JUDGMENT : A. SELVAM, J. 1. The present appellant is an uxorious husband, who is said to have committed an uxoricide due to his lust. 2. The contraction of the case of the prosecution is that the accused by name Arul has married the deceased viz., Misba in the year 2008 in accordance with Christian Rites. After marriage, both the accused and deceased have lived in the house of the defacto complainant by name Soundarraj, father of the deceased. The accused has very often used to attack the deceased. The deceased has reported her father that her husband (accused) is having illicit intimacy with so many ladies. Further she reported that her husband has tried to have unnatural intercourse. On 22.11.2011 at about 19.15 hours, in the house of the defacto complainant, the accused has tried to have coition with the deceased. Since the deceased has refused to concede the demand of the accused and also by way of thinking that the deceased is nothing but a contretemps for performing second marriage, the accused has attacked on her person and due to his over-facts, the deceased has passed away. After occurrence, the defacto complainant, father of the deceased has given a complaint and the same has been registered in Crime No.507 of 2011 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. On receipt of complaint, the Investigating Officer viz., PW16 has taken up investigation and examined connected witnesses. The concerned Revenue Divisional Officer (PW14) has conducted inquest and marked inquest report as Ex.P17. After finishing inquest, the dead body of the deceased has been subjected to autopsy by PW7, Dr.Manokaran and he found the following external and internal injuries. Following post mortem injuries are noted on the body:- (1) Two abrasions of each size 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm seen in the lateral side of right palm. (2) An abrasion of size 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm seen in the dorsal aspect of root of right index finger. (3) Four abrasions of each size 0.8 cm x 0.5 cm seen parallel in the inner aspect of right hand. (4) Two abrasion of each size 0.5 cm x 0.3 cm seen in the lateral side of left hand. (2) An abrasion of size 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm seen in the dorsal aspect of root of right index finger. (3) Four abrasions of each size 0.8 cm x 0.5 cm seen parallel in the inner aspect of right hand. (4) Two abrasion of each size 0.5 cm x 0.3 cm seen in the lateral side of left hand. Following ante mortem injuries are noted on the body:- (5) A pressure abrasion of size 2cms x 1cm seen in the right cheek (6) A pressure abrasion of size 1cm x 1cm seen below the right eye. (7) A pressure abrasion of size 2cms x 1cm seen in the right ala of nose. (8) A pressure abrasion of size 2cms x 1cm seen in the left ala of nose. (9) A pressure abrasion of size 2cms x 1cm seen in the left cheek. (10) A pressure abrasion of size 1cm x ½ cm seen in the right angle of mouth. (11) A pressure abrasion of size 1cm x 1cm seen in the upper lip. (12) A pressure abrasion of size 1cm x 1cm seen in the chin. (13) Two annular nail makrs of each length 0.5cm seen in the left cheek (14) An annular nail makr of length 0.7cm seen in the right side of cheek close to the nose. (15) Multiple pressure abrasions of varying sizes seen in the nose and cheek. (16) Both lips found contused. Multiple lacerations of varying sizes seen in the inner aspect of both lips. The anterior surface of incisor teeth are blood stained. (17) Nasal cartilage found fractured with surrounding bruise. A laceration of size 0.3 cm x 0.1 cmx cartilage deep seen in the right side of nasal septum. On dissection of Scalp, Skull and dura:- Scalp contusion of size 5 cms x 5 cms seen over the left temporal region. Other findings: Peritoneal and Thoracic cavities – normal. Pericardium – contained 10 ml of straw colour fluid. Heart-normal and chamber empty. Coronaries-patent. Larnyex and Trachea -froth seen inside the lumen. Hyoid bone-intact. Lungs, Liver, Spleen and Kidneys normal and cut section congested. Stomach-empty, nil specific smell, mucosa congested. Small intestine empty, nil specific smell, mucosa congested. Bladder-empty. Uterus-normal and cavity empty. Brain normal and cut section normal. External genitalia normal. 4. The post-mortem certificate has been marked as Ex.P4. Coronaries-patent. Larnyex and Trachea -froth seen inside the lumen. Hyoid bone-intact. Lungs, Liver, Spleen and Kidneys normal and cut section congested. Stomach-empty, nil specific smell, mucosa congested. Small intestine empty, nil specific smell, mucosa congested. Bladder-empty. Uterus-normal and cavity empty. Brain normal and cut section normal. External genitalia normal. 4. The post-mortem certificate has been marked as Ex.P4. After completing investigation, the Investigating Officer has laid a final report on the file of the District Munsif – cum – Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur and the same has been taken on file in PRC No.22 of 2012. 5. The District Munsif – cum – Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur after considering the fact that the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused is triable by Sessions Court, has committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Tuticorin Division and the same has been taken on file in Sessions Case No.181 of 2012. 6. The trial Court after hearing arguments of both sides and upon perusing relevant records, has framed a charge against the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the same has been read over and explained to him. The accused has denied the charge and claimed to be tried. 7. On the side of the prosecution PWs.1 to 16 have been examined and Exs.P1 to P18 and M.Os.1 and 2 have been marked. 