JUDGMENT : S. NAGAMUTHU, J. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.238 of 2011, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Tuticorin. He stood charged for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. By Judgment, dated 30.01.2012, the Trial Court convicted him under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court, with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: (i) The deceased in this case was one Mr. Seeni. P.W.1 to P.W.3 are the son, brother-in-law and wife, respectively of the deceased. The deceased was residing at Konkarayakurichi Village in Srivaikundam Taluk, along with P.W.1 and P.W.3. P.W.2, the brother-in-law of the deceased, was residing at Melaputhaneri Village. The accused had no place to reside. Some years before the occurrence, he requested the deceased to provide him a place to construct a house and to reside therein. Out of pity for the accused, the deceased allowed him to occupy a vacant site, situated on the back of his house of his brother. The deceased accordingly constructed a small house on the vacant side and started living. After sometime, the activities of the accused, was not to the liking of the deceased. Therefore, the deceased wanted him to vacate the house and hand over the vacant possession. But, the accused did not do so. This resulted in a dispute between them. After local panchayat and after a long persuasion, he vacated the house. But, he did not remove the superstructure. 2½ months prior to the occurrence, the deceased wanted the accused to remove the superstructure and to hand over the vacant possession of the land. (ii) Thereafter, on 28.05.2010, when the deceased was standing on the road in the village, the accused came there and shouted at the deceased. This resulted again in a quarrel. P.W.1 and the other family members of the deceased came there and took the deceased to their house. These incidents are stated to be the motive for the accused to kill the deceased. (iii) The deceased was supervising a land belonging to his master. On 30.05.2010, P.W.1 to P.W.3 had also gone to the same field for fencing the same, for coolie. These incidents are stated to be the motive for the accused to kill the deceased. (iii) The deceased was supervising a land belonging to his master. On 30.05.2010, P.W.1 to P.W.3 had also gone to the same field for fencing the same, for coolie. The deceased was already there in the field. After finishing the work in the evening, all the four returned to the house of the deceased. P.W.3 was then busy in cooking. (iv) By around 09.00 p.m., the deceased left the house to go over to the nearby river to take bath. It is in evidence that it was quite common for the people to take bath in the river upto 09.00 p.m. Since the deceased was alone going, P.W.1 and P.W.2 followed them. When, he was nearing the river, he started raising alarm calling P.W.1. P.W.1 and P.W.2, who were closely moving, rushed towards the said place. It was admittedly dark. But, P.W.1 had a torch light in his hands. He flashed the torch light and find the deceased standing and the accused cutting the deceased with an aruval. P.W.1 and P.W.2 rushed towards them. The accused repeated the cuts indiscriminately and after the deceased had fallen down, he fled away from the scene of occurrence with aruval. P.W.1 and P.W.2 found the deceased dead instantaneously. Then, they returned to the house, informed P.W.3 and thereafter P.W.1 went to the Police Station. P.W.16 was the then Sub Inspector of Police at Srivaikundam Police Station. P.W.1 appeared before him at 11.30 p.m. on 30.05.2010 and made a complaint under Ex.P.1. P.W.16 registered a case on the said complaint in Crime No.171 of 2010, under Section 302 I.P.C. Ex.P.15 is the First Information Report. Then, he forwarded both the documents to the Court and handed over the Case Diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. (v) P.W.17 took up the case for investigation on 31.05.2010 at 12.30 a.m. Immediately, he proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazer and a Rough Sketch at 02.00 a.m. in the presence of P.W.10 and another witness. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased at 02.00 a.m. and forwarded the body for postmortem. (vi) P.W.12, Dr. Subramanian, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased at 11.30 a.m. on 31.05.2010. He found the following injuries: “1. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased at 02.00 a.m. and forwarded the body for postmortem. (vi) P.W.12, Dr. Subramanian, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased at 11.30 a.m. on 31.05.2010. He found the following injuries: “1. A deep cut injury at the level of C2 vertebra size about 20 x 4 x 10 cm extension to left pinna to right angle of jaw – spinal cord severed. 2. A deep cut injury size 15 x 6 x 7 cm at the level of occipital protuberance extending from behind the right pinna to above left pinna. Brain matter exposed. 3. A deep cut injury 6 x 2 x 6 cm over right shoulder deltoid region. 4. Cut injury left shoulder 10 x 4 x 3 cm deltoid region. 5. Cut injury 2 x 4 x 1 cm right shoulder deltoid region. 6. A deep cut injury extending left anterior sup. Liac spine to right ant. sup. liac. spine 30 x 7 x 10 cm at the level of L4 vertebra. Spinal cord severed, large intestine exposed and stained with matter. 