JUDGMENT P.N.Prakash, J. 1. The sole accused, Ramasamy, who was tried by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode District, in S.C.No.10/2013 and convicted for offences under Section 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 302 IPC; and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 201 IPC, is the appellant before us. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Selvi was the widowed daughter-in-law of the appellant. The deceased had a daughter, Monica, who was being brought up by the appellant after the death of his son Mani @ Subramani [husband of the deceased] five years prior to the date of the incident. (a) It is the further case of the prosecution that there was lot of misunderstanding between the appellant and his daughter-in-law with regard to the division of property and also with regard to the upbringing of Monica. It is alleged that the appellant was not permitting the deceased to see her daughter, on account of which there was lot of ill will between them. (b) On the fateful day, i.e. on 14.05.2012 at around 9.00 a.m., when the deceased was cleaning vessels in front of her house, the appellant went there and cut her indiscriminately with Aruval [M.O.1] and dismembered her body. Thereafter, he put the body in a stack of hay in the house and set fire to it. According to the prosecution, this was witnessed by Ramasamy [P.W.1] and Nagarathinam [P.W.2], who were even threatened by the appellant when they attempted to intervene. Ramasamy [P.W.1] went to the police station and lodged a complaint [Ex.P1] at 10.00 a.m. on 14.05.2012, based on which R.Malaimuthu Raja, Sub Inspector of Police [P.W.10] registered a case in Chennimalai Police Station Cr.No.149/2012 under Sections 302, 201 and 506(ii) IPC. The printed FIR [Ex.P14] and the complaint [Ex.P1] were sent to the jurisdictional Magistrate, who received the same at 5.20 p.m. On 14.05.2012. The printed FIR [Ex.P14] and the complaint [Ex.P1] were sent to the jurisdictional Magistrate, who received the same at 5.20 p.m. On 14.05.2012. (c) The investigation in this case was taken over by Sivakumar, Inspector of Police [P.W.11], who went to the place of occurrence at 10.45 a.m. and prepared the Observation Mahazar [Ex.P8] and Rough Sketch [Ex.P15] in the presence of Saminathan, Village Assistant [P.W.6] and the Village Administrative Officer [not examined]. He also collected from the scene of occurrence sample earth with and without stain, ash [M.O.8], a wooden log [M.O.3] under the cover of Mahazar [Ex.P1] in the presence of the same witnesses. P.W.11 examined the witnesses and conducted inquest over the body of Selvi and the Inquest Report is Ex.P16. He has observed that the head and limbs were severed from the body and they were reassembled by him for the purpose of identification of the deceased. Thereafter, he sent the body for postmortem to Government Hospital, Perundurai, where Dr.Prem Navash, [P.W.4] conducted autopsy on the body of Selvi and the Postmortem Certificate is Ex.P3. (d) From the evidence of the Doctor and from the Postmortem Certificate [Ex.P3], the following aspects are clear: "Body seen in parts 1. Head, Neck and Face 2. Left fore arm from shoulder. 3. Right fore arm from shoulder 4. Trunk – Chest, Abdomen, Pelvis, Left thigh, Right thigh up too knee 5. Left leg and Right leg below knee Head, Neck and Face: Eyes closed. Singeing of hair seen. Hair curled, twisted, blackish and breaks off. Skin blackened. Roasted patches seen. Skin is destroyed with destruction of dermal appendages. The lesions are black due to charring. The face is swollen and distorted. Tongue is protruding out and burnt." The doctor sent the internal organs for scientific analysis and after getting the report [Ex.P4], he has opined that, "the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage, due to multiple injuries sustained." Thus the prosecution has established that this is a case of homicide and is neither suicide nor natural death. (e) P.W.11 arrested the appellant at 6.15 p.m. on 14.05.2012 and in the presence of P.W.6 and another witness, confession statement was recorded. Based on the admissible portion of the confession statement [Ex.P.10], the weapon allegedly used for the commission of the offence, namely Aruval [M.O.1] and a rope [M.O.2] were sezied under the cover of Mahazar [Ex.P12]. (e) P.W.11 arrested the appellant at 6.15 p.m. on 14.05.2012 and in the presence of P.W.6 and another witness, confession statement was recorded. Based on the admissible portion of the confession statement [Ex.P.10], the weapon allegedly used for the commission of the offence, namely Aruval [M.O.1] and a rope [M.O.2] were sezied under the cover of Mahazar [Ex.P12]. P.W.11 also seized a towel [M.O.9] and waist cord [M.O.10] worn by the appellant under the cover of Mahazar [Ex.P11], for sending the same for Biological examination as they were found to contain blood stains. The appellant was produced before the concerned Magistrate for judicial custody. P.W.11 continued the investigation and examined several witnesses and despatched the seized objects to the Court for being forwarded to the Tamil Nadu Forensic Sciences Laboratory for Chemical Examination. After examining the postmortem doctor and other witnesses, he filed a final report against the appellant for offences under Sections 302, 201 and 506(ii) IPC. (f) The case was taken up on file as PRC No13/2012 and on appearance of the appellant before the committal Magistrate, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Court framed three charges against the appellant, namely: (1) For causing the death of Selvi on 14.05.2012 at 9.00 a.m. , punishable under Section 302 IPC; (2) For setting the body on fire and trying to conceal the evidence, punishable under Section 201 r/w 302 IPC; and (3) For intimidating witnesses Ramasamy [P.W.1] and Nagarathinam [P.W.2] punishable under Section 506(ii) IPC. (g) The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and marked 16 exhibits and 14 material objects. When the accused was questioned about the incriminating circumstances under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same. On behalf of the accused, two exhibits, Deposit Receipts [Ex.D1] and Savings Pass Book [Ex.D2] were marked. The daughter of the deceased Selvi, Monica was examined as D.W.1. After considering the evidence on record the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid and hence he is before us in this appeal. 3. The prosecution rests on the eyewitnesses account of Ramasamy [P.W.1] and Nagarathinam [P.W.2]. Ramasamy [P.W.1] in his evidence stated that, he is a resident of Amman Nagar in Chennimalai and that his parents reside near the house of the deceased. He also stated that he knows both the deceased and the appellant. 3. The prosecution rests on the eyewitnesses account of Ramasamy [P.W.1] and Nagarathinam [P.W.2]. Ramasamy [P.W.1] in his evidence stated that, he is a resident of Amman Nagar in Chennimalai and that his parents reside near the house of the deceased. He also stated that he knows both the deceased and the appellant. He further stated that the daughter of the deceased Monica has been brought up by the appellant and there has always been frictions between the two families on this account since the appellant would not let Monica see her mother. He also stated that the appellant had sold some properties belonging to the family on account of which there was misunderstanding between the deceased and the appellant. While so, P.W.1 stated that on 14.05.2012, he came to see his parents and was standing near the house of the deceased and was talking to his friend Nagarathinam [P.W.2] around that time. At that time, they both saw the appellant carrying something covered in a newspaper and going towards Selvi's house. After that they saw the appellant hacking Selvi 2 to 3 times and they shouted at him asking him not to do that. They saw Selvi falling on the ground with injuries. Thereafter, they saw the appellant tying a rope to the leg of Selvi and pulling her near the place where there was a stack of hay and setting fire to the haystack. P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint [Ex.P1] and investigation was taken up by P.W.11 as stated above. 4. The evidence of Nagarathinam [P.W.2] was to the effect that, he is the neighbour of the deceased and knew both the deceased and the appellant. He also gave evidence about the enmity between the appellant and the deceased on account of some property disputes and also due to the fact that the appellant was not permitting the deceased to see her daughter, Monica who had been brought up by him, after the death of Subramani, son of the appellant and the husband of the deceased. P.W.2 also stated that on 14.05.2012 at around 9.00 a.m. while he was with P.W.1, the appellant came to the house of Selvi and hacked her and thereafter, pulled her body towards haystack and set it on fire. Yuvaraj [P.W.3] who was supposed to be the eyewitness, turned hostile to the prosecution case. P.W.2 also stated that on 14.05.2012 at around 9.00 a.m. while he was with P.W.1, the appellant came to the house of Selvi and hacked her and thereafter, pulled her body towards haystack and set it on fire. Yuvaraj [P.W.3] who was supposed to be the eyewitness, turned hostile to the prosecution case. This Court carefully analysed the evidence of the two eyewitnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that these two witnesses are planted witnesses and that they are not natural witnesses. He also pointed out certain contradictions in the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2. In the cross examination of P.W.2 he has stated that the police came to the village at around 12 o'clock and only thereafter, the complaint was taken by them from P.W.1. He also stated that the appellant was taken away from the place of occurrence at around 11 o'clock. On a careful examination of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, there is no contradiction between