JUDGMENT : S. Nagamuthu, J. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No. 137 of 2011 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Poonamallee, Tiruvallur District. He stood charged for offence under Section 302 of IPC. By judgment dated 29.11.2012, the trial convicted the appellant/accused under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to under go imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the sole accused is now before this court with this criminal appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- The appellant/accused is the husband of the deceased Mrs. Baby Shalini. The marriage between them was celebrated around ten years before the occurrence. They have three children. The deceased was working in a private concern. The accused was not doing any job. The accused had developed suspicion over the fidelity of the deceased. On account of the same, he used to beat the deceased. Four or Five months prior to the occurrence, unable to bear the torture meted out to her at the hands of the accused, she returned to her parental home at Ambattur. The deceased told her brother [P.W.1] that she could not bear with the torture and to live with the accused. For about one month, the deceased stayed with P.W.1 at Ambattur. Then, the accused came, talked to P.W.1 and assured that he would not thereafter suspect the fidelity of the deceased and he would keep her peacefully. He also suggested that P.W.1 could arrange for a rented house at Ambattur itself where he and the deceased along with children could live together. In terms of the said compromise talk, a rental house was fixed at Ambattur itself which is nearer to the house of P.W.1. In that rented house, the deceased and the accused lived together along with their children. For about one month, there was no further problem between the accused and the deceased. Thereafter, again, the accused started suspecting the fidelity of the deceased and continued to torture her. 3. On 26.02.2011 at about 07.00 p.m. the deceased came to the house of P.W.1 at Ambattur and informed him about the above torture. P.W.1 persuaded her and sent her back to the house of the accused. 4. Thereafter, again, the accused started suspecting the fidelity of the deceased and continued to torture her. 3. On 26.02.2011 at about 07.00 p.m. the deceased came to the house of P.W.1 at Ambattur and informed him about the above torture. P.W.1 persuaded her and sent her back to the house of the accused. 4. It is alleged that on the night intervening 26.02.2011 and 27.02.2011, the accused, on account of the above suspicion over the fidelity of the deceased, cut the deceased with knife on her head and face and caused her death. This was witnessed by their son Mr. Udhayaram [P.W.5]. The other children were also in the house. After killing the deceased, the accused took his children out of the house, locked it from out side, threw the key into the room through the window, went to the house of his parents at Virudhunagar where he informed about the occurrence and leaving his children in the custody of his mother and sister, he left their house informing them that he was going to surrender before the police. 5. The mother and the sister of the accused informed P.W.1 that the accused had told them that he had killed his wife. They immediately contacted P.W.1 over phone and wanted him to go and verify the same as to whether the information passed on by the accused was true. P.W.1, thereafter, went to the house of the deceased at around 08.00 a.m. He found the house locked form out side. He informed the landlord [P.W.3] about the telephonic call received from the mother of the accused. P.W.1, however, with the help of the landlord, managed to open the doors of the house. When he entered into the house, he found the deceased lying with injuries on her head, face and all other parts of the body. She was lying dead in the kitchen. 6. P.W.1, immediately, rushed to Ambattur police station and made a complaint under Ex.P.1. P.W.17, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of the said complaint, registered a case in crime No.153 of 2011 under Section 302 of IPC. Ex.P.16 is the FIR. He forwarded the complaint-Ex.P1 and the FIR-Ex.P.16 to the court which were received by the learned Judicial Magistrate at 05.00 p.m. on 28.02.2011. Then, P.W.17, handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. 7. Ex.P.16 is the FIR. He forwarded the complaint-Ex.P1 and the FIR-Ex.P.16 to the court which were received by the learned Judicial Magistrate at 05.00 p.m. on 28.02.2011. Then, P.W.17, handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. 7. P.W.18, the Inspector of Police, took up the case for investigation. He visited the place of occurrence at 10.30 a.m. on 28.02.2011 and prepared an observation mahazar [Ex.P.2] and a rough sketch [Ex.P.17] in the presence of P.Ws.8 and 9. Then, he recovered the blood stained cement plaster [M.O.1] and sample cement plaster [M.O.2] from the place of occurrence in the presence of the same witnesses under a mahazar [Ex.P.3]. Thereafter, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of the panchayatars and prepared an inquest report [Ex.P.18] and forwarded the body to Kilpauk Medical College Hospital at Chennai for postmortem. 