8. When the accused has been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as respects the incriminating materials available in evidence against him, he denied his complicity in the crime. On the side of the accused, DW1 has been examined. 9. The trial Court after hearing arguments of both sides and upon perusing relevant evidence available on record has found the accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- with usual default clause. Against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred at the instance of the accused as appellant. 10. The consistent case of the prosecution is that the accused has married the deceased in the year 2008 as per Christian Rites and after marriage, both of them have lived in the house of the defacto complainant, who is none other than the father of the deceased. 10. The consistent case of the prosecution is that the accused has married the deceased in the year 2008 as per Christian Rites and after marriage, both of them have lived in the house of the defacto complainant, who is none other than the father of the deceased. The deceased has very often reported to her father to the effect that her husband has used to attack her frequently and he is also having illicit intimacy with so many ladies. Further he has also tried to have cornal copulation against the order of nature. On 22.11.2011 at about 19.15 hours, in the house of the defacto complainant, the accused has tried to have sexual intercourse with the deceased and since she refused to fulfil his lust and also by way of thinking that the deceased is a stumbling block for conducting second marriage, the accused has attacked the deceased and due to his overtacts, she passed away. 11. The prosecution has set the law in motion only on the basis of Ex.P1, complaint and the same has been registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. During the course of investigation it is stated that the accused has voluntarily given an extra judicial confession to the concerned Village Administrative Officer viz., PW15 and the same has been marked as Ex.P12, wherein it is clearly stated to the effect that the accused has committed the crime. Apart from Ex.P12, the prosecution has examined the persons namely Thevaram, Gnanadurai and Susila as PWs.4 to 6 and their specific evidence is that prior to occurrence, the accused has come to the house of the defacto complainant. One Deva Irakkam has been examined as PW9 for the purpose of proving the conduct of the accused. The trial Court after considering Ex.P12, extra judicial confession statement and the evidence given by the witnesses mentioned supra, has found the accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- as mentioned in the Judgment. 12. Before excogitating the rival contentions put forth on either side, it would be apposite to look into the conduct and character of the accused. The defacto complainant has been examined as PW1 and he is none other than the father-in-law of the accused and father of the deceased. 12. Before excogitating the rival contentions put forth on either side, it would be apposite to look into the conduct and character of the accused. The defacto complainant has been examined as PW1 and he is none other than the father-in-law of the accused and father of the deceased. The specific evidence given by PW1 is that after marriage, both the accused and deceased have lived in his house and the deceased has very often reported him to the effect that the accused has used to attack her and further he is having illicit intimacy with so many ladies and also tried to have cornal intercourse with her against order of nature. Apart from the evidence given by PW1, PW9 viz., Deva Irakkam has given clear evidence to the effect that the accused has used to talk to so many ladies over cell phone. 13. From conjoint reading of the evidence given by PWs. 1 and 9, the Court can easily discern that the accused is nothing but a dangler and only due to his lust, he tried to have cornal copulation with the deceased against the order of nature. 14. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant/accused has raised the following points to set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant/accused. (i) The case of the prosecution is that the occurrence has taken place on 22.11.2011 at about 19.15 hours in the house of the defacto complainant. But at the time of occurrence, the accused is not in the house of the defacto complainant and therefore, the accused has been unnecessarily roped in the present case. (ii) The Investigating Officer has nabbed the accused only on the basis of extra judicial confession viz., Ex.P12 and along with Ex.P12, PW15, Village Administrative Officer has given a report and the same has been marked as Ex.P13, wherein Crime Number has been mentioned and since in Ex.P13 Crime Number is mentioned, Ex.P12 is nothing but a concocted document. (iii) In Ex.P2, Athatchi, altered sections of law have been mentioned and therefore, Ex.P2 is nothing but a false document. (iv) In Ex.P3, requisition given by the Revenue Divisions Officer, it is mentioned that the death has occurred at 01.00 am, whereas, the case of the prosecution is otherwise. (iii) In Ex.P2, Athatchi, altered sections of law have been mentioned and therefore, Ex.P2 is nothing but a false document. (iv) In Ex.P3, requisition given by the Revenue Divisions Officer, it is mentioned that the death has occurred at 01.00 am, whereas, the case of the prosecution is otherwise. (v) The statements alleged to have been given before the Revenue Divisions Officer by PWs.1 and 9 and inquest report have not been placed before the Court. (vi) The specific evidence given by DW1 is that there is no document for the purpose of showing that initially the dead body has been brought to Tiruchendur Government hospital. (vii) The Investigating Officer has examined PWs.4 to 6 and 9 only after Ex.P12, extra judicial confession and their statements have been sent to Court on 09.01.2012 and therefore, service of PWs.4 to 6 and 9 has been utilised subsequently. 15. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that in the instant case, apart from extra judicial confession, PWs.4 to 6 have given clear evidence to the effect that prior to occurrence, they have seen the accused in the house of the defacto complainant and since the occurrence has taken place inside the house, where both the accused and deceased have resided, the entire burden lies upon the accused by virtue of section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the trial Court after considering the overall evidence available on record has rightly found the accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court does not warrant interference. 16. The trial Court has invited conviction and sentence against the appellant/accused mainly on the basis of extra judicial confession alleged to have been given by the accused to PW15 and also on the basis of the evidence given by PWs.4 to 6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused has contended that extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and the same cannot be a sole basis for coming to a conclusion that the particular accused has committed crime. 17. It is an acknowledged principle of law that extra judicial confession is not a substantive piece of evidence. But at the same time, the same can be taken as a piece of evidence. 18. 17. It is an acknowledged principle of law that extra judicial confession is not a substantive piece of evidence. But at the same time, the same can be taken as a piece of evidence. 18. The main attack made on the side of the appellant/accused is that in Ex.P13 concerned crime number has been mentioned and therefore, extra judicial confession has been recorded in police station. The extra judicial confession has been marked as Ex.P12, wherein no mention has been made with regard to crime number. But at the same time, in Ex.P13, report of PW15, crime number has been mentioned. Considering the fact that in Ex.P13, crime number has been mentioned, this Court can infer that Ex.P13 might have been written by PW15, after coming to police station. Under the said circumstances, the Court cannot belittle Ex.P12, extra judicial confession. 19. Even assuming without conceding that Ex.P12, extra judicial confession alleged to have been given by the appellant/accused has been prepared in police station, the Court has to meticulously look into the evidence given by PWs.4 to 6. The specific evidence given by PW4 is that on 22.11.2011 at about 07.00 pm, the accused has come to his house and after his arrival, the television of the defacto complainant has raised boisterous sound. The specific evidence given by PW5 is that on 22.11.2011 at about 07.15 pm, the accused has gone to his house by using a motorcycle. The evidence given by PW6 is that on 22.11.2011 during evening hours, both the accused and deceased have talked together loudly. Further the evidence of PW6 is that she slammed the door and the accused has opened the same and she enquired about the boisterous sound of television and the accused has replied that nothing has happened. 20. From the conjoint reading of the evidence given by PWs.4 to 6, the Court can very well come to a conclusion that at the time of occurrence, the accused has been in the house of the defacto complainant. 21. It is an admitted fact that the entire occurrence has taken place inside the house of the defacto complainant and it is also equally an admitted fact that from the date of marriage, both the accused and deceased have resided in the said house. 21. It is an admitted fact that the entire occurrence has taken place inside the house of the defacto complainant and it is also equally an admitted fact that from the date of marriage, both the accused and deceased have resided in the said house. Under the said circumstances, the Court can very well invoke Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, wherein it has been clearly stated that the entire burden lies upon the person who is having exclusive knowledge about particular facts. 22. Considering the fact that on the side of the prosecution trustworthy evidence is available for the purpose of proving that at the time of occurrence the accused has been in the house of the defacto complainant and both the accused and deceased have quarrelled by way of raising loud noise, as per the provision of the said section, the entire burden lies upon the accused. But the accused has not discharged his burden. 23. On the side of the appellant/accused, it has been contended to the effect that PWs.4 to 6 and some other vital witnesses have been examined only on 24.11.2011 and that too after arrest of the accused and in pursuance of the alleged extra judicial confession and therefore, the evidence given by PWs.4 to 6 cannot be accepted. 24. In fact, this Court has perused the entire evidence given by PWs.4 to 6 and no motive has been in existence between PWs.4 to 6 and accused. Of course it is true that PWs.4 to 6 are all Christians and the defacto complainant is also a Christian and on the basis of same religion, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that PWs.4 to 6 have been utilised only for the purpose of implicating the appellant/accused in the present case. Further the specific evidence given by PW6 is that after hearing noise from the house of the defacto complainant, she slammed the door and the accused has opened the same and asked him as to why such noise has become emerged and he replied to the effect that nothing has happened. Further the specific evidence given by PW6 is that after hearing noise from the house of the defacto complainant, she slammed the door and the accused has opened the same and asked him as to why such noise has become emerged and he replied to the effect that nothing has happened. Therefore, even assuming without conceding that Ex.P12 cannot be a basis for coming to a conclusion that the appellant/accused has not committed the crime, since the entire occurrence has taken place inside the house, where both the accused and deceased have resided together on the basis of evidence given by PWs.4 to 6 and by invoking provision of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Court can unflinchingly come to a conclusion that the appellant/accused has murdered the deceased and except the accused, nobody has had connection with the crime. 