them with respect to the actual incident that occurred on that day, namely the attack unleased by the appellant on the deceased. The fact that the head and the limbs were dismembered has been established not only by the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, but also by the evidence of the Investigating Officer, who came to the scene of occurrence and observed the same in the presence of independent witness P.W.6 and another. The same is referred to in the Observation Mahazar [Ex.P8] as well in the Inquest Report [Ex.P16]. The Doctor who conducted the postmortem [P.W.4] has also stated that the body, head and limbs were dismembered. The eyewitness account of P.Ws.1 and 2 has not been in any way shaken by the defence in the cross examination of these two witnesses. The recovery of the object of offence, namely M.Os.1 and 2, through the disclosure statement of the appellant has also been satisfactorily established by the prosecution through the evidence of P.Ws.11 and 6 though there is a variation in the time of arrest of the appellant, from the evidence of P.W.2. The basic substratum of the case, namely the factum of the appellant hacking the deceased and setting her on fire which was witnessed by both P.Ws.1 and 2, cannot be brushed aside. 6. The basic substratum of the case, namely the factum of the appellant hacking the deceased and setting her on fire which was witnessed by both P.Ws.1 and 2, cannot be brushed aside. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the conduct of P.Ws.1 and 2 is so unnatural inasmuch as they did not do anything to prevent the appellant when he was attacking the deceased. He also contended that the trial Court had acquitted the appellant for the charges under Section 506(ii) IPC for intimidating P.Ws.1 and 2. It is true that the trial Court acquitted the appellant for this charge, nevertheless from this alone it cannot be inferred that P.Ws.1 and 2 are not truthful witnesses. A mere suggestion has been put to P.Ws.1 and 2 that they were deposing falsely on account of previous enmity with the appellant. Excepting this vague suggestion, there is no material to show that P.Ws.1 and 2 were enimical to the appellant, for them to falsely depose and implicate him in this crime. 7. From the cross examination of the witnesses it appears that, the appellant had taken a defence that Selvi was living a wayward life after the death of her husband and the murder could have been done by one of her boy friends. There is no tangible materials elicited from any of the witnesses with regard to Selvi's ill character, which the defence wanted to project. 8. A shocking feature in this case is that, the defence had chosen to examine Selvi's daughter Monica as defence witness in order to prove that Selvi was a person of ill repute. It is strange how the trial Court could have permitted the defence to assassinate the character of the deceased, because even according to the defence, Monica was nowhere in the house and she was all along in the appellant's house, which is away from Selvi's house. It is not their case that Monica was an eyewitness to the occurrence and that she will throw light on the material facts. 9. In her examination-in-chief, Monica [D.W.1] stated that she saw police taking away her grandfather on the date of the death of her mother. She further stated that on that day, her mother's boy friend came and took her away. She has stated that "boy friend" means a person who is friendly with another. 9. In her examination-in-chief, Monica [D.W.1] stated that she saw police taking away her grandfather on the date of the death of her mother. She further stated that on that day, her mother's boy friend came and took her away. She has stated that "boy friend" means a person who is friendly with another. Beyond this, the child blurted out the truth by saying that her aunt tutored her to tell in the Court that her mother went with her boy friend. Children are the voice of God indeed. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor in the trial Court rightly did not even try to cross examine Monica and left it like that and thereby maintained the dignity of the Office. Monica lastly blurted out that she was brought to the Court by the lawyers. It is indeed very sad and sickening. We do not want to say anything beyond this and leave it at that. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rathinam v. State of Tamil Nadu [ 2011 (11) SCC 140 ] to drive home the point that if a crime is horrendous in nature, the Court should not be swayed away by sentiments and should view the evidence dispassionately. There is no quarrel with this proposition. We have not been carried away in any manner in the nature of this offence and we have gone only on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who were eyewitnesses and the defence had failed to make any serious dent in their testimony. In fine, we hold that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court is confirmed. The appeal is dismissed.