Judgment M. Jeyapaul, J. 1. The sole Accused Parandhaman, who was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment, moves the present appeal. 2. On the side of the prosecution, eleven witnesses were examined and eleven documents and thirteen material objects were marked. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in on the side of defence. 3. The sum and substance of the prosecution case, as unfolded by the witnesses, reads as follows:- PW.1 Venkatesan is the brother of deceased Valliyammal and PW.2 Devaki is the wife of PW.1. The accused Parandhaman is none other than the husband of the deceased Valliyammal. The accused along with the deceased Valliyammal resided opposite the house of PW.1 Venkatesan and PW.2 Devaki at Bangaramma Kandigai village. About five years ago, accused Parandhaman married the deceased Valliyammal. Only for few days did they lead the happy married life. After they were blessed with two children, the accused Parandhaman became a drunkard. He refused to part with any money even for household expenditure. The accused used to beat Valliyammal often. Valliyammal, aggrieved by the attitude of the accused, used to return to the house of PW.1 Venkatesan. Three months prior to the occurrence, the accused beat Valliyammal and his children and sent them away. PW.5 Subramani, a panchayatar, conciliated the matrimonial disputes between the accused and the deceased for two occasions and sent Valliyammal to the accused Parandhaman. Only for about a weeks time were they happy. Thereafter they started quarrelling with each other. On account of the harassment and cruelty committed by the accused as against Valliyammal, the latter became sick and could not cooperate for cohabitation with the accused. On 11. 1999 at about 8 pm, Valliyammal came to the house of P.Ws.1 and 2; that was a day of Deepavali and after bursting crackers and taking meals during night, Valliyammal returned to matrimonial home at 10.30 pm. The distance between the house of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the house of the accused was just 100 ft. Everyone went to bed after Valliyammal left for her matrimonial home. At about 1 am on 11. 1999, there was a hue and cry in the house of the accused Parandhaman. P.W.1 Venkatesan and PW.2 Devaki could hear the wailing noise of the sister of P.W.1. Everyone went to bed after Valliyammal left for her matrimonial home. At about 1 am on 11. 1999, there was a hue and cry in the house of the accused Parandhaman. P.W.1 Venkatesan and PW.2 Devaki could hear the wailing noise of the sister of P.W.1. P.Ws.1 and 2 rushed to the house of accused armed with torch-light and they heard the shouting of the accused at Valliyammal. They also heard Valliyammal crying aloud. P.Ws.1 and 2 witnessed the accused Parandhaman attacking Valliyammal with the knife used to cut tender coconuts on the neck, head and all over the body indiscriminately. When PW.1 Venkatesan challenged the accused Parandhaman, but the latter took to the heels showing the knife. P.Ws.1 and 2 saw Valliyammal dead in a pool of blood. Their children aged five years and three years were found crying on seeing their mother in a pool of blood. P.W.4 Kuppan, the neighbour of PWs. 1 and 2 and the accused saw the accused running away from his house armed with Knife at about 1 am on 11. 1999. PW.1 Venkatesan proceeded to Arakonam Town Police Station and lodged the Complaint-Ex.P1 to PW.9 Thulasi, Sub Inspector of Police and PW.9 registered a case in Crime No.840/2009 under Section 302 IPC and prepared Printed First Information Report-Ex.P9 and dispatched the original of the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned and the copies thereof to the higher officials. PW.10 Mr. Mutharasu, Inspector of Police, Arakonam Town Police Station, having received a copy of First Information Report at about 8 am on 11. 1999, rushed to the scene of occurrence at about 8.30 am. He inspected the scene of occurrence in the presence of PW.6 Village Administrative Officer Logan and another and prepared Observation mahazar-Ex.P4. He also drew Rough Sketch-Ex.P10. He arranged to take photographs of the dead body through Photographer PW.7 Balakrishnan. The photographs were marked as Ex.P6 and the negatives thereof were marked as Ex.P7. PW.10 Inspector Mr. Mutharasu seized M.Os.1 and 2, Blood stained mats, MO.3 Blood stained bed sheet, M.O.4 Blood stained pillow and M.Os.5 and 6 Blood stained pillows tied with Nylon saree from the scene of occurrence under Ex.5 Mahazar in the presence of very same witnesses. He held inquest on the dead body of Valliyammal between 10 am and 1 pm on 11. Mutharasu seized M.Os.1 and 2, Blood stained mats, MO.3 Blood stained bed sheet, M.O.4 Blood stained pillow and M.Os.5 and 6 Blood stained pillows tied with Nylon saree from the scene of occurrence under Ex.5 Mahazar in the presence of very same witnesses. He held inquest on the dead body of Valliyammal between 10 am and 1 pm on 11. 