Judgment :- V. Periya Karuppiah, J. This appeal is directed by the accused/appellant against the judgment dated 26. 2005 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, convicting him under Sections 302 I.P.C. and 506(ii) I.P.C and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- and to undergo R.I. for one year respectively. 2. The facts leading to the conviction and sentence are as follows: (a) The accused and the deceased Bannari are the husband and wife. P.W.1 is their son. The accused used to drink and beat his wife often suspecting her fidelity. While so, on 10. 2004, when P.W.1 returned home from his work at 7.00 p.m., his father and mother were quarreling with each other. At that time, P.W.1s paternal uncles - P.W.3 and Guru, who passed through the house of the accused after their work, ON hearing the noise, came and pacified both the accused and the deceased and left to their house. At 9.00 p.m. the accused, the deceased, P.W.1 and his younger brother had their dinner and slept. But the younger brother of P.W.l alone went to his maternal grandmothers house for sleeping. (b) At 11.00 p.m, on hearing some noise, PW.1 woke up and saw a bulb was burning in their house. At that time, the accused suspecting the fidelity of his wife was quarreling with her and in that quarrel he took a spade handle and attacked on her forehead. Then, he put a rope around her neck and tightened it by pressing her chest with his legs. P.W.1 pleaded not to beat his mother. But the accused threatened PW.1 saying that if he shouts, he will murder him also and the deceased Bannari died there itself. Thereafter, the accused took the blood spilled over the floor in his hands and splashed over the wall, washed his hands in a plastic bucket, wore his dothi and left with the spade handle warning PW.1 that if he comes out or shouts, he will murder him and that he will be watching outside. Therefore, PW.1 remained in the house itself, the whole night. (c) On the next day, at 6.00 a.m. he came out and saw whether his father was sitting. But the accused was not there. Hence, he went to his grandmothers house and brought his grandmother. P.W.3, the maternal uncle also came to the scene of occurrence. Therefore, PW.1 remained in the house itself, the whole night. (c) On the next day, at 6.00 a.m. he came out and saw whether his father was sitting. But the accused was not there. Hence, he went to his grandmothers house and brought his grandmother. P.W.3, the maternal uncle also came to the scene of occurrence. On information, at 8.00 a.m. P.W.2-Village Administrative Officer also came to the spot, to whom, P.W.1. narrated the incident, which was reduced into writing as complaint by P.W.2 in which P.W.1 put his thumb impression, after the same was read over to him. Thereafter, at 8.50 a.m., P.W.2 went to Sathyamangalam Police Station and lodged the complaint-Ex.P.1, along with his endorsement Ex.P.2, which was received by P.W.10 on the basis of which a case in Cr.No.561 of 2004 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. The printed F.I.R. is marked as Ex.P.10. He then sent the complaint and the F.I.R. to the Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam and sent the copies to the higher officials. (d) P.W.11 on taking up the case for investigation, inspected the scene of crime along with P.W.10 and P.W.8-photographer at 10.30 a.m. He prepared observation mahazar-Ex.P3 and rough sketch Ex.P.11 in the presence of P.W.5 and one Ponnusamy. He caused the scene of occurrence to be photographed. The negatives and the photographs are marked as Exs.P.15 and 16 series. He held inquest over the body of the deceased from 12.15 p.m. to 3.15 p.m. in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses. The inquest report is Ex.P.12. He examined P.Ws.1 to 3 & 5 and recorded their statements. Then he sent the body for postmortem through P.W.9 along with a requisition to Sathyamangalam Government Hospital. (e) P.W.7 on receipt of the requisition, conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased Bannari on 10. 2004 at 5.00 p.m. and he found the following injuries, which are incorporated under Ex.P.8-postmortem certificate: External Injuries: 1. A lacerated wound starting from the outer angle of the right eye extending over the forehead upto the left eyebrow. Measuring 15cm x 3cm x bone deep exposing the frontal bone right eye deeply bind inside the wound. 2. A lacerated wound 4 cm x 3 cm over the centre of the forehead. 3. A lacerated wound 5 cm x 2 cm on the forehead above the left eyebrow. 4. Measuring 15cm x 3cm x bone deep exposing the frontal bone right eye deeply bind inside the wound. 2. A lacerated wound 4 cm x 3 cm over the centre of the forehead. 3. A lacerated wound 5 cm x 2 cm on the forehead above the left eyebrow. 4. A lacerated vertical wound on the nose 3cm x 1 cm with exposing fractured nasal bones. 5. A contusion over the right side of the upper lip 3cm x 2 cm. 6. Contusions over the lower jaw both left and right side 3cm x 1 cm. Two in nos. 7. A rope mark seen over the front of the neck starting from the right side of nape of the neck (hairline) to left side nape of the neck hairline measuring 20 cms in length. At the beginning the breath is 2 cms in the middle it is 5 cms and in the left end it is 1 cm. The rope mark is brownish red in colour. Internal Examination:- "On dissection of the head, on removing the scalp, there is sub dural haematoma right frontal region with fracture right side frontal bone, elevating the right side frontal bone into a triangular piece measuring 10cm x 11cm size. There is fracture right temporal bone 10 cm in length. There is fracture parietal bone starting from the right end of the parietal bone to the left parietal bone 13 cm." The doctor preserved the hyoid bone to ascertain the cause of death and reserved the opinion pending its report. (f) P.W.11 in continuation of the investigation recovered M.O.2 – rope, M.O.3 – plastic bucket, M.O.4 – blood stained bundle of clothes, M.O.5 – blood stained saree, M.O.6– blood stained blanket, M.O.7–blood stained mat, M.O.8–blood stained wooden piece, M.O.9–blood stained cement plaster, M.O.10–sample cement plaster, M.O.11–blood stained cement plaster taken from southern wall of the house of the accused, M.O.12-sample cement plaster taken from the southern wall and M.O.13-two bottles of blood mixed water taken from M.O.3 from the scene of occurrence in the presence of same witnesses under the cover of mahazar Ex.P.4. He also recovered the personal apparels (M.Os.17 to 23) of the deceased produced by P.W.9 with his report-Ex.P9. On 10. 