JUDGMENT : A. Hariprasad, J. 1. Heard Smt. Vijayakumari. R., the learned counsel appointed as State Brief in this case and Sri. Alex M. Thombra, the learned senior public prosecutor. 2. This appeal against conviction and sentence is preferred by the accused in Sessions Case No. 576/2013 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Muvattupuzha from jail and it relates to to an allegation of patricide. 3. Prosecution case in short is that deceased Abraham @ Avarachan, who is the father of the appellant, used to demand share of income which the accused enjoyed from family property. There were disputes between the father and son on this score. On 22.4.2013 at about 11.45 am, the appellant stabbed the deceased on the neck with MO6 knife from inside the western bedroom of the dwelling house of the appellant which resulted in the death of Abraham @ Avarachan. 4. To substantiate the prosecution case 14 witnesses were examined and Exts. P1 to P16 were marked. Material objects are MO1 to MO7. There is no defence evidence in this case. On finding that the case is exclusively triable by a court of Session, the learned magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court, Ernakulam and it was made over to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Muvattupuzha for trial and disposal. The court framed the following charge: "That you with the intention and knowledge that your act will cause death of Sri. Abraham, your father at about 11.45 am on 22.4.2013 your stabbed over either shoulder and other parts of body of Abraham with a knife inside the western bedroom of Thazhathottathil house bearing No. XI/22 of Ramamangalam panchayat situated at Chevvattuthazom, Kizhumuri kara in Ramamangalam village. Sri. Abraham succumbed to the injuries on the way to JMP hospital, Piravom at about 12.45 pm on 22.4.2013. The offence committed by you is punishable under Section 302 IPC and within my cognizance." 5. To substantiate the charge, the aforementioned witnesses were examined. Ext. P1 is the FIS lodged by PW1 immediately after the incident at 2.30 pm. In Ext. P1, PW1 mentioned that the appellant was staying in the family house alone and he was a bachelor. On account of the quarrel between the father and son, the deceased, who is the grandfather of PW1, shifted his residence to PW1's house. It is mentioned in Ext. In Ext. P1, PW1 mentioned that the appellant was staying in the family house alone and he was a bachelor. On account of the quarrel between the father and son, the deceased, who is the grandfather of PW1, shifted his residence to PW1's house. It is mentioned in Ext. P1 that deceased occasionally visited the family house for reading newspaper. PW1 admittedly was not an eye witness to the incident. He had gone to fetch his motorbike given for repair. But he could not get it at the expected time. When he was returning from the workshop, he received a call from his wife which he did not answer as he was about to reach his house. On reaching home he found his wife running in a state of panic saying that the deceased was found lying on the courtyard with a bleeding injury on neck. Immediately PW1 and 4 along with others took the deceased in a car to a nearby private hospital where he was declared dead. The averments in Ext. P1 are amply proved by PW1. We find no dent or discredit made in the testimony of PW1 regarding the information of incident which led to the registration of Ext. P1 (a) FIR. 6. PW2 is the wife of PW1. She deposed that on 22.4.2013 at about 11.30 am while she was ironing clothes, she found her grandfather (deceased) going to the family house. After some time, she heard a cry from the house. When she peeped through the window, she found the appellant pushing the deceased to the courtyard. Immediately she informed the matter to PW3, who is her mother-in-law and the mother of PW1. The deceased fell on the courtyard supine and he was profusely bleeding from neck. At that time, the appellant was sitting in the dining hall in the house. Immediately PW2 and 3 rushed to the place and on seeing PW4, PW2 asked him to find her husband. After some time, PW1 and 4 came and the inured was removed to a nearby hospital. This version of PW2 renders ample support to the deposition of PW3. PW2 also remained credible despite cross-examination. 