1999 in the presence of panchayatars and witnesses and prepared Ex.P11 Inquest Report. He examined PW.1 Venkatesan, PW.2 Devaki, PW.4 Kuppan, PW.5 Subramani and other witness and recorded their statements. He sent Requisition-Ex.P2 through PW.8 Paul Michel, Head Constable attached to Arakonam Town Police Station, for the purpose of conducting autopsy on the dead body of Valliyammal. PW.3 Dr. Jeeva, attached to Government Hospital, Arakonam, having received the requisition from the Inspector of Police, Arakonam through PW.8, commenced postmortem examination on the body of Valliyammal at 3 pm on 11. 1999 and found the following external and internal injuries: "External Injuries: 1. An incised wound over the right cheek extended upto below the right ear 7 cm x 3 cm x bone deep. Angle of mandible fractured. 2. An incised wound on the back of scalp right side which extended from behind the right ear to the occiput 12 cm x 3 cm x bone deep. 3. An incised wound 2 cm above the 2nd wound 7 cm x 2 cm x bone deep. Parietal bone fractured. 4. An incised wound 1 cm above the 3rd wound 5 cm x 3 cm x bone deep. 5. An incised wound over the left side of the frontal region 8 cm x 2 cm x bone deep. 6. An incised wound over the left occipital parietal region 10 cm x 2 cm x bone deep. 7. An incised wound 1 cm lateral to 6th injury 6 cm x 2 cm x bone deep. 8. An incised wound 1 cm lateral to the 7th injury 5 cm x 2 cm x bone deep. 9. An incised wound over the nape of the neck 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm. 10. An incised wound over the back of the neck 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm. 11. An incised wound over the left side of the neck just below the mandible 8 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm. 12. 9. An incised wound over the nape of the neck 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm. 10. An incised wound over the back of the neck 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm. 11. An incised wound over the left side of the neck just below the mandible 8 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm. 12. An incised wound over the right side of the chin 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm. 13. An incised injury over the Palmar side of left wrist and hand 1 cm x 4 cm x bone deep. Tendons cut. Bones fractured. 14. An incised wound over the dorsum of left hand 8 cm x 2 cm x bone deep. 15. An incised wound over the dorsum of right hand 5 cm x 2 cm x bone deep. 16. An incised wound over the dorsum of right hand just below the 15th wound 5 cm x 2 cm x bone deep. 17. An incised wound over the right forearm 3 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm. 18. An incised wound over the right deltoid region 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm. 19. An incised wound over the middle third of right upper arm 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm. 20. An incised wound over the right lateral chest wall 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm. 21. An incised wound over the right lumbar region 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm. 22. An incised wound over the back of the left Elbow joint 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm. Internal Examination:- Abdomen & Thorax opened. No fracture, ribs and Hyoid bone intact. Heart chambers empty. Lungs congested. Stomach - empty. Liver, Spleen & Kidneys - Congested. Intestines - Distended. Uterus -Normal in size. Cavity empty. Bladder empty. Skull opened, right parietal bone fractured, base of skull intact. Meninges intact. Brain Congested." He opined in Ex.P3 Post-mortem Certificate that the deceased appeared to have died of Shock and Haemorrhage due to multiple injuries she sustained, about 18 to 24 hours prior to postmortem. Intestines - Distended. Uterus -Normal in size. Cavity empty. Bladder empty. Skull opened, right parietal bone fractured, base of skull intact. Meninges intact. Brain Congested." He opined in Ex.P3 Post-mortem Certificate that the deceased appeared to have died of Shock and Haemorrhage due to multiple injuries she sustained, about 18 to 24 hours prior to postmortem. PW.8 Paul Michel seized MO.7 Green colour jacket, MO.8 Green colour petticoat, MO.9 Saree, MO.10 Gold Nose screw, MO.11 One pair of Gold Ear stud, MO.12 Gold Thali with Thali thread and MO.13 Gold Gnanakuzhai from the dead body after postmortem examination was over and submitted the same under Special Report to PW.10 Inspector Mutharasu for the purpose of investigation in this matter. PW.10 Inspector Mutharasu examined PW.3 Dr. Jeeva and other witnesses in this case and recorded their statements. After he was transferred, PW.11 Inspector Mr. Karuppasamy took up the investigation, examined PW.7 Photographer Balakrishnan and another and recorded their statements. He completed the investigation and laid final report on 13. 