8. P.W.15 Dr. Harry Santhaseelan, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 03.03.2011 at 11.00 a.m. He found the following on the body of the deceased:- "Moderately nourished female body. Body is bloated. Eyelid swollen. Peeling of skin and greenish mottling all over the body. Injuries: (1) Lacerated injury right over right fore head 5 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep. (2) Lacerated injury over right fore head 1/2 cm below injury No.1 with dimension of 4.5 cm x ½cm x bone deep. (3) Lacerated injury over right parietal area 4 cm x 1/2 cm x bone deep. (4) Lacerated injury on right eye outer aspect 1 cm x 1/2 cm x muscle deep. (5) Contusion of right cheek measuring 5 cm x 3 cm. (6) Contusion right mandible 8 cm x 2 cm. (7) Lacerated injury upper 1/3rd of side of neck 2 cm x 1/2 cm x muscle deep. On dissection extensive sub scalp hemorrhage over the entire scalp. The centre lying rt parietal bone has comminuted fracture with torn underlying membrane. The right cerebral hemisphere is diffusely contused. Base of the skull is intact. Hyoid bone is intact. Larynx and trachea C/S pale. Heart -Normal in size flabby. C/S chambers contain fluid blood. Lungs normal in size. Early decomposition changes present. Stomach is empty. Liver, Spleen and both kidneys normal in size. C/S pale. Early decomposition changes present. Intestines contain brownish chyme. Bladder is empty. Uterus is normal in size C/S empty. Hyoid bone is intact. Larynx and trachea C/S pale. Heart -Normal in size flabby. C/S chambers contain fluid blood. Lungs normal in size. Early decomposition changes present. Stomach is empty. Liver, Spleen and both kidneys normal in size. C/S pale. Early decomposition changes present. Intestines contain brownish chyme. Bladder is empty. Uterus is normal in size C/S empty. Spine and Pelvis intact and normal." Ex.P.14 is the postmortem certificate. She opined that the deceased would appear to have died of head injury. According to her, the injuries found on the body of the deceased could have been caused by a weapon, like sickle [vettukathi-M.O.3] and the death would have occurred 36 to 48 hours prior to autopsy. After the postmortem was over, P.W.18 recovered the blood stained clothes from the body of the deceased. 9. In the mean while, the accused, on his own, went to the Office of P.W.10, the then Village Administrative Officer at Kilkondaiyar Village and wanted to surrender to the police. P.W.10, the Village Assistant was also then present. Both of them took the accused to Ambattur Police Station and produced him before P.W.18 at 10.00 a.m. On such production, P.W.18 arrested the accused in the presence of P.W.10 and P.W.11. In the presence of the witnesses, the accused gave a voluntary confession in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden the sickle. In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, he took P.W.18 and the witnesses to Ambattur Railway Line and from a bush, he produced sickle (M.O.3). Then, he took the police and the witnesses to his house and produced the lungi (M.O.4) and T-shirt (M.O.5). P.W.18 recovered M.O.3 under a mahazar (Ex.P.5) and M.O.4 and M.O.5 under a mahazar (Ex.P.6) in the presence of the same witnesses. On returning to the police station, P.W.18 forwarded the accused to the court for judicial remand. He also forwarded the material objects to the court with a request to send the same for chemical examination. On the orders of the learned Magistrate, the material objects were sent for chemical analysis. The chemical analysis report revealed that there were human blood stains on all the material objects including sickle. On completing the investigation, P.W.18 laid the charge sheet against the accused. 10. Based on the above materials, the trial court framed a lone charge under Section 302 of IPC. The accused denied the same. The chemical analysis report revealed that there were human blood stains on all the material objects including sickle. On completing the investigation, P.W.18 laid the charge sheet against the accused. 10. Based on the above materials, the trial court framed a lone charge under Section 302 of IPC. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the same, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 18 witnesses were examined, 18 documents and 5 materials objects were marked. 11. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.5, the son of the deceased is an eye witness to the occurrence. P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the brother and sister-in-law respectively of the deceased, have stated about the motive. They have also stated that they received a phone call on 28.02.2011 at 07.45 a.m. from the mother and the sister of the accused regarding the occurrence and when they went to the house of the accused it was found locked from outside. The accused was not available. When, they managed to open the doors with the help of P.W.3 they found the dead body of the deceased lying in the kitchen with injuries. P.W.1 has further spoken about the complaint made by him. P.W.3, the landlord of the accused has stated that on 26.02.2011, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased. He intervened and told them to vacate the house if they could not stop the quarrel. He has further stated that on 27.02.2011, the doors of the house were found locked. He has stated that he believed that the deceased would have gone out for some other purpose. It is his further evidence that on 28.02.2011, P.W.1 came and informed him about the phone call received from the mother of the accused and then, they opened the house. He has further stated that the deceased was found lying dead. P.W.4, a neighbour has also stated about the frequent quarrel between the accused and the deceased. 12. P.W.6 has stated that on 26.02.2011, he came to he house of P.W.4 and at that time, he found the accused and the deceased quarreling. When he intervened in an attempt to persuade the accused, he asked him had he any illicit relationship with the deceased. Therefore, he retreated. P.W.7 is the uncle of the deceased. He has also stated about the motive. When he intervened in an attempt to persuade the accused, he asked him had he any illicit relationship with the deceased. Therefore, he retreated. P.W.7 is the uncle of the deceased. He has also stated about the motive. P.Ws.8 and 9 have spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar, rough sketch at the place of occurrence and the recovery of blood stains and ordinary cement plasters from the place of occurrence. 