2004, he examined P.Ws.3 to 5 and recorded their statements. On the same day i.e. 10. He also recovered the personal apparels (M.Os.17 to 23) of the deceased produced by P.W.9 with his report-Ex.P9. On 10. 2004, he examined P.Ws.3 to 5 and recorded their statements. On the same day i.e. 10. 2004, at 4.00 p.m., he arrested the accused near Sathyamagalam Easwaran Koil in the presence of P.W.6, Village Administrative Officer and his Assistant, in whose presence, the accused gave his confession statement, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P.5, pursuant to which, the accused took P.W.11 and the witnesses to a bush situate on the backside of the Annamar Temple, Angangounden Pudur and produced the concealed M.O.1-spade handle and his blood stained underwear M.O.14 and the same were recovered by P.W.11 under the recovery mahazar Ex.P.6. He also examined P.W.6 and his Assistant and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he brought the accused and the recovered objects to the police station and subjected the accused to police custody. On the next day, i.e. 110. 2004, he remanded the accused to judicial custody. He sent the material objects to the Court. On 110. 2004, he gave requisition-Ex.P.13 to the Court to send the material objects and the preserved hyoid bone of the deceased for chemical examination, which were accordingly sent for examination by the Court with a covering letter Exs.P.14 & 15 respectively and the reports received are Exs.P7-Hyoid bone report, Ex.P.16-Chemical Examination Report, Exs.P.17 & 18 – Serologists Report. He examined the photographer and the doctor who conducted autopsy and obtained recorded their statements and he also obtained the final opinion of the doctor-P.W.7 to the effect that the deceased would appear to have died of asphyxia due to strangulation and injury to vital organ brain. P.W.11 after completing the investigation, filed a final report against the accused under Sections 302 and 506(i) I.P.C. 3. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating materials available in evidence, he denied the same and also exhibited his ignorance with regard to the incident in his written statement filed under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 4. In order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P.1 to 18 and material objects 1 to 23. The accused did not examine anyone nor he marked any documents. 5. In order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P.1 to 18 and material objects 1 to 23. The accused did not examine anyone nor he marked any documents. 5. The learned trial Judge solely relying upon the evidence of P.W.1, eye witness, which according to his evaluation, is cogent and corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and also supported by P.W.7 came to the conclusion of finding the accused guilty of the offence and convicted and sentenced him as aforementioned. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. A.S.Chakravarthy and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. P.Kumaresan appearing for the State. 7. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. A.S.Chakravarthy and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. P.Kumaresan appearing for the State. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit in his argument that the learned Sessions Judge had not considered the evidence of P.W.1, who is a minor witness in its proper perspective and had relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 and passed conviction and sentence over the appellant inasmuch as the evidence of P.W.1 is full of contradictions and not supported by any other evidence; that when the medical evidence would show that the deceased had sustained three injuries on her forehead, the evidence of P.W.1 is to the effect that the accused had hit once on the forehead of the deceased; that the evidence of P.W.1 would also go to show that he had taken food along with his mother, whereas in the internal examination on opening the stomach of the deceased, no food particles were found inside by P.W.7, the doctor and therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be relied in toto, that the manner in which P.W.1 acted when his mother was murdered i.e. waiting throughout the night and giving complaint on the next day morning, would create some suspicion over the evidence of P.W.1 and he did not even immediately contact his grandmother or his maternal uncle, who are residing nearby, to inform the murder of his mother by the accused, which would make the evidence of P.W.1 unreliable and therefore, the reliance made by the lower Court solely on the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be sustained and that when the evidence of the eye witness itself is not trustworthy, it is not possible to incriminate the accused with the offence with the support of corroborative evidence and therefore, the conviction and sentence passed on the appellant relying on the prosecution witnesses is not proper and prayed for the acquittal of the accused. 8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the evidence of P.W.1 being a minor witness is cogent and he had spoken about the allegations in the complaint and had deposed that his father was always suspecting his mothers fidelity and was quarreling. On the fateful day i.e. on 10. 