JUDGMENT S.NAGAMUTHU, J. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.290 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Sessions cum Fast Track Court No.I, Tuticorin. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 294(b), 302 and 506(ii) IPC. The trial Court, by judgment dated 18.03.2011, convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows; (a) The deceased in this case was one Mr.Serry Antonyraj. PW2 was his associate. PW1 is the father of the deceased. Some time before the occurrence, the deceased and PW2 had attacked the accused. In respect of the said occurrence, the deceased and PW2 were prosecuted before the Court, where the deceased and PW2 was convicted and sentenced to pay fine. Because of the above occurrence, the accused was inimical towards the deceased and PW2. (b) PW1, PW2 and the deceased were all residing at Lingampatti Village, Tuticorin District. The accused was also residing in the same village. On 31.03.2010, in the evening, there was a function in the local school, attended to by the general public as well as the students. PWs.1 and 2 attended the said function. By about 8.45 p.m., PWs.1 and 2, as soon as the function was over, had gone to the nearby Kanmoi. The deceased also followed them. Within a short while, the accused also came there. He was armed with an aruval. On seeing the deceased, the accused reached him and attacked him with the aruval indiscriminately. PWs.1 and 2 raised alarm and tried to rescue him. The accused criminally intimidated them by brandishing the aruval. Therefore, they could not go near the deceased. After the deceased had fallen down with serious injuries, the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence with the weapon. PWs.1 and 2 went near the deceased and thereafter, found him dead. Then, they returned to the village and informed the family members. Then, PW1 went to the Police Station to make a complaint. (c) PW16 -the then Sub Inspector of Police, Nalattinpudur Police Station received the complaint from PW1 at 11.15 p.m. on 31.03.2010. PWs.1 and 2 went near the deceased and thereafter, found him dead. Then, they returned to the village and informed the family members. Then, PW1 went to the Police Station to make a complaint. (c) PW16 -the then Sub Inspector of Police, Nalattinpudur Police Station received the complaint from PW1 at 11.15 p.m. on 31.03.2010. He registered a case in Crime No.34 of 2010 under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) and 302 IPC. Ex.P16 is the FIR. Then, he forwarded the complaint -Ex.P15 and the FIR -Ex.P16 to the Court and handed over the Case Diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. (d) PW17 took up the case for investigation, went to the place of occurrence at 1.00 a.m. on 01.04.2010 and prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of PW7 and another witness. Then, he recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence between 3 to 5.00 a.m. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased, during which he examined PWs.1 and 2 and few more witnesses. Then, he forwarded the body for postmortem. (e) PW11 – Mrs.Suyambu Meenakshi conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 01.04.2010 at 11.00 a.m. She found the following injuries: “External injuries: 1) Cut injury 8 x 4 x 5 cm in the anterior middle part of neck running horizontally from 2 cm from left sternomastoid muscle to 4 cm laternal to midline in the right side of anterior part of neck cutting through trachea and oesophagus. 2) Cut injury 15 x 4 x 3 cm extending from left angle of mandible running horizontally through the left side of neck upto 3 cm lateral to midline in the left side of neck exposing muscles and tendons. 3) Cut injury 18 x 4 x 3 cm extending from left side of lower lip running horizontally through left side of neck upto 4 cm lateral to midline in the right side of neck exposing muscles and tendons. This injury is 3 cm above injury (2). 4) Cut injury 18 x 4 x bone extending from right angle of mandible running horizontally through depth right side of neck extended upto 4 cm lateral to midline on left side of neck. On opening of wound 3 x 3 cm linear fracture seen in right ramus of mandible. 5. This injury is 3 cm above injury (2). 4) Cut injury 18 x 4 x bone extending from right angle of mandible running horizontally through depth right side of neck extended upto 4 cm lateral to midline on left side of neck. On opening of wound 3 x 3 cm linear fracture seen in right ramus of mandible. 5. Sliced wound 7 x 4 x 2 cm in left shoulder. 6. Sliced wound 5 x 3 x 2 cm in left shoulder 4 cm below wound (5), (7) sliced wound 4 x 3 x 2 cm in left shoulder 10 cm behind wound. Nose – normal. Mouth & lips – cut injury present in the lower side of left lip. Tongue within the mouth. Internal Examination: On opening of thorax – Ribs – normal, heart – pale. Both lungs are pale. On opening of neck, hyoid bone intact. On opening of abdomen – stomach contains 500 gm of indigestible food particles. Liver – pale, spleen – pale, small intestine – empty, large intestine distended with gas. Bladder – empty. On opening of head, skull – no fracture, membrane – in tact, brain – pale.” Ex.P11 is the Postmortem Certificate. According to her, all the said injuries would have been caused by a weapon like MO.1 -aruval. Her opinion was that the deceased would appear to have died of injuries to vital organs such as trachea and oesophagus, and hypodermic shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained. (f) PW17 recovered the bloodstained clothes from the body of the deceased. On 03.04.2010, at 6.30 a.m., near Kusalipatti Bus Stop, he arrested the accused in the presence of PW9 and another witness. On such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden the aruval. In pursuance of the same, he produced MO.1 aruval from the hide out. PW17 recovered the same under a mahazar. Then, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects to the Court. He collected the photographs of the dead body taken at the place of occurrence. He examined the Doctor and collected the medical records. At the time when the accused was arrested, there were partially healed sutured incised wounds on his body and therefore, before sending him for judicial remand, he forwarded him to the hospital for treatment. He collected the photographs of the dead body taken at the place of occurrence. He examined the Doctor and collected the medical records. At the time when the accused was arrested, there were partially healed sutured incised wounds on his body and therefore, before sending him for judicial remand, he forwarded him to the hospital for treatment. (g) PW12 – Dr.Siyamnath Krishnapandian examined the accused on 03.04.2010 at 1.30 p.m. The accused told him that he was assaulted by single known person using aruavl on 01.04.2010 at 8.45 p.m. in a Kanmoi at Lingampatti Village. He found the following injuries: “1.Sutured incised wound 6 cms in length in right forearm. 