13. P.W.10 has also spoken only about the motive. P.Ws.11 and 12 have stated that the accused came to their office on 02.03.2011 and wanted to surrender to the police. They have further stated that they took the accused to the police and produced him before P.W.18, the Inspector of Police, who, in turn, at 10.00 a.m. arrested the accused. They have also spoken about the confession and the consequential recovery of M.Os.3, 4 and 5 on the disclosure statement of the accused. P.W.13, the Scientific Officer, who examined the visceral organs of the deceased, has stated that no poison was detected in any of the visceral organs of the deceased. P.W.14, the Assistant Director, has spoken about the chemical analysis conducted on the material objects. She has stated that there were human blood stains on all the material objects including the sickle. P.W.15 the Doctor, has spoken about the autopsy conducted on the body of the deceased and her final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.16, the learned Magistrate has spoken about the statement recorded by her from the witness under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. P.W.17 has spoken about the registration of the case and handing over the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. P.W.18 has spoken about the entire investigation done by him and the filling of final report against the accused. 14. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he denied the same. On his side, he has examined his mother as D.W.1. She has stated that on 27.02.2011, the accused came to her house at Virudhunagar and informed that the deceased had refused to live with him as she had developed illicit intimacy with the owner of the firm where she was working. According to D.W.1, she filed a writ petition in HCP No. 440 of 2011 before this Court seeking custody of the children. According to D.W.1, she filed a writ petition in HCP No. 440 of 2011 before this Court seeking custody of the children. Ex.D1 is the xerox copy of the affidavit and petition in HCP No. 440 of 2011. Ex.D.2 is the typed set of papers filed along with the said Habeas Corpus Petition under Ex.D.1. Ex.D3 is the xerox copy of order dated 11.04.2011 passed by this court dismissing the writ petition in HCP No. 440 of 2011 as not pressed. His defence was a total denial. 15. Having considered all the above, the trial court convicted the accused under section 302 of IPC and accordingly punished him as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment. That is how, the accused is now before this court with this criminal appeal. 16. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State and also perused the records carefully. 17. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit though it is alleged that the case was registered at 09.00 a.m. on 28.02.2011, the FIR had reached the hands of the learned Magistrate only at 05.00 p.m. on 28.02.2011. He would further submit that there is absolutely no explanation for the said delay and on account of the said delay, the entire case of the prosecution should be doubted and rejected. 18. But, we are not persuaded by the said argument. Of course, the delay should have been avoided by the police and the reasons for the delay should have been stated. Unfortunately, there has been no explanation offered by the prosecution for the said delay. But, on that score alone, the entire case of the prosecution cannot be rejected, if the court finds that there are other evidences which would convincingly go to prove the quilt of the accused. 19. Here in the instant case, there is no controversy over the fact that after the marriage, the deceased and the accused along with their children were residing in Virudhunagar. It is also in evidence that few months prior to the occurrence, the deceased, unable to bear the torture at the hands of the accused suspecting her fidelity, had returned to her parental home at Ambattur in Chennai. The accused came down to Ambattur, persuaded P.W.1 and the deceased and assured that he would keep the deceased in peace. It is also in evidence that few months prior to the occurrence, the deceased, unable to bear the torture at the hands of the accused suspecting her fidelity, had returned to her parental home at Ambattur in Chennai. The accused came down to Ambattur, persuaded P.W.1 and the deceased and assured that he would keep the deceased in peace. It was only thereafter as per the understanding, the house of P.W.3 was arranged for rent where the deceased and the accused started living with their children. These facts have been spoken by P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 7. Thus, the fact that the accused had suspicion over the fidelity of the deceased has been clearly established. 20. On 26.02.2011, according to P.Ws.1 and 2, the deceased came to their house and informed that the accused again started torturing her suspecting her fidelity. This has been spoken by P.W.7, the uncle of the deceased also. P.W.3, the landlord has also stated that on 26.02.2011. He found the accused quarreling with the deceased suspecting her fidelity. He has stated that he intervened and informed them either to stop quarreling or else vacate the house so that others could live peacefully. P.W.4, the neighbour as well as P.W.6, the friend of P.W.4, have spoken about the quarrel that took place on 26.02.2011. Thus, lastly on 26.02.2011, the accused was found quarreling with the deceased in the evening. 21. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was killed by the accused at the night intervening 26.02.2011 and 27.02.2011. This fact has been spoken by the child witness namely, P.W.5, the son of the deceased. He has categorically stated that the accused cut the deceased repeatedly and after she died and fell down, he took himself and his two brothers out of the house, locked the house from outside and threw the key into the house through window and took them to Virudhunagar. 22. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that P.W.5 is the child witness and due to tutoring he has stated so against the accused and therefore, his evidence should be rejected. We are not persuaded by the said argument. It is true that a child is prone to tutoring. 22. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that P.W.5 is the child witness and due to tutoring he has stated so against the accused and therefore, his evidence should be rejected. We are not persuaded by the said argument. It is true that a child is prone to tutoring. But, at the same time, it is not the law that the evidence of the child should be rejected on the mere suspicion that the child could have been tutored. Here, in the instant case, the child has stated about the entire occurrence, when he was examined under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by P.W.16, the learned Magistrate as well as before the Court during examination also. His statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. duly corroborates the present version in court by way of evidence. Though this witness has been cross examined at length, even suggesting to him that he was tutored by somebody he withstood his cross examination and he has stated that he was not tutored. Having regard to the entire cross examination and the answers given by the witness, we are of the view that absolutely there is no indication that P.W.5 could have been tutored. We hold that P.W.5 is reliable and this court can act upon the evidence of P.W.5. 23. Then comes the conduct of the accused, which is one of the very important circumstances. According to the case of the prosecution, the accused took all the three children to Virudhunagar on 27.02.2011 and informed his mother about the occurrence. His mother examined herself as D.W.1 and she denied the same. But, P.W.1 has stated that only after the telephonic conversation which D.W.1 had with him, P.W.1 D.W.1, he went to the house of the deceased on 28.02.2011 by 08.00 p.m. But for the said telephonic call P.W.1 would not have gone to the house of the deceased at all. Thus, though D.W.1 has stated that she did not give any such intimation to P.W.1, we find that P.W.1 could be believed and his version that he went to the house of the accused at Ambattur only on the telephonic call by D.W.1. Now, it is quite natural for D.W.1 that with a view to safeguard her son namely, the accused, she would have changed her version. The accused, thereafter, had gone to the Village Administrative Officer and wanted to surrender before the police. Now, it is quite natural for D.W.1 that with a view to safeguard her son namely, the accused, she would have changed her version. The accused, thereafter, had gone to the Village Administrative Officer and wanted to surrender before the police. P.W.11 and P.W.12 have taken him to P.W.18 and on arrest by P.W.18, the accused had given the voluntary confession and on such disclosure statement, M.Os.3-Knife, M.O.4-Lungi, and M.O.5-T-shirt have been recovered. The chemical analysis report would show that M.Os.3 to 5 contain human blood stains. Thus, the conduct of the accused in absconding from his house at Ambattur by locking the house from out side and his disclosure statement leading to recovery of M.Os.3 to 5 would also further point to the guilt of the accused. 24. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that D.W.1 has stated that the accused was residing only in Virudhunagar. He came to Chennai only with a view to persuade his wife, the deceased, to live with him, but she refused to live with him as she was interested in living with the owner of the firm where she was working. We find it difficult to believe the above version of D.W.1 we are of the considered view that D.W.1 has deposed so, only with a view to escape her son from the clutches of law. 25. The medical evidence also duly corroborates the eye witness account in respect of the time of death, the nature of the injuries found on the body of the deceased and the cause of death. Absolutely, there is nothing on record to suggest that the medical evidence is contrary to the evidence to the eye witness account. 26. The learned counsel further submit that the mobile phone call details between D.W.1 and P.W.1 has not been collected in the case which would create a doubt in the case of the prosecution. Of course, it is true, that in order to establish the telephonic conversation between D.W.1 and P.W.1, the investigating officer could have collected the mobile phone incoming and outgoing call details from the service providers. Such call details could have further helped the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused. But, the failure on the part of the investigating officer to collect these call details, in our considered view, would not in any manner cause any dent in the case of the prosecution. Such call details could have further helped the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused. But, the failure on the part of the investigating officer to collect these call details, in our considered view, would not in any manner cause any dent in the case of the prosecution. In our considered view, the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts by means of clinching evidences. Thus, we hold that it was this accused who committed the murder of the deceased and therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on him by the trial court are liable to be confirmed. 27. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed, the conviction and the sentence imposed on him by the trial court are confirmed. It is reported that the appellant/accused is on bail and, therefore, the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Poonamallee, Tiruvallur District, is directed to take necessary steps to secure the presence of the appellant/accused and to commit him to prison so as to under go sentence imposed on him by the trial court and as confirmed by this court.