2004, the accused had also quarreled with his mother. Therefore, he had pleaded to his father not to fight with his mother. On the fateful day i.e. on 10. 2004, the accused had also quarreled with his mother. Therefore, he had pleaded to his father not to fight with his mother. In the meantime, his paternal uncles P.W.3 and Guru came and they have also pacified his father and mother and thereafter, P.W.1 had gone to bed by 9.00 p.m. and his junior brother had gone to grandmothers house for sleeping and in the meanwhile at about 11.00 p.m. when he suddenly woke up on hearing the quarrel in between his father and mother, he heard his father abusing his mother suspecting her fidelity saying that she had been going to various places and had hit at the forehead of his mother with the spade handle and thereby caused injury and immediately thereafter, he had also put a rope around her neck and tightened it by pressing her chest with his legs. P.W.1 was witnessing the occurrence with the help of the bulb burning in their house and when he pleaded not to beat his mother, he was threatened by his father that if he shouts, he would also be murdered. Thereafter, the accused had splashed the blood oozed out from the injuries of his mother on the walls and he had washed his hands in the green bucket and gone away warning P.W.1 that if he comes out or shouts, he would also be murdered and that he will be sitting outside. On the next morning, on ascertaining that his father was not there, he went to grandmothers place and informed about the incident. The above evidence given by P.W.1 itself explains the reason for P.W.1 not coming out of the house and informing to his grandmother and maternal uncles immediately because of the threat emanated from his father. He would also further submit in his argument that the motive for the offence had also been spoken by P.W.3, the maternal uncle and P.W.1 and yet another witness P.W.4., who is a member of a self help group that they have taken steps to compromise the dispute in between the appellant as well as the deceased. He would also further submit in his argument that the motive for the offence had also been spoken by P.W.3, the maternal uncle and P.W.1 and yet another witness P.W.4., who is a member of a self help group that they have taken steps to compromise the dispute in between the appellant as well as the deceased. He would also state that the accused was arrested immediately and he has given a confession statement pursuant to which his underwear and the spade handle which he had used for murdering his wife had been seized and the seizure witness would also speak about the confession given by the accused, which lead to the recovery of the blood stained weapon as well as the blood stained underwear of the accused which he worn at the time of the occurrence. Further, the blood stain contained in the said weapon also tallied with the blood group of the deceased. The circumstantial evidence and the medical evidence would not only support the ocular evidence of P.W.1, but also confirm the evidence of P.W.1 and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge was right in convicting the accused and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment as aforesaid. He would also submit in his argument that P.W.2 the Village Administrative Officer had spoken to the effect that when he came to the place of occurrence at 8.00 a.m., P.W.1 had narrated about the occurrence and immediately he has reduced the same into writing as complaint and submitted it to the police and these circumstances would also go a long way to show that the evidence of P.W.1 is untainted. He had also submitted that the evidence as spoken by the mahazar witnesses available during the recovery of the blood stained cement plasters of the wall have also confirmed the evidence of P.W.1, to the effect that his father took blood oozing out from the body of his mother and splashed over the walls. Moreover, the seizure of the bucket with blood mixed water would show that the evidence of P.W.1 is true and in such circumstances, the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge convicting and sentencing the accused may not be interfered. 9. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the materials available on record carefully. 10. 9. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the materials available on record carefully. 10. The case of the prosecution is that on 10. 2004 at about 11.00 p.m. when P.W.1 was sleeping in the house, after having dinner along with his parents and brother at 9.00 p.m., his parents viz., the accused and the deceased had indulged in a quarrel and in the quarrel, the accused with a motive to kill his wife, had attacked on her forehead with the spade handle and thereby caused injuries and thereafter, he had also put the rope around her neck and tightened it by pressed her chest with his legs, and caused asphyxia to end her life and after causing the death his wife, the accused gone away from the scene of occurrence after threatening his son P.W.1 that he would also be done away if he discloses the matter to anybody. P.W.1, who is the son of the appellant as well as the deceased is a minor witness. The lower Court had testified the capability of P.W.1 to give evidence and had permitted him to adduce evidence. P.W.1 had spoken in his evidence to the effect that his father was hitting at the forehead of his mother at about 11.00 p.m., which he could see through the burning light at his house and thereafter, the accused had put the rope around the neck of his wife and tightened it by pressing her chest with his legs and caused the death of his wife, viz., the mother of P.W.1. He had also spoken about the threatening of his father and therefore, he was confined in his house itself till the next day morning and went to grandmothers house and brought his grandmother after narrating everything and thereafter, when the Village Administrative Officer-P.W.2 came to his house on information, P.W.1 narrated the incident, which the P.W.2 reduced into writing and lodged the same as complaint, with his endorsement, to the police. 