2001 as against the accused under Section 302 IPC. 4. The incriminating circumstances as spoken to by the witnesses were put to the accused in the form of questionnaire and the accused having completely denied his role in the commission of murder of the deceased, set up an alibi. In other words, he contended that he was away from the village at the time of occurrence. The accused did not choose to examine any witness or mark any document on his side. 5. The Trial Court, having heavily relied upon the ocular testimony of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 and the medical evidence available on record, returned a verdict of conviction as against the appellant. 6. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused, who often picked up quarrel with Valliyammal, his wife, attacked her on the fateful day on 11. 1999 at about 1 am indiscriminately with knife and caused her instantaneous death and thereby he committed an offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC. 7. PW.1 Venkatesan and PW.2 Devaki, the brother and co-sister of the deceased Valliyammal, resided just opposite the matrimonial house of Valliyammal wherein the accused and Valliyammal resided at the time of occurrence. 1999 at about 1 am indiscriminately with knife and caused her instantaneous death and thereby he committed an offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC. 7. PW.1 Venkatesan and PW.2 Devaki, the brother and co-sister of the deceased Valliyammal, resided just opposite the matrimonial house of Valliyammal wherein the accused and Valliyammal resided at the time of occurrence. P.Ws.1 and 2 have categorically spoken before the Court that only for few days, the marital life of Valliyammal with the accused was peaceful and thereafter the accused picked up quarrel with the deceased often and sent her to the house of PW.1 Venkatesan. It is in evidence that on account of the torture meted out to the deceased Valliyammal, she fell sick and could not cooperate for the cohabitation solicited by her husband Parandhaman. 8. PW.5 Subramani has lent corroboration to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 to the effect that panchayat was convened twice on account of the quarrel between the accused and the deceased and the matter was compromised and Valliyammal was sent to the house of the accused. The occurrence had taken place within about ten days after panchayatar sent Valliyammal to the house of the accused. Motive aspect of the case has been clinchingly established by the prosecution through P.Ws.1, 2 and 5. 9. Coming to the occurrence proper, P.W.1 Venkatesan and PW.2 Devaki have spoken to the fact that on 11. 1999, being Deepavali day, the deceased Valliyammal came to the house of P.Ws.1 and 2 and she, in fact, burst crackers and having taken dinner, got back to her house at about 10.30 pm on 11. 1999. They have also deposed that at about 1 am on 11. 1999, there was an unusual cry emanated from the deceased Valliyammal. The accused Parandhaman also raised his voice. Having heard such wailing noise and loud cry of her sister, P.W.1 Venkatesan rushed to the house of the accused along with PW.2 Devaki armed with torch-light and found the accused cutting Valliyammal with the Knife used to cut tender coconut on her neck, head and all over her body indiscriminately resulting in her death. PW.4 Kuppan, the neighbour, whose presence cannot be doubted at odd hour, has spoken to the fact that he actually witnessed the accused running away from his house with weapon at 1 am on 11. 1999. PW.4 Kuppan, the neighbour, whose presence cannot be doubted at odd hour, has spoken to the fact that he actually witnessed the accused running away from his house with weapon at 1 am on 11. 1999. The aforesaid testimony of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 is found to be quite natural and trustworthy. 10. Coming to the medical testimony, we find that PW.3 Dr.Jeeva, who conducted postmortem examination at 3 pm on 11. 1999, found as many as twenty two incised wounds all over the body of the deceased Valliyammal. Many of the injuries were found on the head of the deceased. He has opined that the deceased appeared to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries sustained. The medical evidence lends corroboration to the evidence of the ocular witnesses in this case. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the accused/appellant submits that PW.6 VAO Logan who allegedly cooperated with the Investigation Officer during the course of preparation of observation mahazar, has deposed before the Court that it was he who passed on the information to the police, after he came down to the scene of occurrence at 6 am on 11. 