7. A cut injury left palm 6 x 5 x cm. 8.3 linear horizontal cut injury over lower back above (6) size. 5 x 2 x 1 cm. 9. A cut injury over left upper back 4 x 2 x 1 cm”. Ex.P.8 is the Postmortem Certificate. According to him, all the above nine injuries could have been caused by a weapon, like M.O.7, aruval. He also opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury Nos.1,2 and 6. (vii) During the course of investigation, P.W.17, recovered the bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence in the presence of P.W.11 and another witness. He also recovered the other material objects found in the place of occurrence. On 31.05.2010, at 05.00 p.m., he arrested the accused at Srivaikundam Muslim School Bus Stop, in the presence of P.W.11 and another witness. On such arrest, he made a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place, where, he had hidden the aruval and lungi. P.W.17 recovered the same under a mahazer. On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects to the Court. On such arrest, he made a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place, where, he had hidden the aruval and lungi. P.W.17 recovered the same under a mahazer. On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects to the Court. Then, he made a request to the Court for forwarding the material objects for Chemical Examination. The Report revealed that there was human blood on all the material objects including the billhook. But, the group of the bloodstain found on the billhook was inconclusive. Then, he handed over the investigation to his successor. (viii) P.W.18 took up the case for investigation on 22.06.2010. He examined few more witnesses, collected medical records and finally laid charge sheet against the accused on 19.07.2010. 3. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed a lone charge under Section 302 I.P.C. against the accused. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as, 18 witnesses were examined and 17 documents were exhibited, besides 8 Material Objects. 4. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. P.W.1 has also spoken about the motive. P.W.3 is the wife of the deceased, who has also spoken only about the motive. She has stated that by around 09.00 p.m., on the day of occurrence, the deceased left for the river to take bath followed by P.W.1 and P.W.2. She has further stated that P.W.1 and P.W.2 returned and told that the deceased was done to death by the accused. P.W.4 has also spoken about the motive. P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.8 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.9 is the brother's wife of the deceased, who has stated about the fact that the accused was occupying the vacant site belonging to her and later he vacated the same. P.W.10 is the Village Assistant, who has stated about the preparation of the Observation Mahazer and the Rough Sketch and also the recovery of the material objects from the place of occurrence. P.W.11 has spoken about the arrest of the accused and the consequential recovery of the aruval and lungi. P.W.12 has spoken about the postmortem conducted and his final opinion. P.W.11 has spoken about the arrest of the accused and the consequential recovery of the aruval and lungi. P.W.12 has spoken about the postmortem conducted and his final opinion. P.W.13 is the Head Clerk of the Judicial Magistrate's Court, who has spoken about the fact that he forwarded the material objects to the Forensic Lab for Chemical Examination on the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate. P.W.14 is the Constable, who took the First Information Report and the complaint and handed over the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate at Srivaikundam. According to him, these two documents were given to him by the Sub Inspector of Police at 12.30 a.m. on 31.05.2010 and handed over the same to the learned Magistrate at 01.30 a.m. P.W.15 is the Constable, who carried the dead body to the hospital for postmortem. P.W.16 has spoken about the registration of the case on the complaint of P.W.1. P.W.17 and P.W.18 have spoken about the investigation done. 5. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false. On the side of the accused, two documents were marked, namely, photo with negative, which shows the entrance to occurrence place from occurrence Village Main Road and another photo with negative, showing the pathway between the river and the occurrence village. However, he did not choose to examine any witness on his side. Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court convicted the appellant, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment, and sentenced him accordingly. That is how, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that P.W.2 belongs to a different village and there was no necessity or occasion for P.W.2 to have been present at the time of occurrence. He would further submit that P.W.2 has admitted during cross-examination that he was not examined by the police during investigation at all. Thus, according to him, P.W.2 would not have witnessed the occurrence. In order to substantiate this contention, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that P.W.2 was not in a position to identify the weapon also. He would further submit that P.W.2 has admitted during cross-examination that he was not examined by the police during investigation at all. Thus, according to him, P.W.2 would not have witnessed the occurrence. In order to substantiate this contention, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that P.W.2 was not in a position to identify the weapon also. So far as P.W.1 is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the reasons for his presence at the time of occurrence along with P.W.2, has not been stated either in Ex.P.1 or during the investigation. As an after thought, the reasons for his presence at the time of occurrence have been spoken to by P.W.1, the learned counsel contended. He would next contend that P.W.1 during cross-examination, has admitted that one Manakkarai Thevar, with whom, the deceased had some dispute regarding real estate business and many others were also taken to the Police Station by the police out of suspicion. This, according to the learned counsel, would go to show that the accused would not have committed the murder at all, as it is stated by P.W.1 and P.W.2. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there was no independent witness examined at all. Though, it is in evidence that people used to take bath in the river till 09.00 p.m. and though it is stated by P.W.1 and P.W.2 that by flashing a torch light with P.W.1 had in his hands, they could see the occurrence, the said torch light has not been seized by the police. So far as the motive is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that absolutely there is no proof in view of the evidence of P.W.9. He would further submit that Ex.P.1 is a doubtful document, because, according to P.W.1, when he went to the Police Station, an Advocate also accompanied him. The learned counsel for the appellant would lastly submit that there were nine injuries on the body of the deceased and the said injuries had not been accounted for by the prosecution at all. For these reasons, the learned counsel, would contend that the accused is entitled for acquittal. 8. But, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently oppose this appeal. For these reasons, the learned counsel, would contend that the accused is entitled for acquittal. 8. But, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently oppose this appeal. According to him, P.W.1 and P.W.2 have categorically stated about the reasons for their presence at the time of occurrence and there are no reasons to reject their evidence at all. He would submit that the other grounds raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are all immaterial, which would not in any manner go to destroy the evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that the motive has also been duly established by the prosecution. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would next contend that the recovery of the weapon and the lungi, which were bloodstained, would also go to further strengthen the case of the prosecution. Thus, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and therefore the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. We have considered the above submissions. 10. The alleged occurrence was at 09.00 p.m. The complaint in this case was registered at 11.30 p.m. The records reveal that the First Information Report had reached the hands of the learned Magistrate at 01.30 a.m. on 31.05.2010. Thus, there was no delay either in preferring the complaint or in forwarding the same to the Court. Thus, the prompt launching of the complaint, would, some extent, vouch for the truth of the allegations found in the First Information Report. 11. To believe the case of the prosecution, more particularly, to believe the evidences of P.W.1 and P.W.2, we have got sufficient reasons. First of all, P.W.2 is not residing in the village. But, on that score, we cannot rush to the conclusion that P.W.2 would not have been present at the time of occurrence. P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 have stated that all the three had gone for fencing work in the farm, where, the deceased was working. In the evening on 30.05.2010, they returned to the house of the deceased. Then, P.W.3 started cooking. At that point of time, the deceased left for taking bath in the nearby river followed by P.W.1 and P.W.2. In our considered view, the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 at the time of occurrence, is quite natural and there are no reasons to reject the same. Then, P.W.3 started cooking. At that point of time, the deceased left for taking bath in the nearby river followed by P.W.1 and P.W.2. In our considered view, the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 at the time of occurrence, is quite natural and there are no reasons to reject the same. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the reasons for their presence at the time of occurrence had not been mentioned either in the First Information Report or during the investigation. Of course, it is true, but, on that score, we are not in a position to reject the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 at the time of occurrence, because, there are other evidences also available, which would firmly point to the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 at the time of occurrence. 12. At the place of occurrence, admittedly, it was dark. The question is whether P.W.1 and P.W.2 would have seen the actual occurrence due to darkness. It is in evidence that with the use of torch light, the occurrence was seen by P.W.1 and P.W. 2. The presence of torch light in the hands of P.W.1 has been mentioned even in the First Information Report. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have categorically stated that by flashing the torch light, they could see the occurrence. Though, it is true that the said torch light was not seized, in our considered view, it is immaterial. When we are prepared to believe the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that they saw the occurrence by flashing the torch light held by P.W.1, the non-recovery of the torch light, in our considered view, has not caused any dent in the case of the prosecution. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that all the nine injuries were not accounted for by P.W.1 and P.W. 2. This is, of course, true. But, in our considered view, since after receiving one or two cuts, the deceased would have raised alarm and then only, the attention of P.W.1 and P.W.2 would have been attracted towards the place of occurrence. At any rate, when the occurrence was so sudden, one cannot expect these two eye-witnesses to count every injury caused in seriatim with reference to the citus of the injuries also. At any rate, when the occurrence was so sudden, one cannot expect these two eye-witnesses to count every injury caused in seriatim with reference to the citus of the injuries also. Therefore, though P.W. 1 and P.W.2 have not stated about every injury caused on the deceased, on that score, we cannot reject the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, because the omission to mention about each and every one injury inflicted by the accused, is quite natural. Therefore, this argument is also rejected. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant would next contend that there was no independent witness examined. Regarding this argument, though it is stated by some of the witnesses that people used to take bath in the river till 09.00 p.m., absolutely there is no evidence that at the time of occurrence, there was anybody else to witness the occurrence. Therefore, it is a case, where, there was no independent witness available at the time of occurrence and therefore non-examination of independent witness, is not a matter to be considered at all in this case. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant would next contend that after the occurrence, P.W.1 did not go to the Police Station immediately and instead he had taken the help of an Advocate to go to the Police Station. It is true that P.W.1 has admitted so. The Professional Ethics of a Lawyer requires that he should not be a part to fabricate a complaint. It is for the informant to disclose the facts in the complaint to the police. In this case, it is true that an Advocate had come in the picture. But, it is not at all in evidence that he either tutored P.W.1 to make a false complaint or had any role to play in the preparation of the complaint. Therefore, the presence of Advocate also does not create any doubt in the case of the prosecution. 16. In the Police Station, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, one Manakkarai Thevar and others were kept and interrogated, out of suspicion. Therefore, the presence of Advocate also does not create any doubt in the case of the prosecution. 16. In the Police Station, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, one Manakkarai Thevar and others were kept and interrogated, out of suspicion. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that had it been true that the accused was the sole assailant, who committed the murder and the same had been witnessed by P.W.1 and P.W.2, there would have been no necessity or occasion for the Investigating Officer to interrogate the said Manakkarai Thevar or somebody else, out of suspicion. We do not find any force at all in this argument. It is not in evidence that even before the registration of the case, Mr. Manakkarai Thevar and others were brought to the Police Station. The only evidence available is that P.W.1 had seen these people in the Police Station subsequently. During the course of investigation, the police have got every power to interrogate anybody, without confining them, to ascertain the allegations in the First Information Report. Many a times, the allegations in the First Information Report, may be a mystery and the truth may be otherwise. Therefore, as a measure to find out the truth, the Investigating Officer was at liberty to interrogate anybody including Mr. Manakkarai Thevar, in this case, to find out whether they had any role in the murder of the deceased, like instigation, conspiracy, etc. Therefore, on this score, it cannot be doubted that the accused alone was the sole perpetrator of the crime. 17. The learned counsel for the appellant finally would submit that the motive has not been established. But, we find that from the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, motive has been clearly established. Though, it is true that the accused had vacated the property, he had not removed the superstructure and that was cause for the quarrel on 28.05.2010. It was, because of that quarrel, on 30.05.2010, he had committed this murder. 18. But, we find that from the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, motive has been clearly established. Though, it is true that the accused had vacated the property, he had not removed the superstructure and that was cause for the quarrel on 28.05.2010. It was, because of that quarrel, on 30.05.2010, he had committed this murder. 18. Going by the motive, going by the weapon used and going by the number of injuries and also the citus of the injuries, it is crystal clear that the accused had the definite instigation to commit the murder of the deceased and the act of the accused would squarely fall within the first limb of Section 300 I.P.C. But, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the act of the accused would fall under the Exception (1) to Section 300 I.P.C. We do not find any merit at all, even remotely to infer that the accused would have been provoked by the deceased. The very fact that the accused was lying in wait with the formidable weapon and caused as many as nine injuries on the person, would go to show that his act would not fall under any of the Exceptions to Section 300 I.P.C. Thus, we hold that the act of the accused amounts to murder. Thus, he is liable to be punished under Section 302 I.P.C. 19. Now, turning to the quantum of punishment, the Trial Court has imposed only a minimum punishment. Therefore, it does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 20. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Tuticorin, in S.C.No.238 of 2011, dated 30.01.2012, is hereby confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.