7. PW3 is the mother of PW1. She also deposed in tune with the deposition of PW2. As informed by PW2, PW3 went to the nearby family house and found the deceased lying in the courtyard with a bleeding injury. This version of PW2 renders ample support to the deposition of PW3. PW2 also remained credible despite cross-examination. 7. PW3 is the mother of PW1. She also deposed in tune with the deposition of PW2. As informed by PW2, PW3 went to the nearby family house and found the deceased lying in the courtyard with a bleeding injury. She sat on the ground, raised the head of the deceased by keeping it on her lap. Immediately PW1 and 4 came and took the injured to the hospital from where he was pronounced dead. It has come out in evidence of PW2 and 3 that the appellant was not tolerant to the demands by his father for share of income which the appellant enjoyed in respect of a land owned by the deceased's brother, who is a priest. Testimony of PW3 also lends support to the other witnesses. 8. PW4 is the person who brought PW1 to the house on knowing the incident. He also supports the prosecution case. PW5 is a witness to Ext. P2 inquest report and he is a neighbour to the witnesses. PW6 is a witness to Ext. P3 mahazar whereby the articles belonging to the accused were seized from his house. Besides he also witnessed the accused taking out MO6 knife from beneath the earthen pot. It was a foldable knife and he signed Ext. P4 mahazar, which revealed the recovery of MO6 knife proved under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Testimony of PW6 is in harmony with the evidence tendered by PW14, the investigating officer. PW7 is a witness to Ext. P5 report whereby the Scientific Assistant collected samples from the scene of occurrence. 9. PW8 is a witness to Ext. P6 mahazar whereby the samples were entrusted to the investigating officer (PW14). PW9 is the Magistrate who recorded the statement of PW3 and 4 under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. Statements are marked as Ext. P7 series. Ext. P8 is the doctor who examined the deceased on 22.4.2013 at JMP hospital, Piravom and he declared him dead. 10. PW11 is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased. The ante mortem injures as per Ext. P8 are the following: 1. Incised wound 2x0.3x0.2 cm obliquely placed on top of head across midline, at a point 11 cm above root of nose. 10. PW11 is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased. The ante mortem injures as per Ext. P8 are the following: 1. Incised wound 2x0.3x0.2 cm obliquely placed on top of head across midline, at a point 11 cm above root of nose. Another incised wound 1.3x0.3x0.3 cm with a surrounding abraded contusion (1.5x0.6x0.3cm) on left side of forehead 7 cm above eye brow and 1 cm outer to the midline. 2. Abrasion 3x1.8 cm on left side of forehead, 3 cm outer to midline and just above eyebrow. 3. Incised penetrating wound 2.3x0.3x3 cm obliquely placed on right side of upper part of neck with its lower front end 2cm behind the angle of jaw (both ends were sharply ct). 4. Incised wound 1.3x0.3x03 cm obliquely placed on right side of front of neck 2.5 cm outer to midline and 7 cm above collar bone. 5. Incised penetrating wound 7x1.2 cm obliquely placed on right side of lower part of front of neck with uper front end 7 cm outer to midline and 7 cm below lower jaw margin. Both ends of the wound were seen sharply cut. The wound was seen entering into the neck along the back border of right sternomastoid muscle cutting through the soft tissues of neck and almost the entire lumen of the right internal jugular vein. The wound was terminating at the front aspect of right half of cervical vertebra (C5-6 level) after making a partial cut of the ligament in front of the inter vertebral disc. The carotid artery was intact. The total minimum depth of the wound was 8.5 cm. The wound was seen directed towards left side; almost horizontally. Heavy infiltration of blood was seen along the wound track. There was evidence of air embolism as a part of the injury. 6. Incised wound 3x0.3x0.5 cm almost vertical, on top of shoulder with its lower front end at the collar bone. 7. Incised penetrating wound 3.5x0.3x4.5 cm on top of left shoulder with its lower front end at the left collar bone and 2.5 cm outer to the front end of previous injury. (both ends of the would were sharply cut). 