1999. He would also refer to the evidence of PW.6, who testified that when he was at the scene of occurrence at 6.30 am on 11. 1999, he saw PW.1 Venkatesan at the scene of occurrence. Therefore the origin of the First Information is highly doubtful, he contends. 12. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there was, of course, some variation between the evidence of P.W.1 Venkatesan and P.W.6 VAO Logan as to the exact time at which Ex.P1 Complaint was lodged to PW.9 Sub Inspector Thulasi of Arakonam Town Police Station. But such a small variation in the matter of lodging the complaint will not go to the root of the case, he would submit. 13. The First Information Report has been registered by PW.9 Thulasi, Sub Inspector of Police, Arakonam Town Police Station exactly at 7 am on 11. 1999. PW.1 Venkatesan had reached the Police Station much earlier to the registration of First Information Report by PW.9. Of course, PW.6 VAO Logan would state that he passed on the information to the Police Station after he arrived at the scene of crime at 6 AM. 1999. PW.1 Venkatesan had reached the Police Station much earlier to the registration of First Information Report by PW.9. Of course, PW.6 VAO Logan would state that he passed on the information to the Police Station after he arrived at the scene of crime at 6 AM. Firstly PW.6 has not stated so in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Secondly such a version was not supported by PW.1 Venkatesan and PW.9 Sub Inspector Thulasi. 14. In this context, it is also relevant to note that the First Information Report has reached the Court at 8.30 am on 11. 1999 itself. Quite probably the message sent by PW.6 VAO Logan would have been subsequent to the complaint already lodged by PW.1 Venkatesan with Arakonam Town Police Station. At any rate such a minor discrepancy would not go to the root of the prosecution case. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would further submit that the occurrence would have taken place on account of the hostility between the family of the accused and PW.4 Kuppan. PW.4 Kuppan of course is a neighbour of the accused. The strong hostility between these two families has not been made out by the accused. PW.1 Venkatesan is the brother of the deceased Valliyammal. If at all somebody murdered her and not his brother-in-law, PW.1 would not have roped in his own brother-in-law who was innocent in the crime of murder of his sister. In the above circumstances, we are disclined to accept the view of the learned counsel for the appellant that on account of the hostility subsisted between the family of the deceased and PW.4 Kuppan the occurrence had taken place. 16. It is true that the Knife, which was the weapon of offence, was not recovered in this case. The fact remains that the accused absconded not for few days or few months, but for four long years and it was on account of which the trial itself was delayed. The description of the weapon of offence and the location of the same would have been in the exclusive knowledge of the accused. Therefore it is quite impossible to recover the weapon of offence in the absence of the accused during the course of investigation. 17. Of course, the accused has set up a plea of alibi. The description of the weapon of offence and the location of the same would have been in the exclusive knowledge of the accused. Therefore it is quite impossible to recover the weapon of offence in the absence of the accused during the course of investigation. 17. Of course, the accused has set up a plea of alibi. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant also refers to the response of the accused when he was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C to the effect that he was not at all present in the occurrence village during the time of occurrence. 18. The plea of alibi should be established by the accused. Except some suggestions made by the accused and the plea of alibi ultimately taken by him when he was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C, no strong material was forthcoming from the side of the accused to show robustly that he was not present at the time of occurrence in the occurrence village. The materials on record also does not even vaguely suggest alibi set up by the Accused. Therefore we are not inclined to accept the plea of alibi which was not established. 19. Referring to the medical evidence, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the occurrence should have taken place between 3 pm and 9 pm on 11. 1999. But the time of death was suppressed by the prosecution for reasons best known to them, it is contended. 