Judgment :- P.DEVADASS,J,. 1. The appellant is accused in S.C.No.5 of 2009 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram. For convenience sake, in this judgment, he shall be called as accused. 2. He stood charged for an offence under Section 302 IPC. On 06.11.2009, the learned Sessions Judge found him guilty under Section 302 IPC. and sentenced him to life. However, no fine was imposed on him. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- (i) The accused belongs to Kovanur village in Villupuram District. Deceased Valar @ Valarmathi belongs to Kothamangalam village in the same District. In 2002, the accused married her. Out of their wedlock, two sons were born to them. (ii) Accused did not go for any job. He had always suspected his wife and quarreled with her. A panchayat was held. P.W.1 Vadivel, the brother of the deceased setup separate family for his sister, near his house in Kothamangalam. Again, the accused did not go for job. They continue to quarrel. (iii) On 29.03.2008, at about 12 p.m., P.W.1 and his cousin brother P.W.3 Murugan when crossed the house of the accused, heard the shriek of the deceased. They went inside the house. The accused cut his wife's neck with M.O.1 knife. P.Ws.1 and 3 seen this. P.Ws.1,3, P.W.4 Chandran and the villagers chased him in vain. Valarmathi was found dead with cut injuries on her neck and M.O.4 coir-rope was tied around her neck. (iv) On 30.03.2008, at about 7 a.m., at the Kaanai Police Station, P.W.1 gave Ex.P1 complaint to P.W.7 Joginder, Sub-Inspector of Police. He registered this case in Crime No.114 of 2008 under Section 302 I.P.C. He sent the original F.I.R. (Ex.P8) to the Court and copies of the same to P.W.8 Mani, Inspector and to superior officers. (v) P.W.8 took up his investigation. At about 9.30 a.m., in the presence of P.W.5 Baskaran and Balakrishnan, he prepared Ex.P5 Observation Mahazar. Drew Ex.P9 rough sketch. In the presence of Panchayatars, he conducted inquest over her dead body.(Ex.P10 inquest report). He sent the dead body to the Government Hospital, Villupuram with his with his Ex.P2 requisition for conducting post-mortem. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Drew Ex.P9 rough sketch. In the presence of Panchayatars, he conducted inquest over her dead body.(Ex.P10 inquest report). He sent the dead body to the Government Hospital, Villupuram with his with his Ex.P2 requisition for conducting post-mortem. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. (vi) On 30.03.2008, at about 1.50 p.m., at the said Hospital, P.W.2 Dr.Shanthi conducted post-mortem on her dead body and found the following injuries:- 1) A deep cut injury elliptical in shape over the anterior aspect of neck extending from the lateral aspect of neck in right side 3 cm below right ear passed over the anterior aspect of neck below hyoid bone and upper beta borders of thoracic cartilage extends upto lateral aspect of left side of neck 3 cm below the left ear. The length of the injury is 27 cm and 3 cm in breadth in both edges and 7 cm in breath in the middle portion. Depth up to esophagus edges of the cut injury is regular. The trachea cut in into two pieces. Upper part of trachea at the upper edge of wound in the chin and lower portion and over the lower edge of injury. Carotid vessels on the both side of vessels cut into two pieces. All other vessels, nerves and muscles and tissue and thyroid cartilage cut into two pieces. Esophagus exposed outside hyoid bone sent for analysis 2) Three incised wound each 4 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm in the lateral aspect of left side of neck along with the deep cut injury present. (vii) P.W.2 opined that due to the severing of trachea and cartilage death had occurred to her, and the injuries are possible by a weapon like M.O.5 knife. (viii) On 31.03.2008, at about 4 p.m., near Azhagamman Temple Bus-Stop, in Karungalipet, in the presence of Devanathan, V.A.O, Kappur and his Assistant P.W.6 Ealumalai, P.W.8 had arrested the accused. Accused produced M.O.5 knife to him. P.W.8 seized it under Ex.P7 Mahazar. P.W.8 produced the accused to the Court for judicial custody. He gave Ex.P11 requisition to the Court to send the bloodstained saree, blouse and inskirt (M.Os.1 to 3)of the deceased to lab. On analysis, they were found containing 'B' group human blood. (Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 Chemical and serological reports). Concluding his investigation, P.W.8 filed the Final Report for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 4. He gave Ex.P11 requisition to the Court to send the bloodstained saree, blouse and inskirt (M.Os.1 to 3)of the deceased to lab. On analysis, they were found containing 'B' group human blood. (Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 Chemical and serological reports). Concluding his investigation, P.W.8 filed the Final Report for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 4. To substantiate the charge, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8, marked Exs.P1 to P13 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 5. 5. On the incriminating aspects in the prosecution evidence, the trial Court examined the accused. He denied his complicity in this case and also stated that on the date of occurrence he left to his village, in the meanwhile, somebody had murdered his wife. He did not examine any witness nor produce any document. 6. The trial Court placing reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1,3 and 4, medical evidence and other materials produced by the prosecution found the accused guilty under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to life. 7. According to the learned counsel for the accused, P.Ws.1 and 3 are closely related to the deceased. They are highly interested witnesses. Their presence at the scene of crime is doubtful. In Ex.P9 rough sketch, there is no mentioning of a lamp in the scene house. No lamp has been seized from the scene house. Blood stains were not recovered from the scene place. There is delay in lodging the F.I.R and also handing over it to the Court. Prosecution has not established its case beyond all reasonable doubts. At any rate, in the facts and circumstances, it will not be murder but culpable homicide not amounting to murder, because, there was no premediation, no motive, no guilty mind and there were frequent quarrels between both. 8. On the other hand, Mr.V.M.R.Rajendran, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the occurrence had taken place in the mid night. The accused was chased by P.Ws.1,3,4 and the villagers. In the circumstances, on the next day, morning, F.I.R was lodged. The delay has been properly explained. Merely because P.Ws.1 and 3 are related to the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded. P.W.4 is an independent witness. He had spoken to about the prior quarrel between the spouses and also about the panchayat. There is motive for the accused to do away with his wife. The delay has been properly explained. Merely because P.Ws.1 and 3 are related to the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded. P.W.4 is an independent witness. He had spoken to about the prior quarrel between the spouses and also about the panchayat. There is motive for the accused to do away with his wife. P.W.2, the autopsy Doctor testified that the injury found on the neck of the deceased is sufficient to cause her death. The reason for not recovering the lamp has been stated by P.W.8, the Investigation Officer. Further, the identity of the accused and the deceased is well known to P.Ws.1 and 3. Thus, prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The accused cut the neck of the deceased with M.O.5 weapon on a vulnerable part of her body. P.W.2 testified as to the nature of the fatal injuries caused. In the facts and circumstances, it is nothing less of murder. 9. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments of both the counsels. We have perused the evidence on record and gone through the findings of the trial Court. 10. The accused belongs to Kovanur village in Villupuram District. Deceased Valar @ Valarmathi belongs to Kuthamangalam village in the same District. In 2002, they were married. They were blessed with two sons. But, she was not blessed with a happy married life. 11. There were frequent quarrels between the spouses. A panchayat was also held. This was spoken to by P.Ws.1,3 and 4 Vadivel, Murugan and Chandran. In these circumstances, P.W.1 had setup separate family for his sister, near his house in Kothamangalam. 12. In this backdrop of the matter, on 29.03.2008, mid-night, around 12 p.m., in her house, Valarmathi was found dead. There were deep cut injuries on her neck. According to P.W.2 Dr.Shanthi, the autopsy Doctor, she died of cut injuries on her neck. (See Ex.P3 Post-mortem report). Thus, she died of homicidal violence. 13. This case is based on the evidence of eye witnesses. They are P.Ws.1 and 3 Vadivel and Murugan. P.W.1 is brother of the deceased. P.W.3's father and P.W.1's father are brothers. So, P.Ws.1,3 and the deceased are related. 14. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the accused that P.Ws.1 and 3 are interested witnesses and they cannot be believed. 15. They are P.Ws.1 and 3 Vadivel and Murugan. P.W.1 is brother of the deceased. P.W.3's father and P.W.1's father are brothers. So, P.Ws.1,3 and the deceased are related. 14. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the accused that P.Ws.1 and 3 are interested witnesses and they cannot be believed. 15. Merely because the witnesses are related to the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded unless they are speaking falsehood. Further, the relatives will not spare the real assailant and they will be interested in revealing the harm caused to their relative. 16. P.W.1 Vadivel resides very near to his sister's house. P.W.3 Murugan also resides in the same place. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that on 29.03.2008 around 12 p.m., when he and P.W.3 came near the house of the deceased, heard the shirks from the house, they went inside the house and the accused was cutting the neck of his wife with M.O.1 knife. It is the evidence of P.W.3 that when he accompanied P.W.1, he also went along with him inside the said house, seen the accused cutting the neck of the deceased. 17. P.Ws.1 and 3 have also stated that they, P.W.4 Chandran and the villagers have chased the accused, but he ran way with M.O.5 knife. P.W.4 is an after occurrence witness. He is residing near the house of the deceased. He is also a councilor. He has no animosity against the accused. In his evidence, he had stated that on that day, at about that time, when he went near the house of the deceased, P.Ws.1 and 3 and others have chased the accused. 18. P.W.2 Dr.Shanthi performed autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. She had seen the cut injuries on the neck of the deceased. She had also stated that her trachea was completely severed. She also opined that the injuries are possible by a weapon like M.O.5. Thus, the oral evidence stand corroborated by the medical evidence. 19. The learned counsel for the accused contended that the blood stains were not recovered from the scene place and M.O.5 weapon has not been sent to lab to find out the nature and type of the blood stains. 20. There was no dispute as to the place of occurrence. There was no doubt as to the place of occurrence, namely, house of the accused. 20. There was no dispute as to the place of occurrence. There was no doubt as to the place of occurrence, namely, house of the accused. In the circumstances, not recovering of blood stains from the scene place is not fatal to the prosecution case. 21. It is the evidence of P.W.8 Mani, Inspector that on 31.03.2008, at about 4 p.m., near Azhagamman Kovil Bus Stop, in Karungalipet, in the presence of Devanathan, V.A.O. and his Assistant P.W.6 Ealumalai, he had arrested the accused. It is the evidence of P.W.6 that the accused had produced M.O.5 knife. P.W.6 also confirmed his signature in Ex.P7 seizure mahazar. The accused had washed M.O.5 weapon and thereafter only it was produced. So, there were no blood stains on it. In the circumstances, P.W.8 had not sent M.O.5 to the Chemical Lab for analysis. 22. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the accused that the chimney lamp has not been recovered from the scene house and it was also not mentioned in Ex.P9 rough sketch. 23. Ex.P9 is only a rough sketch of the scene place. It is not a building plan. Generally, this sketch will contain topography of the scene place. We cannot expect minute details of the house in a rough sketch. 24. P.Ws.1 and 3 have spoken to about the Chimney lamp in the scene house. P.W.8 also spoken about it. He had stated that it was in such a position that he could not recover it. Further, the identity of the accused and the deceased is well known to P.Ws.1 and 3. Even they could identify them by their voice also. P.Ws.1 and 3 have clearly spoken to about they having seen the accused and the deceased at the occurrence time in the scene house. In the circumstances, non seizure of the chimney lamp from the scene house has not affected the prosecution case. 25. The accused has two sons, then they were 5 and 3 years old respectively. At the time of occurrence, in their house, the accused and the deceased present. Inside the said house, she was found dead with cut injuries on her neck. The accused had ran away from the scene place. This has also been spoken to by P.W.4. Since the children were then very young, they could not speak about the occurrence. 26. At the time of occurrence, in their house, the accused and the deceased present. Inside the said house, she was found dead with cut injuries on her neck. The accused had ran away from the scene place. This has also been spoken to by P.W.4. Since the children were then very young, they could not speak about the occurrence. 26. Only during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused had stated that on the date of occurrence, he had been to his village and in the meanwhile somebody had murdered his wife. No suggestion to that effect was made to P.Ws.1,3 and 4. There is no acceptable evidence from the accused to establish his this 'plea of alibi'. 27. On 29.03.2008, mid-night, the occurrence had taken place. The evidence of P.Ws.1,3 and 4 shows that after the occurrence, they have chased the accused and he ran away with M.O.5 weapon. P.W.4 had stated that since the accused had ran away, they feared that he will harm them, so during the night time, they did not go to the police station to lodge the complaint. On the next day, morning, P.W.4 assisted P.W.1, an illiterate, to scribe the complaint. The police station is at a distance of 4 k.m. from the scene village. So, on the next day, at about 7 a.m., at the police station, P.W.1 gave Ex.P1 complaint to P.W.7 S.I. of Police. Based upon which, P.W.7 had registered this case. On the same day, Ex.P8 F.I.R. was sent to the jurisdiction Magistrate. Thus, the delay occasioned in lodging the F.I.R. has been clearly explained and there is no delay in handing over the F.I.R. to the Court. 28. The accused always suspected his wife. Family quarrel arose between them. P.W.1 set up separate residence for his sister and his brother-in-law in his village near his house. Again, the accused quarreled with her. P.Ws.1 and 3 have clearly spoken to about the occurrence. Their evidence also has been corroborated by the medical evidence. The weapon of offence has been seized. Possibility of the injuries having been caused by such a weapon is also not ruled out by the autopsy Doctor. Immediately after the occurrence, the accused was chased by P.Ws.1,3 and 4 and the villagers. The delay occasioned in lodging the FIR also has been explained. 29. The weapon of offence has been seized. Possibility of the injuries having been caused by such a weapon is also not ruled out by the autopsy Doctor. Immediately after the occurrence, the accused was chased by P.Ws.1,3 and 4 and the villagers. The delay occasioned in lodging the FIR also has been explained. 29. In view of the foregoings, we accept the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3. Thus, beyond all reasonable doubts, the prosecution has established that the accused had killed his wife. 30. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the accused that since there was family quarrel, there was strained relationship between the spouses, there was no preplan it will be culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 31. M.O.5 knife, a lethal weapon has been used in the commission of the offence. The accused had completely cut the neck of the deceased. She died on the spot. The postmortem Doctor opined that the injuries are sufficient to cause her death. In the circumstances, it is nothing less of murder. It is culpable homicide amounting to murder. Thus, the accused has been rightly found guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. by the trial Court and he has been rightly sentenced to life. 32. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and his life sentence are confirmed.