11. The above evidence of P.W.1 was challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant stating that when the medical evidence categorically shows that the stomach of the deceased Bannari contained no food, the evidence of P.W.1 would show that he had taken food around 9.00 p.m. along with his mother. 11. The above evidence of P.W.1 was challenged by the learned counsel for the appellant stating that when the medical evidence categorically shows that the stomach of the deceased Bannari contained no food, the evidence of P.W.1 would show that he had taken food around 9.00 p.m. along with his mother. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was that if really P.W.1s evidence is true, then there should have been some food particles in the stomach of the deceased and therefore, his evidence is nothing but tutored for the purpose of incriminating the appellant. No doubt, P.W.7 did not speak in his evidence as to the contents of the stomach of the deceased during autopsy. But the same was also not suggested to him even in the cross examination when he had mentioned in the postmortem certificate that no food parties were found in the stomach of the deceased. 12. So far as the evidence of P.W.1 is concerned, he had spoken to the effect that his father splashed the blood oozing out from the body of his mother over the wall and the walls were stained with blood and the accused had washed his hands in the green bucket and had gone away after dressing himself up with dothi and shirt. On a careful perusal of the observation mahazar-Ex.P.3, we could see that the place of occurrence is described as the house of P.W.1, accused and the deceased, where a bulb was burning and the walls of the said house was strained by the blood and the green bucket was also there containing the blood washed water. This circumstances have been spoken by the witness P.W.5 and it was categorically proved that the versions of P.W.1 about the activity of his father immediately after the commission of the murder are true. Moreover, the evidence of P.W.2 who had spoken to the effect that, when he gone to the house of P.W.1, P.W.1 disclosed about the occurrence and thereby he has recorded and reduced the same into the complaint and handed over to the police, would also go a long way to show that the evidence of P.W.1 could not be untrue. 13. Apart from that the accused was arrested on 10. 13. Apart from that the accused was arrested on 10. 2004 and he had voluntarily given a confession regarding the offence and to that effect, P.W.6 would speak that the accused had also disclosed in the confession that he would handover the weapon he had used for the commission of the offence and the underwear he wore at the time of the commission of the offence and accordingly he had taken the police and the witnesses to the said place of confinement and had handed over the blood stained spade handle as well as his blood stained underwear. The said weapon is produced as M.O.1 and the blood stained under wear seized from him was marked as M.O.14. The said material objects were also sent for chemical examination. The chemical examination report and the Serologists Reports received has been produced as Exs.P.16 to 18. The said Serologists Reports would go a long way to show that the spade handle used for the commission of the offence against the deceased contains human blood Grouped as A, whereas the clothes worn by the deceased at the time of the occurrence had also contained the blood Group A, which would tally with the blood found in the spade handle-M.O.1 used for the commission of the offence. It is also pertinent to note that though the underwear worn by the accused at the time of the commission of the offence also contained blood, it could not be classified and the grouping test was inconclusive. In these circumstance, the blood contained in the weapon used for the commission of the offence against the deceased has been tallied with the blood group of the deceased woman and the evidence adduced by P.W.1 that the accused had used M.O.1 would go a long way to show that the offence was committed only by the accused. In these circumstances, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that failure to take note of the food particles in the stomach of the deceased woman, by the doctor P.W.7, will not in any way invalidate the evidence of P.W.1. In an over all consideration of the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution, P.W.1s evidence cannot be assailed and it is cogent and it incriminates the accused with the offence. 14. In an over all consideration of the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution, P.W.1s evidence cannot be assailed and it is cogent and it incriminates the accused with the offence. 14. The motive aspect has also been clearly spoken by P.W.3 and P.W.4 who had already pacified the disputes in between the husband and wife viz., the accused and the deceased regarding suspecting the fidelity of his wife, who goes for work to some places. This strong motive as spoken by P.Ws.3 and 4 would certainly incriminate the accused in the offence as spoken by P.W.1. The evidence of the doctor and the postmortem certificate produced by him would also corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 and therefore the trial Court is right in convicting the accused under Sections 302 IPC & 506(ii) IPC and sentencing him with life imprisonment, and it need not be interfered with. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26. 2005 in S.C.No.33 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Erode.