Judgment :- M. CHOCKALINGAM, J. Challenge is made to the judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri made in S.C.No.149 of 2007 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged, tried and found guilty under sections 302 and 450 I.P.C. and awarded life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and five years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment respectively. The sentences are ordered to run concurrently. 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows: (a) P.W.2 is the mother and P.W.3 is the sister of the deceased Valli. The deceased was given in marriage to one Jayakumar brother of the accused/appellant who belonged to Ekkandihalli. The deceased was living with her husband while the accused was also living nearby. On several occasions, the accused attempted to outrage the modesty of the deceased and also called her to share bed with him. The deceased reported the same to P.Ws.2 and 3. P.Ws. 2 and 3 came to the Village of the deceased on 9. 2006 in order to question the conduct of the accused. But the accused was not found there hence,P.W.2 and 3 waited till 4.00 p.m. and when the accused came there, both P.Ws. 2 and 3 questioned the conduct of the accused and advised the accused/appellant that his elder brothers wife is like his mother and he should not behave in that manner. On hearing this, the accused abused them with filthy language and got inside the house and took a Malu(Aruval) and cut the deceased on different parts of the body. P.Ws.2 and 3 raised distress cry. The accused threatened them also. A part of the portion of Malu(Aruval) fell down. The accused took the other part of Malu (Arumal) with him. Thereafter, the accused fled away from the place of occurrence. (b) P.Ws. 2 and 3 went to the office of Village Administrative Officer - P.W.1 of the same village at about 4.30 p.m. and P.W.2 gave Ex.P1 report. P.W.1 V.A.O. recorded the statement of P.W.2 and he also prepared his own report Ex.P2. He took P.Ws 2 and 3 along with both the documents to the respondent Police Station where P.W.11 Sub Inspector of Police was on duty. P.W.1 V.A.O. recorded the statement of P.W.2 and he also prepared his own report Ex.P2. He took P.Ws 2 and 3 along with both the documents to the respondent Police Station where P.W.11 Sub Inspector of Police was on duty. On the strength of Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, P.W.11 registered a case in Crime No.352/2004 under sections 449 and 302 I.P.C. The express F.I.R Ex.P17 was despatched to Court. (c) P.W.12, Inspector of Police, on receipt of the intimation took up investigation. He proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared Ex.P3 Observation mahazar in the presence of witnesses and also drew a rough sketch Ex.P18. He conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased Valli in the presence of witnesses and prepared Ex.P19 inquest report. He also recovered from the place of occurrence, the blood stained earth, sample earth under a cover of mahazar. Pursuant to the request made by the Investigating Officer, P.W.7 doctor attached to Government Hospital, Palacode conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Valli and gave the post mortem certificate Ex.P10 wherein he has opined that the deceased died out of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries sustained by her, 18 to 24 hours prior to the autopsy. (d) On 9. 2006, when P.W.6 Village Administrative officer Pergrahalli, was in his office, the accused/appellant appeared before him and gave the confessional statement and P.W.6 recorded the extra judicial confession which was marked as Ex.P5. He also prepared a report Ex.P6. He produced the accused along with the extra judicial confession before the Police. The Investigating Officer arrested the accused. On arrest, the accused came forward to give confessional statement voluntarily. The investigating officer recorded the same in the presence of witnesses and the admissible part of the same is marked as Ex.P7. The accused produced M.O.4 -a part of Malu and M.O.5 tea shirt which were recovered under Ex.P4 and Ex.P8 mahazars. Thereafter, he sent the accused to judicial remand. All the material objects were sent for chemical analysis which brought forth two reports viz., chemical report-Ex.P.13 and serologist report-Ex.P14. On completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed a final report. (e) The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and relied on 19 exhibits and 8 material objects. On completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed a final report. (e) The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and relied on 19 exhibits and 8 material objects. After completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied them as false. No defence witness was examined. The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side and took the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and rendered the judgement of conviction and sentence as referred to above. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the appellant. 3. Advancing the arguments on behalf of the appellant, learned counsel would submit, in the instant case, though there are numbers of witnesses, P.Ws.2 and 3 alone supported the case of the prosecution. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the mother and sister of the deceased. Hence, they are interested witnesses. It is admitted by the investigating officer that at the time when the occurrence had taken place, the husband of the deceased was also present but he was not examined before the Court and no explanation was tendered. He would be the best witness to speak about the conduct of the accused. If really the accused/appellant has called the deceased for sexual affair, she would have reported it to her husband. Under such circumstances, the husband of the deceased should have been examined. The non examination of the husband of the deceased is fatal to the prosecution case. 4. Added further learned counsel, P.Ws. 2 and 3 have gone to the Village Administrative Office. According to them, they met the Village Administrative Officer and gave Ex.P1 report. P.W.1-VAO has prepared Ex.P2 report. Though, it was claimed by P.W.11 Sub Inspector that a case was registered at 6.30 p.m., it has reached the Judicial Magistrate Court only at 11.30 p.m. Thus , there was a delay and the delay was not explained. Thus, it would be quite clear that P.Ws. 2 and 3 were not at all present at the time of occurrence. Only after receiving information, they went to the place of occurrence and after seeing the dead body, they would have given the false report as if the accused/appellant has murdered the deceased. 5. Thus, it would be quite clear that P.Ws. 2 and 3 were not at all present at the time of occurrence. Only after receiving information, they went to the place of occurrence and after seeing the dead body, they would have given the false report as if the accused/appellant has murdered the deceased. 5. Added further learned counsel, before the trial Court, the prosecution relied on the extra judicial confession alleged to have been given by the accused/appellant, but P.W.6 Village Administrative Officer has categorically admitted that he did not prepare three copies of the same which is the mandatory procedure to be adopted. Apart from that, P.W.6 has not furnished the copies to the higher authorities. The confessional statement alleged to have been given by the accused before the Investigating Officer, pursuant to which M.O.4 was produced by the accused was thoroughly unnatural. According to P.W.10 Head Constable, he was informed by the Inspector about the occurrence at about 4.30 p.m. and went to the scene of occurrence at 5.00 p.m. with the Sub-Inspector of Police. Thus, it is quite clear that the Investigating Officer was present even before 5.00 p.m. Hence, it would be quite clear that at about 5.00 p.m. information should be given to the Investigating Officer and they have gone to the scene of occurrence. Thus, the earlier information was suppressed. 6. Added further learned counsel, P.W.2 has stated that M.O.4 (Aruval) was broken when the accused attacked the deceased but she has not stated that it was broken into two pieces at the time of occurrence. Even this fact was not stated by her to the investigating officer. From the evidence, it is clear that the deceased got illicit intimacy with the third person and when it was questioned by the accused, she has given false information to P.Ws.2 and 3 as if the accused tried to have sexual intercourse with her. Under such circumstances, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case. Thus, the accused/appellant is entitled for acquittal in the hands of this Court. 7. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 8. It is not in controversy that one Valli, daughter of P.W.2 Alamelu was done to death in an incident that had taken place at about 4.00 p.m. on 9. 2006. 7. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 8. It is not in controversy that one Valli, daughter of P.W.2 Alamelu was done to death in an incident that had taken place at about 4.00 p.m. on 9. 2006. Following the registration of the case by P.W.11, P.W.12 Inspector of Police took up investigation and conducted inquest in the presence of witnesses and prepare Ex.P19 inquest report. Pursuant to the requisition made, P.W.7 doctor attached to the Government Hospital Palacode, conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Valli and gave the post mortem certificate Ex.P10 wherein he has opined that the deceased died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained by her. The fact that the deceased died out of homicidal violence was never disputed by the appellant at any stage of the proceedings. Hence, the trial Court was perfectly correct in recording so. 9. In order to substantiate that it was the accused who attacked the deceased with Malu and caused her death, the prosecution though marched number of witnesses, P.Ws. 2 and 3 have spoken in one voice about the occurrence. It is true that P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the mother and sister of the deceased. Merely because they are closely related, their evidence cannot be discarded but before accepting their evidence, the Court should subject it to careful scrutiny test. P.W.2 and 3 have categorically deposed that on number of occasions the accused who is the brother in law of the deceased attempted to outrage her modesty and called the deceased to share bed with him to which course she was not amenable. When P.Ws. 2 and 3 went to the deceased house to question about the conduct of the accused, the accused was not present in the house. They waited till 4.00 p.m. and when the accused came, they questioned about the same and advised him that brothers wife was like his mother and he should not do like that. But the accused got wild and took a Malu from the house and attacked the deceased on different parts of the body and caused her death. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, despite cross examined, remains unshaky. But the accused got wild and took a Malu from the house and attacked the deceased on different parts of the body and caused her death. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, despite cross examined, remains unshaky. The ocular testimony projected through P.Ws.2 and 3 corroborated with the medical opinion canvassed through the post mortem doctor and also the post mortem certificate. 10. Yet another circumstances is the recovery of M.O.1 blade, part of weapon of crime from the place of occurrence and the other part M.O.4 wooden part of aruval which was actually recovered from the accused pursuant to the confession statement given to the investigating officer in the presence of P.W.6 and other witnesses. The Court has found that M.O.1 and M.O.4 were actually two parts of the same weapon. All the material objects which were recovered from the place of occurrence, from the dead body of the deceased and also M.O.4 were subjected to chemical analysis and the chemical and serologist reports were marked as Ex.Ps.13 and 14, from which, it is quite clear that the blood found in the clothes worn by the deceased and in the tea shirt of the accused and in the bill hook(aruval) contains not only human blood but also the blood group found therein tallies with that of the deceased. The scientific evidence canvassed was in full corroboration with the prosecution case. 11. The contention putforth by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was delay in the F.I.R. reaching the Court is concerned, even assuming there was delay, it cannot be a reason to reject the prosecution case on the face of the evidence stated above. P.W.9 Head Constable has stated that he was informed by the Inspector of Police at 4.30 p.m. and he went to the spot at 5.00 p.m. The contention of the learned counsel that Ex.P1 could not be the first information, cannot be countenanced. According to P.Ws.2 and 3, at 4.00 p.m., they immediately rushed to the Village Administrative Office and reached there at 4.15 p.m. and at 4.30 p.m. the statement of P.W.2 was recorded which was marked as Ex.P1. P.W.1 has further deposed that along with Ex.P1 and his report Ex.P2, he went to the police station and handed over the same and the case came to be registered by P.W.11 Sub Inspector of Police. P.W.1 has further deposed that along with Ex.P1 and his report Ex.P2, he went to the police station and handed over the same and the case came to be registered by P.W.11 Sub Inspector of Police. Thus, it is quite clear that P.W.12, only after receipt of the copy of the F.I.R. has proceeded to the scene of occurrence and commenced the investigation. The evidence in that regard, adduced before the trial Court was cogent. Under such circumstances, the evidence of P.W.9 that he was informed about the occurrence at 4.30 p.m. and the investigating officer went to the spot at 5.00 p.m. cannot be given any importance. The case of the prosecution was that the accused appeared before P.W.6 - V.A.O. and gave extra judicial confession. Before accepting the extra judicial confession, the Court has to apply two tests. Firstly, under what circumstances the alleged extra judicial confession was given and secondly, whether the evidence of the person to whom the extra judicial confession was given inspires the confidence of the Court. Even if the two tests are applied, the Court is satisfied that the evidence of P.W.6 has got to be accepted and the extra judicial confession could be relied upon. Apart from this, pursuant to the extra judicial confession, the accused was produced before the Investigating Officer. Then the accused came forward to give confessional statement pursuant to the confession statement, the accused produced M.O.5 shirt and also M.O.4 part of Malu(aruval) and they were recovered and sent for chemical analysis along with the other material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and also from the dead body and it was found that M.O.1 blade and M.O.4 wooden part of Malu(aruval) are the two parts of the same weapon. Under such circumstances, the above contention puforth by the learned counsel for the appellant, cannot be accepted. 12. In the instant case, the prosecution placed sufficient evidence to hold that it was the accused who caused the death of Valli. There was no quarrel muchless sudden quarrel and there is nothing to provoke the accused to act so. Naturally, P.Ws.2 and 3 questioned about the conduct of the accused who happens to be the the brother in law of the deceased. Under such circumstances, the accused has acted intentionally and the act of the accused has got to be termed only as murder. Naturally, P.Ws.2 and 3 questioned about the conduct of the accused who happens to be the the brother in law of the deceased. Under such circumstances, the accused has acted intentionally and the act of the accused has got to be termed only as murder. The trial Court is perfectly correct in finding the accused guilty under sections 302and 450 I.P.C. and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgement passed by the trial court. 13. Accordingly, the criminal appeal fails and the same is dismissed confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Mr.N.Duraisami, who was appointed as Amicus Curiae, by this Court, is entitled to get remuneration from the Legal Aid, Madras.