8. Incised wound 3x0.3x0.5 cm almost vertical, on top of shoulder with its lower front end at the collar bone. 7. Incised penetrating wound 3.5x0.3x4.5 cm on top of left shoulder with its lower front end at the left collar bone and 2.5 cm outer to the front end of previous injury. (both ends of the would were sharply cut). 8. Incised penetrating wound 2x0.3x4.5 cm obliquely placed on the upper part of the left side of back of trunk with its upper inner end 2 cm outer to the midline and 1 cm below root of neck (both ends were seen sharply cut). 9. Superficial incised wound 1.3x0.3 cm on front of right forearm, 3 cm below elbow. 10. Superficial incised wound 4x0.4 cm on back of right hand with its upper end 1 cm below wrist. 11. Contusion 1.5x1x0.3 cm on outer aspect of right wrist. 12. Contusion 2.3x1.8x0.4 com on front aspect of root of right thumb. 13. Contusion 2.3x1.3x0.3 cm on upper part of outer aspect of left arm, 8 cm below top of shoulder. 14. Old fracture of left arm bone, 11 cm below top of shoulder. (The fracture site showed evidence of former surgical repair like surgical screws. There was callus formation, abnormal mobility and smoothening of fractured ends-suggestive of old non-united fracture). 11. According to the doctor, the death was due to the incised penetrating wound sustained to the right side of the neck (injury No. 5). He also deposed that the incised wound mentioned in Ext. P8 postmortem certificate could be caused by using MO6 knife. The defence case that the deceased might have sustained injuries on a fall from a ladder is highly improbabilised by the nature of injuries noted in Ext. P8 postmortem certificate. 12. PW2 the Village officer prepared Ext. P10 cite plan. PW13 is the sub inspector of police who recorded Ext. P1 FIS given by PW1 and registered Ext. P1(a) FIR under Sec. 302 IPC. PW 14 is the investigating officer. He there worked as Circle Inspector of police, Puthencruze. He took over the investigation on 23.4.2013 at 9.15 am. He prepared Ext. P2 inquest report. He recovered the wearing apparels and bed sheet used on the dead body to stop bleeding. He prepared scene mahazar with the help of PW2 Reeja. He recovered material objects from the house of the appellant during the course of investigation. He took over the investigation on 23.4.2013 at 9.15 am. He prepared Ext. P2 inquest report. He recovered the wearing apparels and bed sheet used on the dead body to stop bleeding. He prepared scene mahazar with the help of PW2 Reeja. He recovered material objects from the house of the appellant during the course of investigation. With the help of the Scientific Assistant relevant evidence have been collected from the scene of occurrence. He questioned all the witnesses and arrested the appellant. When he questioned the appellant he made a confession as per Ext. P4(a) and based on that confession, MO6 knife was recovered from a place shown by the deceased. It has come out in evidence that MO6 was sent for analysis and tested positive for human blood though blood group could not be identified due to insufficiency of blood. After completing the investigation PW14 submitted a final report. We find that the investigation was properly done and the investigating officer has collected all the material evidence available in respect of this case. 13. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant this case solely rests on the circumstantial evidence. It is true that PW2 and 3 rushed to the place of occurrence immediately after the incident. They deposed that shortly after the incident, they found the appellant present in his house and this aspect has not been challenged at all. The appellant has not offered any explanation for the deceased suffering a lot of incised injuries out of which injury No. 5 proved to be fatal. Improbability in the defence case that the deceased must have sustained injuries on a fall from a ladder is also an aspect against the defence version. 14. After considering the entire evidence on record, we find that all the circumstances alleged by the prosecution to show that the appellant was responsible for the murder of his father is established. The circumstances proved form a complete chain leading only to the theory that the appellant is the person responsible for committing the murder and his innocence is absolutely improbable. Therefore we find that the conviction of the appellant by the trial court is proper and legal. No interference is legally warranted. 15. In the result, appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence.