they have not pleaded guilty and therefore, the trial of the case was taken up. 3. On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P1 to P22 were marked along with M.Os.1 to 12. On the side of the accused, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.D1 to D4 were marked. 4. P.Ws.1 to 3 were cited as eye witnesses to narrate the case of the prosecution. P.Ws.1 and 2 are son and daughter-in-law of the deceased respectively. P.W.3 is an eye witness. A1 and A2 are brothers. P.W.1 in his evidence has stated that the second accused is alleged to have kidnapped a girl in the village and there was some panchayat on account of that. The brother of P.W.1 convened the panchayat and in which the family of the accused was excommunicated and they were living away from the village. A1 and A2 are brothers. P.W.1 in his evidence has stated that the second accused is alleged to have kidnapped a girl in the village and there was some panchayat on account of that. The brother of P.W.1 convened the panchayat and in which the family of the accused was excommunicated and they were living away from the village. On account of that, there was enmity between the family of the accused and the family of the deceased. 5. Few days ago, the wife of the first accused was talking with one Ananthakrishnan and the first accused suspected his wife. It is further alleged that the deceased is the reason for such intimacy between his wife and Ananthakrishnan. With this background, on the day of occurrence, the deceased was proceeding with pots on her head to fetch water from the street pipe and both the accused were alleged to have followed her. The first accused was armed with a stick and caused injury on her head. The deceased fell down leaving the pots. The first accused assaulted her again and instigated the second accused, who armed with billhook, to assault her. By saying so, A1 caught hold of the deceased and A2 assaulted the deceased with billhook repeatedly. Thereafter, both the accused left the scene of occurrence with weapons. P.Ws.1 to 3 and others, who were present at the scene of occurrence, witnessed the occurrence. 6. Immediately after the occurrence, P.W.1 lodged a complaint with P.W.9 Sub Inspector of Police, Nangavalli Police Station and the complaint is marked as Ex.P1. 7. P.W.2, daughter-in-law of the deceased, who also followed the deceased at the time of occurrence, witnessed the occurrence. She corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.3, an Electrician and a resident of the same village, was going along the road at the time of occurrence and witnessed the occurrence. He also corroborated the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. 8. P.W.9, on receipt of Ex.P1 complaint, registered a case in Crime No.91 of 2005 for an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. Ex.P20 is the printed First Information Report. Copies of the FIR were despatched to the higher officials and to the Judicial Magistrates Court. 9. P.W.10, Inspector of Police, Nangavalli Police Station, took up the investigation at 10.30 a.m. on 6. 2005 on receipt of the first information report sent by P.W.9. Copies of the FIR were despatched to the higher officials and to the Judicial Magistrates Court. 9. P.W.10, Inspector of Police, Nangavalli Police Station, took up the investigation at 10.30 a.m. on 6. 2005 on receipt of the first information report sent by P.W.9. He reached the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P7 Observation Mahazar and Ex.P21 Rough Sketch in the presence of P.W.5 Village Administrative Officer and one Anaiyappan. He examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and other witnesses who were present at the scene of occurrence. He also conducted inquest over the body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P22 inquest report. Thereafter, he entrusted the dead body to the Head Constable Nagesh for post-mortem along with Ex.P9 requisition. 10. P.W.6 Dr. Vallinayagam attached to Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical college Hospital, Salem, on receipt of Ex.P9 requisition from P.W.10, conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased and noticed the following injuries: 1. A gaping cut injury present over the L side of neck 10x3xbone deep. All the blood vessels and muscles are cut at that level. 2. A gaping cut injury present on R side of neck 5x3xbone deep. 3. ½ cm below the injury No.1, a gaping cut injury present 7x4x2cm. 4. A gaping cut injury present over the L cheek 7x1.5xbone deep. Fracture of bone present beneath. 5. A cut injury present over the L chin 5x1x1cm. 6. A cut injury present on the L side of lower jaw, 2 cm below the previous injury, 3x2x1 cm. 7. A cut injury present over the L angle of mouth, 14x2-3cmxbone deep. 8. A cut injury over R side of neck 5x2x1cm 9. 2 cut injuries over R wrist 5x1xbone deep, 6x2xbone deep. 10. A cut injury over L hand 4x1x0.5cm. 11. A cut injury over L forearm 7x2xbone deep. 12-16. Cut injuries over R forearm 6x3xbone deep, R arm 5x2xbone deep, R leg lower one third 5x3xbone deep, L thigh inner and lower aspect 2x1x1 cm, L arm 3 superficial incised wounds 5, 3, 2, cm. 17. L ring finger & little finger found cut and present separately and raw area present over the fingers cut segment length l little finger 3cm, ring finger 3cm. 18. Cut injury over R temporal region 2x1xbone deep. 19. Cut injury over occipital region 3x1x0.5cm. 20. Contusion on R frontal region of scalp 8x4x0.5cm. 21. 17. L ring finger & little finger found cut and present separately and raw area present over the fingers cut segment length l little finger 3cm, ring finger 3cm. 18. Cut injury over R temporal region 2x1xbone deep. 19. Cut injury over occipital region 3x1x0.5cm. 20. Contusion on R frontal region of scalp 8x4x0.5cm. 21. Cut injury on front o neck 3x1x1cm. He issued Ex.P10 post-mortem certificate. He has opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage. He has further opined that the injuries would have been caused by M.O.1 billhook and injury no.1 would have been caused by M.O.2 stick. 11. On completion of the post-mortem, P.W.10 recovered M.O.10 bloodstained blouse, M.O.11 bloodstained saree and M.O.12 bloodstained petticoat of the deceased under Form 95. 12. He recovered M.O.1 billhook, M.O.3 ever-silver pot, M.O.4 plastic pot, M.O.6 bloodstained earth and M.O.7 sample earth from the scene of occurrence under Ex.P8 Mahazar in the presence of P.W.5 and Anaiyappan. He also caused photographs to be taken through P.W.4 Photographer of the scene of occurrence and Exs.P5 and P6 series are the photographs and negatives. 13. During the course of investigation, the accused surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kodumudi on 6. 2005 and were produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mettur on 16. 2005. P.W.10 took them on police custody and recorded their confession statements, admissible portion of which were marked as Exs.P11 and P12, in the presence of P.W.7 Village Administrative Officer and his menial. In pursuance of the confession statements, P.W.10 recovered M.O.8 bloodstained shirt of A2 under Ex.P.13 Mahazar in the presence of P.W.7 and his menial. He also recovered M.O.2 stick and M.O.9 bloodstained shirt of A1 under Ex.P14 in the presence of P.W.7 and his menial. He also recovered M.O.5 TVS50 two wheeler under Ex.P15 in the presence of P.W.7 and his menial. P.W.10 forwarded P.Ws.1 to 3 for recording statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the same were recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Metturdam. Exs.P2 to P4 are the statements given by P.Ws.1 to 3 respectively under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 14. P.W.8 is the Magisterial Clerk, who speaks about the receipt of requisition Ex.P16 from P.W.10, forwarding the material objects to the laboratory under Ex.P17 Courts letter and receipt of Ex.P18 Chemical Examiners Report and Ex.P19 Serologists Report. 15. Exs.P2 to P4 are the statements given by P.Ws.1 to 3 respectively under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 14. P.W.8 is the Magisterial Clerk, who speaks about the receipt of requisition Ex.P16 from P.W.10, forwarding the material objects to the laboratory under Ex.P17 Courts letter and receipt of Ex.P18 Chemical Examiners Report and Ex.P19 Serologists Report. 15. After completing the investigation, the Inspector of Police, P.W.10, filed the charge sheet on 17. 2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302 I.P.C. 1. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied the same. 2. The first accused filed a written statement wherein it is stated that P.Ws.1 and 2 were not at all present at the scene of occurrence on 6. 2005 in view of the reason that they had attended a marriage of their close relative and they were absent in the village between the evening of 6. 2005 and morning on the next day. Further it is stated that he was working as weaver and when he returned home after his work at 3.30 a.m. on 6. 2005, his wife was found missing and he searched for her and found her in the company of one Ananthakrishnan and the deceased is the person who arranged their illicit intimacy. On coming to know about the same, the first accused is alleged to have questioned the deceased, for which, it was stated by the deceased that the first accused must control his wife instead of blaming her and also scolded him in filthy language. On account of that, the first accused got provoked and taken a billhook, which was found in front of her residence and caused injuries on her. The first accused further stated that he has committed such injuries unable to bear anger and due to provocation. He further stated that the second accused was not in the scene of occurrence and he has nothing to do with the offence alleged. A false has been foisted against him with the help of P.Ws.1 to 3 and further disputed the recoveries made in pursuance of his confession statement. 3. The second accused also filed a written statement wherein he denied his involvement in the occurrence. He has also stated that he never produced any material object as alleged by the prosecution. A false has been foisted against him with the help of P.Ws.1 to 3 and further disputed the recoveries made in pursuance of his confession statement. 3. The second accused also filed a written statement wherein he denied his involvement in the occurrence. He has also stated that he never produced any material object as alleged by the prosecution. Further, it is stated that the first accused alleged to have informed him about the assault on the deceased unable to bear anger and due to provocation. 4. On the side of the defence, three witnesses were examined. D.W.1 is the cousin of the accused. He has stated that he and P.Ws.1 and 2 attended a marriage of one Selvam at Bhavani on the day of occurrence. Ex.D1 is the wedding invitation. P.Ws.1 and 2 were present on the previous day for betrothal function as well as on the next day for marriage which took place between 9.00 and 10.30 a.m. The information about the death of the deceased was received at the place of marriage only at 11.00 a.m. 5. D.W.2 is the wife of A1, who corroborated the evidence of D.W.1 with regard to the marriage of one Selvam and the non presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 at the scene of occurrence. She has further stated during the fateful night she was having illicit intimacy with the said Ananthakrishnan and the first accused came at that time and this was noticed by the deceased. It was the deceased who cautioned her to go away from that place and thereby she escaped along with Ananthakrishnan to her mothers residence. 6. D.W.3 is cousin of the deceased. She has stated that the accused are sons of her sister. She corroborated the evidence of D.W.1 with regard to the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 at the wedding hall. Photographs were taken in the wedding in which P.Ws.1 and 2 are present. Though the counsel for the accused made an attempt to mark those photographs, it was declined. Therefore, sought for permission to recall P.W.1 for marking the photographs. Accordingly, this Court permitted for such recall of P.W.1 and recorded his further statement on 21. 2008. During the course of his evidence, Exs.D2 and D3 photographs were shown to him and he denied the suggestion that those photos contained photos of P.Ws.1 and 2. 4. Therefore, sought for permission to recall P.W.1 for marking the photographs. Accordingly, this Court permitted for such recall of P.W.1 and recorded his further statement on 21. 2008. During the course of his evidence, Exs.D2 and D3 photographs were shown to him and he denied the suggestion that those photos contained photos of P.Ws.1 and 2. 4. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, on perusal of the materials oral and documentary produced before the Court and after hearing the arguments advanced by both the sides, convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants filed the present appeal. 1. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are relatives of the deceased, must be eschewed from the consideration since they are interested witnesses. Their present at the scene of occurrence at the time of alleged offence is disputed. Exs.D1 to D3 were marked to substantiate the claim that P.Ws.1 and 2 were not present at the scene of occurrence on the fateful day. The evidence of D.Ws.1 to 3 are consistent that P.Ws.1 and 2 were present at the place of marriage at Bhavani and Exs.D2 and D3 have been marked to substantiate their presence and the photographs contained the photos of P.Ws.1 and 2. The marriage took place between 9 and 10.30 a.m. on 6. 2005 and P.Ws.1 and 2 were present for the marriage as well as the betrothal which took place on the previous day evening. 2. The present occurrence is alleged to have taken place at 8.30 a.m. in the village and since the death of the deceased took place early in the morning, she was assaulted by unknown persons and to implicate the accused falsely, P.Ws.1 and 2 were planted as eye witnesses for the case. P.W.3, who has been claimed by the prosecution as an eye witness, is a chance witness. He has been cross examined at length to substantiate during the time of occurrence, P.W.3 would not have gone along the scene of occurrence and that is not the normal route he usually walks across the village. Therefore, it is submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 must not be relied upon. 3. He has been cross examined at length to substantiate during the time of occurrence, P.W.3 would not have gone along the scene of occurrence and that is not the normal route he usually walks across the village. Therefore, it is submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 must not be relied upon. 3. It is further submitted that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place at 8.30 a.m. and the complaint was given at 10.00 a.m. However, the printed FIR reached the Court of Judicial Magistrate only at 8.00 p.m. In view of the delay, it is submitted that a case has been falsely foisted and at a later point of time, the first information report was prepared at the police station. 4. Finally, it is submitted that as per the written statement made by the first accused, it is he who caused injury with M.O.1 billhook on the deceased on coming to know that the deceased had arranged for illicit intimacy between his wife and Ananthakrishnan and she is responsible in giving the signal to go away from the place after seeing the arrival of the first accused. Under such circumstances, a quarrel ensued and since the deceased used filthy language, unable to bear with such accusation, lost his self-control and provoked by the conduct of the deceased, he has committed the death of the deceased by causing multiple injuries. Under such circumstances, an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. would not be attracted and pleaded for a lesser offence under Section 304 I.P.C. 5. Further relying on his statement excluding the complicity of the second accused in the crime and also on the statement of the second accused, submitted that the second accused is an innocent person and he was not at all present at the scene of occurrence. Only because of the reason that A2 is happened to be the brother of A1, he has been falsely implicated in the case. 1. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that this is a case of day light murder witnessed by three eye witnesses. P.Ws.1 and 2 are son and daughter-in-law of the deceased and their narration of the occurrence is quite natural. Apart from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, P.W.3 is another eye witness, who do not have any enmity to falsely give evidence against the accused. P.Ws.1 and 2 are son and daughter-in-law of the deceased and their narration of the occurrence is quite natural. Apart from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, P.W.3 is another eye witness, who do not have any enmity to falsely give evidence against the accused. After surrender of the accused, judicial custody was taken and in pursuance of the confession statements of the accused, bloodstained weapons and clothing of the accused were recovered and those material objects must be taken as material piece of evidence. It is submitted that P.W.6 Post-mortem Doctor listed 21 injuries on the body of the deceased coupled with the motive put forth by the case of the prosecution, it is quite natural that the accused were entertaining grudge with the deceased, which was listed in the causation of such injuries. 2. It is further submitted that Ex.P1 complaint was given without any delay and there is no further delay in despatching FIR copies to the Court. Though enormous steps have been taken by the defence to substantiate that P.Ws.1 and 2 were not present at the scene of occurrence, the accused have not succeeded in their attempt. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused were armed with M.O.2 stick and M.O.1 billhook respectively. The sequence of overt acts have been narrated by all the three eye witnesses without any deviation. The first accused assaulted the deceased on her head with M.O.2 stick. It is only on his instigation, the second accused delivered assault with M.O.1 billhook and even at that time the first accused was assisting A2 by holding her. At the time of examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused have given a new story. However, the presence of the first accused and the assault with M.O.1 billhook have not been denied. It is only for the purpose of excluding the second accused, who is no other than the brother of the first accused, such a belated deviation has been taken after conclusion of the trial. 7. We have perused the materials available on record and the oral submissions made by both sides. 1. Though P.Ws.1 and 2 are son and daughter-in-law of the deceased respectively, on perusal of their evidence, we are of the considered opinion that their evidence is reliable and trustworthy. 7. We have perused the materials available on record and the oral submissions made by both sides. 1. Though P.Ws.1 and 2 are son and daughter-in-law of the deceased respectively, on perusal of their evidence, we are of the considered opinion that their evidence is reliable and trustworthy. Only because of the reason that they are closely related to the deceased, their evidence cannot be rejected. In a case of grave offence like the present one, especially when the occurrence takes place nearer to the residents in the village, the natural witnesses will be the relatives and the narration of the prosecution shows that P.Ws.1 and 2 are the only witnesses, who were present at the scene of occurrence. The occurrence took place in a small village, in which it cannot be expected that people in the village will be walking along in the same road and the claim of the defence that P.W.3 was unusually walking along some other street cannot be accepted. P.W.3 is an eye witness. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 with regard to the occurrence is consistent and the overt act attribution against A1 and A2 has been clearly spoken to by the eye witnesses. The occurrence took place in a broad day light. 2. Ex.P1 complaint was given without any delay and we cannot conclude that there is a delay in reaching the FIR to the Court considering the distance between the police station and the Court. It is admitted that the first accused entertained strong motive against the deceased since it is stated that the deceased is the person who arranged illicit intimacy of the wife of the first accused with Ananthakrishnan. The presence of the first accused at the scene of occurrence is not disputed. We are unable to accept the shifting of overt act by the defence from A2 to A1. On perusal of the materials, we can only come to an irresistible conclusion that such an evidence taken only for the purpose of getting certain defence for the first accused and excluding the second accused from the commission of the evidence. Miserably such a defence has not been taken during the course of trial and none of the eye witnesses has been cross examined in those lines. 3. Miserably such a defence has not been taken during the course of trial and none of the eye witnesses has been cross examined in those lines. 3. We have carefully considered the defence taken during the course of cross examination of the eye witnesses and the written statements of both the accused. It is the case of the prosecution that the first accused was armed with M.O.2 stick and while accepting the admission made by the first accused with regard to the grudge which he has entertained towards the deceased, to start with he has caused injuries on the deceased and subsequently instigated the second accused who was armed with M.O.2 billhook. Such a defence is taken only for the purpose of keeping the second accused from out of the case. Even without relying on the admission made by the accused, there are wealth of materials available in the case of the prosecution and we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has made out a case against both the accused. 4. On perusal of the materials available on record and on considering the reasoning given by the trial Court for convicting the appellants, we do not find any reason to interfere with the conclusion reached by the trial Court and therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court are confirmed and the appeal stands dismissed. The first appellant/A1 is on bail. The bail bonds executed by the first appellant/A1 shall stand cancelled forthwith and the learned Sessions Judge is directed to take steps to secure the presence of the first appellant/A1 and commit him to jail to undergo the remaining period of sentence. The period of sentence already undergone by him shall be given set off.