2.18 cm long incised sutured wound in right side of back.” Ex.P12 is the Accident Register. (h) PW17 examined PW12 and collected Ex.P12 -the accident register pertaining to the accused. On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused. (i) Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the charges, as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment. The accused denied the same as false. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 17 witnesses were examined and 18 documents and 7 material objects were marked. (j) Out of the said witnesses, PWs.1 and 2 were examined as eyewitnesses. PW1 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. PW2 has vividly spoken about the entire occurrence. PWs.3 and 4 have stated that they heard about the occurrence. PW5 and PW6 have turned hostile and they have not stated anything about the occurrence. PW7 has stated that on hearing about the occurrence, he went to the place of occurrence and found the dead body. PW8 is the Villager. He has stated that he also participated in the school function and around 9.00 p.m. after the school function was over, when he proceeded towards Kanmoi, he heard the alarm raised by PWs.1 and 2. When he rushed there, PWs.1 and 2 cried that the deceased was done to death by the accused. PW9 has spoken about the arrest of the accused and the consequential recovery of MO.1 aruval on his disclosure statement. PW10 is the Head Clerk of the Magistrate Court, who has stated that on the orders of the learned Magistrate, he forwarded the material objects for chemical examination. PW9 has spoken about the arrest of the accused and the consequential recovery of MO.1 aruval on his disclosure statement. PW10 is the Head Clerk of the Magistrate Court, who has stated that on the orders of the learned Magistrate, he forwarded the material objects for chemical examination. (k) PW11 has spoken about the autopsy conducted on the body of the deceased and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. PW12 has spoken about the injuries found on the accused and the treatment given by him. PW13 is the Scientific Assistant, who has stated that he examined the material objects and found bloodstains on the same. PW14 has spoken about the fact that he carried the FIR from the Police Station and handed over the same to the learned Magistrate at 5.15 a.m. PW15 is the Constable, who carried the dead body to the hospital for postmortem. PW16 and PW17 have spoken about the investigation done. (l) When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false. However, he did not choose to examine any witness nor to mark any document on his side. The defence of the accused was total denial. (m) Having considered all the above materials, the trial Court has convicted him under Section 302 IPC alone and accordingly, punished him. That is how he is before this Court with this appeal. 3. In this appeal, the learned counsel on record did not make his appearance and therefore, this Court appointed Mr.M.Mahendran as Legal Aid counsel. We heard him in full and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. We have also perused the records carefully. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there is inordinate delay in preferring the complaint and the same has not been explained away by the prosecution, which creates a doubt in the case of the prosecution. He would further submit that according to the medical evidence, there was food in the stomach of the deceased, whereas, according to PW3, the deceased had taken food at 6.30 p.m. This, according to the learned counsel, would create doubt in the time of the occurrence. He would further submit that there was no bloodstain found on MO.1 -aruval. He would further submit that according to the medical evidence, there was food in the stomach of the deceased, whereas, according to PW3, the deceased had taken food at 6.30 p.m. This, according to the learned counsel, would create doubt in the time of the occurrence. He would further submit that there was no bloodstain found on MO.1 -aruval. He would lastly submit that the evidence of PW2 cannot inspire the confidence of the Court going by the motive and the fact that he was a chance witness. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, vehemently, oppose this appeal. According to him, absolutely, there is no delay either in preferring the complaint or in forwarding the FIR to the Court. So far as the presence of food materials is concerned, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it is immaterial. Similarly, the absence of bloodstain on the weapon is also of no consequence, because the evidence of PW2 is so cogent and convincing. He would further submit that PW2 is a chance witness. Thus, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts. 6. We have considered the above submissions. The prosecution has mainly relies on the evidence of PW2. He has spoken about the motive. There is no denial of the fact that on earlier occasion, PW2 and the deceased had attacked the accused and from then onwards, there was enmity between the two. Thus, in our considered view, the prosecution has proved the motive. 