25. As marshalled earlier, the first and foremost contention raised on the side of the appellant/accused is that on the date of occurrence, the appellant/accused has not been in the house, where the occurrence is said to have taken place. 26. It has already been discussed in detail with the assistance of evidence given by PWs.4 to 6 that at the time of occurrence, the accused has been in the house, where occurrence has taken place. Therefore, the first and foremost contention put forth on the side of the appellant/accused cannot be accepted. 27. The second contention put forth on the side of the appellant/accused has already been dealt with. 28. The third contention put forth on the side of the appellant/accused is that in Ex.P2, altered section of law has been mentioned and therefore, Ex.P2 is nothing but a false document. Ex.P2 is nothing but a recovery Athatchi relating to the vehicle alleged to have been used by the accused. After extra judicial confession, section of law has been altered into section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. But originally, Crime No.507/2011 has been registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 23.11.2011. Under the said circumstances, in Ex.P2, it is written as 23.11.2011. Simply because in Ex.P2 altered section of law has been quoted, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that Ex.P2 is a false document. 29. But originally, Crime No.507/2011 has been registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 23.11.2011. Under the said circumstances, in Ex.P2, it is written as 23.11.2011. Simply because in Ex.P2 altered section of law has been quoted, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that Ex.P2 is a false document. 29. The fourth contention put forth on the side of the appellant/accused is that the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer has mentioned in Ex.P3 that the death has occurred at about 01.00 am. 30. It is an admitted fact that Ex.P3 is nothing but a requisition for conducting necropsy on the body of the deceased, wherein it is simply observed that the death has occurred at about 01.00 am. Since the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer has had no connection whatsoever with the time of death of the deceased, the time mentioned in Ex.P3 would not militate the case of the prosecution. 31. The fifth contention put forth on the side of the appellant/accused is that the statement recorded by Revenue Divisional Officer from PWs.1 and 9 and inquest report have not been placed before the Court. It is nothing but a flimsy mistake on the side of the prosecution and on that basis, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that the entire case of the prosecution is false. 32. The sixth contention put forth on the side of the appellant/accused is that DW1 has given clear evidence to the effect that he has not seen any record for the purpose of showing that the dead body has been initially taken to Government hospital, Tiruchendur. 33. It is seen from the records that initially the dead body has been taken to Government hospital, Tiruchendur where the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer has conducted inquest and for the purpose of conducting post-mortem by a group of doctors, subsequently dead body has been brought to Government hospital, Tuticorin. Therefore, the sixth contention put forth on the side of the appellant/accused is sans merit. 34. The seventh contention put forth on the side of the appellant/accused has already been dealt with and further it is a settled principle of law that mere delay in sending vital documents to Court would not affect the case of the prosecution. 35. Therefore, the sixth contention put forth on the side of the appellant/accused is sans merit. 34. The seventh contention put forth on the side of the appellant/accused has already been dealt with and further it is a settled principle of law that mere delay in sending vital documents to Court would not affect the case of the prosecution. 35. Apart from the evidence narrated supra, the Court has to look into Ex.P11, report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, wherein it has been clearly stated that at the time of enquiry, the accused has absconded. Under the said circumstances, he has not been examined. If really the accused has had no connection whatsoever with the crime, definitely he would have appeared for enquiry before the Revenue Divisional Officer. Since the accused has absconded after knowing the fact that the police have investigated the matter, the Court can very well presume that the accused has murdered the deceased for the reasons mentioned in the charge. 36. The trial Court after considering the over all evidence available on record has rightly found the appellant/accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the foregoing enunciation of both the factual and legal aspects, this Court has not found any illegality nor infirmity in the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and therefore, the present Criminal Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 37. In fine, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No.181 of 2012 by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Tuticorin are confirmed. Connected MP (MD) No.4 of 2015 is closed.