20. We find that there is reliable and trustworthy ocular testimony to the effect that the occurrence took place at 1 am on 11. 1999. The evidence of PW.3 Dr. Jeeva is only opinion evidence based on the appearance and symptoms found on the dead body. The opinion evidence will never unseat the robust ocular testimony available on record. It has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision in STATE OF U.P. V. HARI CHAND (2009 CRI. L. J. 3039) (SC) that when eye witnesses account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to the alternative possibilities cannot be accepted as conclusive. 21. It is true that P.Ws.1 and 2 would speak to the fact that the deceased, having taken meals from their house, gone back to her matrimonial house at about 10.30 pm on 11. 1999. It is not their evidence that the deceased took dinner at 10.30 pm. 21. It is true that P.Ws.1 and 2 would speak to the fact that the deceased, having taken meals from their house, gone back to her matrimonial house at about 10.30 pm on 11. 1999. It is not their evidence that the deceased took dinner at 10.30 pm. It is their case that the deceased departed from their house at 10.30 pm. Even otherwise there had been a gap of about 2 1/2 hours between her departure and the occurrence. It is nobodys case that the deceased took meat during dinner time. If she had taken vegetarian stuff, it would have been digested within 2 1/2 hours. There is no reason for PW.1 Venkatesan to come out with an artificial version that the occurrence took place in the mid of night when actually the occurrence took place between 3 pm and 9 pm on 11. 1999. 22. We find that the occurrence had taken place at 1 am on 11. 1999. As it was night time, PW.1 Venkatesan, who lost his lovely sister, had gone to the Police Station in the morning at 7 am and lodged the complaint. The complaint was registered at 7 am on 11. 1999 and the same has reached the Court at 8.30 am itself. It is also brought to our notice by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the statements of the material witnesses examined in the case, reached the Court on 11. 1999 itself. Therefore there is no question of fabrication of the case as against the accused. 23. The last submission alternatively made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the accused would have been activated by sudden provocation as the deceased did not cooperate for cohabitation in the mid of the night and attacked the deceased and that therefore the accused may be given the benefit of exception (iv) under Section 300 IPC. He also referred to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in MUTHUVEL & ANOTHER V. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KEELARAJAKULARAMAN POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT [2004-1-L.W. (Crl.) 67]. 24. That was a case where the deceased of course refused to have sexual intercourse with the first accused. But the facts of that case would reveal that the deceased having exhibited non-cooperation for the cohabitation, removed the Thali from her neck and threw it on the face of the first accused. 24. That was a case where the deceased of course refused to have sexual intercourse with the first accused. But the facts of that case would reveal that the deceased having exhibited non-cooperation for the cohabitation, removed the Thali from her neck and threw it on the face of the first accused. Having not been satisfied with such provocation given by the deceased, the latter also gave a kick on the chest of the first accused. In the above special facts and circumstances of the case, the Division Bench of this Court held that such a cumulative act of the deceased caused sudden provocation to the accused to cause her death. But in the present case the deceased was harassed by the accused. On account of the cruelty committed by the accused, it appears that the deceased fell sick and could not discharge her matrimonial obligation. The non-cooperation of the deceased in such circumstances would not have provoked a prudent man to behave like a beast. Therefore the aforesaid ratio laid down by this Court in the above referred to decision, does not apply to the present facts and circumstances of this case. 25. We find that the prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused armed with Knife, attacked the innocent victim, the deceased in this case and caused her instantaneous death. The Trial Court has rightly returned a verdict conviction. There is no warrant for interference with the well merited judgment of the Trial Court. 26. The judgment of conviction recorded by the Trial Court under Section 302 IPC and sentence of Life Imprisonment imposed on the accused stand confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.