7. Now, turning to the occurrence, the prosecution mainly relies on the evidence of PW2. Though PW1 was examined as eyewitness, he has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. PW2 has vividly spoken about the entire occurrence. According to him, he along with PW1 had gone to Kanmoi, after the school function was over and they were followed by the deceased. It was only at that time, on noticing the deceased going towards Kanmoi, the accused followed him armed with weapon and started mounting attack on him. Though PW2 was cross examined at length, nothing has been brought on record to doubt his credibility. Above all, the evidence of PW8 lends assurance to the case of the prosecution. It was only at that time, on noticing the deceased going towards Kanmoi, the accused followed him armed with weapon and started mounting attack on him. Though PW2 was cross examined at length, nothing has been brought on record to doubt his credibility. Above all, the evidence of PW8 lends assurance to the case of the prosecution. Of-course, PW8 had not witnessed the occurrence. According to him, after the school function was over, he also went to the Kanmoi. It was quite usual for the villagers to go to Kanmoi during night hours. It is his further evidence that at that time, he heard the alarm raised by PWs.1 and 2. When he rushed towards that place, PWs. 1 and 2 stated that the accused had cut the deceased and killed him. Thus, the evidence of PW8 squarely falls within the ambit of Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act as a substantive evidence. This evidence duly corroborates the eyewitness account of PW2. By the evidences of these two witnesses, in our considered view, the prosecution has clearly proved that it was this accused who caused the death of the deceased. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant would point out that the FIR in this case is a belated one and therefore, the prosecution case should be doubted. But, we do not find any merit at all in the said argument. In respect of the occurrence, which had taken place at 9.00 p.m., the FIR was registered at 11.15 p.m. and the same was reached the hands of the learned Magistrate at 5.15 a.m. Thus, absolutely, there is no delay. 9. So far as the presence of food materials in the stomach is concerned, it is true that PW3 had stated that the deceased took food at 6.30 p.m. and then, he had gone to the school for attending the function. It cannot be ruled out that after taking food at 6.30 p.m., he would have taken food elsewhere during the interregnum period and therefore, the presence of food materials in the stomach of the deceased does not in any manner support the case of the accused. Similarly, the absence of bloodstain on MO.1 -aruval is also of no consequence. The said aruval was discovered on the disclosure statement made by the accused and the same was identified by PW1. Similarly, the absence of bloodstain on MO.1 -aruval is also of no consequence. The said aruval was discovered on the disclosure statement made by the accused and the same was identified by PW1. Since the occurrence was during night hours, the identification of the aruval made by PW1 cannot be given any weightage. In our considered view, even if we disbelieve the recovery of MO.1 -aruval at the instance of the accused, that would not be the cause to acquit the accused, because the evidence of PW2, coupled with the evidence of PW8, is so cogent and convincing to prove the guilt of the accused. Thus, we hold that it was this accused, who caused the death of the deceased. 10. Yet another fact which requires further discussion is that at the time, when the accused was arrested on 03.04.2010, there were injuries on him. With a Police memo, he was taken by the Police to PW12 -Dr.Siyamnath Krishnapandian. At that time, the accused told the Doctor that he sustained injuries due to assault made by a single known person by using aruval on 01.04.2010 at 8.45 p.m. in the Kanmoi at Lingampatti Village. PW12 found as many as two sutured wounds on the body of the accused. The first injury was of 6 cms length and the second injury was of 18 cms length. The injuries were really serious. But, it is not the case of the accused that these injuries were sustained in the very same occurrence, in which the deceased sustained injuries. Even to PW12, the accused had told that he sustained injuries only on 01.04.2010 at 8.45 p.m. When PW12 examined him on 03.04.2010, he found both the injuries with sutures. It is for the accused to explain to the Court as to how he sustained injuries and as to where the injuries were sutured. Had it been true that he sustained these two injuries in the very same occurrence, nothing would have prevented the accused to place the facts to the Court and to make appropriate pleas either of the self-defence or for creating doubt in the case of the prosecution. We have gone through the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and also the case put forward by him to the witnesses, including the investigating officer. We have gone through the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and also the case put forward by him to the witnesses, including the investigating officer. No where he has taken the defence that he sustained injuries in the very same occurrence, in which the deceased sustained injuries. Therefore, the non explanation of the injuries found on the body of the accused is immaterial. 11. In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any merits in this appeal. We hold that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts. 12. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court against the appellant/accused in S.C.No.290 of 2010 is confirmed. 13. The trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the appellant/accused and to incarcerate him in prison so as to serve out the remaining period of sentence. 14. The service rendered by the learned Legal Aid Counsel Mr.M.Mahendran is appreciated. The Legal Services Authority is directed to pay his remuneration, for which he is entitled to.