JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the judgment and order, dated 20.08.2019 in S.C.No.789 of 2017 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.) R. Hemalatha, J. 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.08.2019 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge Tirunelveli, in S.C.No.789 of 2017, wherein the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 506(ii) IPC, and sentenced as under: Section of Law Sentence of imprisonment Fine amount 302 IPC Life imprisonment. Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 506(ii) IPC Rigorous imprisonment for three years. Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The trial court further directed that the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution theory runs as follows: i. The appellant, Marimuthu was already married to one Saratha Rani and has two children through her. He was residing with his family at Pazhayapettai, Sartharpuram, East Street, Tirunelveli. During the period when he was employed in Tiruppur, he met the victim (the deceased) Kavitha and was living with her. The appellant has a child by name, Subash Gopi, aged about 4 years through the said Kavitha (deceased). It is also contended that the appellant was employed abroad for a brief period and at that time, Kavitha and her son Subash Gopi were residing with the parents of Kavitha, Veeraammal [P.W-10] and Chellamuthu [P.W-23] at Rajavaramputhur, Kanakkampatti, Palani, Dindigul District. When the appellant returned to India, he chose to live with his wife Saratha Rani at Tirunelveli. The victim was agitated due to this decision of the appellant and went to his house on 12.10.2016 insisting that the appellant should take care of her and not be deserted. The appellant reportedly promised to take Kavitha to his mother's house in the same town. When both of them started walking towards his mother's house, an altercation erupted between the two and infuriated over the same, the appellant attacked the victim in front of Poomani teacher's house at about 1.00 a.m., with a bill hook [M.O-1] which he had hidden on his back (inside his T-shirt). The attack was so intense causing multiple cut injuries on both sides of her neck and shoulders that caused her instantaneous death. He then fled the scene of crime immediately. The attack was so intense causing multiple cut injuries on both sides of her neck and shoulders that caused her instantaneous death. He then fled the scene of crime immediately. However, the incident was witnessed by some labourers, viz., Krishnakumar [P.W-15], Mariappan [P.W-16] and Rajkumar [P.W-21], working in Poomani teacher's house. Murugan [P.W-2], another witness was bringing the building materials to the house of Poomani teacher at that time. The occurrence was also witnessed by one of the neighbours of Poomani teacher, Gurusamy [P.W-3]. Infact, after hearing the loud arguments between the appellant and his paramour Kavitha, the eyewitnesses thought it to be a family dispute and did not want to intervene, but suddenly, it turned out to be a fatal attack by the appellant on his paramour Kavitha. According to the prosecution, Murugan [P.W-2] had called Thiru.Sivasubramanian [P.W-1], Village Assistant and informed him about the incident and based on his telephonic message, PW-1 lodged a complaint Ex.P-1 to the police on the same day at about 2.30 a.m. ii. Thiru.Murugaiah [P.W-22], the Sub Inspector of Police, Tirunelvei Pettai Police Station received Ex.P-1 from P.W-1 and registered an FIR [Ex.P-13] in Crime No.626 of 2016 against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 302 and 506(ii) IPC. He sent the Express FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate through Brammanayagam [P.W-18], Head Constable of Police attached to Tirunelveli Pettai Police Station. The Magistrate received the FIR at 6.00 a.m., on 12.10.2016. iii. Thiru.Murugaiah [P.W-22], thereafter placed the entire records before Thiru.Subashkumar [P.W-24], Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli Pettai Police Station for further investigation. P.W-24 took up investigation in Crime No.626 of 2016, went to the scene of crime and prepared an Observation Mahazar [Ex.P-6] in the presence of the witnesses Michael [not examined] and Arumugam [P.W.12]. He also prepared a Rough Sketch[Ex.P-14]. He collected samples of bloodstained pieces [M.O-7] and ordinary pieces [M.O-8] of cement from the road under the cover of a mahazar [Ex.P7 and Ex.P-8] in the presence of the same witnesses. He also conducted inquest on the body of the deceased at the scene of occurrence between 5.15 a.m. and 6.45 a.m. in the presence of Panchayatdhars. Inquest report was marked as Ex.P-15. Thereafter, the body of the deceased was sent to the Government Hospital for autopsy through Thiru.Mohammed Ali[P.W-17], Head Constable of Police attached to Tirnelveli Pettai Police Station along with a requisition letter [Ex.P-11]. iv. Inquest report was marked as Ex.P-15. Thereafter, the body of the deceased was sent to the Government Hospital for autopsy through Thiru.Mohammed Ali[P.W-17], Head Constable of Police attached to Tirnelveli Pettai Police Station along with a requisition letter [Ex.P-11]. iv. Dr.Seethalakshmi [P.W-20] conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and found the following injuries: "(i)Oblique gapping heavy cut injury of size 8x1 cm x cervical bone deep over left side of neck, extending from 4 cm above supra sternal notch to 3 cm below left ear. It cuts underlying muscles, vessels, trachea, cervical vertebra 4 and spinal cord found cut at site. (ii) Oblique gapping heavy cut injury of size 8 x 2 cm x cervical bone deep over left side of neck, 0.5cm below injury No.1. It lies 3.5 cm below left ear, ending into back of neck on the midline. It cuts underlying muscles, vessels, cervical bone 4 and spinal cord found cut at site. (iii) Oblique gapping heavy cut injury of size 3 x 1 cm over left side of neck. It lies 3 cm below injury No.2. It cuts underlying muscles, vessels. (iv) Oblique gapping heavy cut injury of size 5 x 2 x 0.5 cm over left side of neck. It lies 2 cm above injury No.1, 1cm below left ear. It cuts underlying muscles, vessels. (v) Oblique gapping heavy cut injury of size 4 x 1 x 0.5 cm over left side of upper part neck. 0.5 cm above injury No.4, 0.5cm below left ear. It cuts muscles, vessels. (vi) Oblique gapping heavy cut injury of size 8x 2 x 0.5 cm over right side of front of neck. It lies 5cm below chin, 5 cm above supra sternal notch extending upto 3 cm below right ear. It cuts muscles, vessels. (vii) Oblique gapping heavy cut injury of size 4 x 2 x 0.5 cm over right side of neck. It lies 2cm away from injury No.6, 3 cm behind right ear. It cuts muscles, vessels. (viii) Oblique gapping heavy cut injury of size 4 x 2 x 0.5 cm over right side of neck. It lies 2cm below injury No.7. It cuts muscles, vessels. (ix)Oblique gapping heavy cut injury of size 3 x 2 x 0.5 cm over left side of upper chest. It cuts underlying muscles, vessels. It cuts muscles, vessels. (viii) Oblique gapping heavy cut injury of size 4 x 2 x 0.5 cm over right side of neck. It lies 2cm below injury No.7. It cuts muscles, vessels. (ix)Oblique gapping heavy cut injury of size 3 x 2 x 0.5 cm over left side of upper chest. It cuts underlying muscles, vessels. (x) Oblique gapping heavy cut injury of size 6 x 3cm x Bone deep over left shoulder. It cuts underlying muscles, vessels.” Dr.Seethalakshmi [P.W-20] opined that “the deceased appeared to have died of multiple heavy cut injuries to the region of neck, injuries No.1 and 2 are fatal in nature.” Postmortem certificate was marked as Ex.P-12. v. Thereafter, Mohammed Ali [P.W-17] handed over the bloodstained dresses of the deceased, viz., bloodstained Saree [M.O-2], bloodstained Blouse [M.O-3] and bloodstained in-skirt [M.O-4], to Thiru.Subashkumar [P.W-24], the Investigation Officer under a passport [Ex.P-8], who in turn, sent the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Chennai, for analysis, through Court under Form-95 [Ex.P-17 Series]. The jewels namely, gold earrings [M.O-9], gold nose stud [M.O-10], silver anklet [M.O-11] and a ring [M.O-12] were handed over to the father of the deceased, Thiru.Chellamuthu [P.W-23] by the Investigation Officer. vi. In the meanwhile the appellant appeared before Thiru. Srinivasan [P.W-11], Village Administrative Officer of Kandiyaperi Part-I Village at about 2.00 p.m. and gave an extra-judicial confession [Ex.P-2] to him which was reduced into writing by P.W-11, the Village Administrative Officer. In the extra-judicial confession, the appellant had confessed that the deceased and her son came over to his house and questioned his intentions as he had left her high and dry. There was an altercation between the two, as a result of which, the appellant attacked her in front of Poomani teacher's house with an Aruval and was hiding in the Kandiaperi pond throughout the night. vii. P.W-11 prepared a Special Report [Ex.P-3] and produced the appellant before the Inspector of Police [P.W-24] and submitted Ex.P2 and Ex.P3. Thereafter P.W-24 recorded confessional statement of the appellant (the admissible portion which was marked as Ex.P-4), based on which, he recovered a bloodstained bill hook [M.O-1], bloodstained Lungi[M.O-5] and a bloodstained T-shirt[M.O-6], which were hidden by the appellant in a chicken cage, kept in the backside of his mother's house at Sartharpuram, under the cover of a mahazar [Ex.P-5]. viii. Thereafter P.W-24 recorded confessional statement of the appellant (the admissible portion which was marked as Ex.P-4), based on which, he recovered a bloodstained bill hook [M.O-1], bloodstained Lungi[M.O-5] and a bloodstained T-shirt[M.O-6], which were hidden by the appellant in a chicken cage, kept in the backside of his mother's house at Sartharpuram, under the cover of a mahazar [Ex.P-5]. viii. P.W-24 recorded the statements of all the witnesses including the electricity board official Thiru.Chinnasamy [P.W-19], who issued a certificate [Ex P-10] stating that there was uninterrupted power supply in Narayanaswamy Kovil North street on the date of occurrence. Murugan [P.W-2], who set the criminal law into motion by informing the incident to P.W-22, Sub Inspector of Police, turned hostile to the prosecution. Similarly, the eyewitnesses Thiru.Lakshmanan [P.W-13] and Thiru.Siva[P.W-14] also turned hostile to the prosecution. However, the other eyewitnesses to the occurrence, namely, Thiru.Krishnakumar [P.W-15], Mariappan [P.W-16] and Thiru.Rajkumar [P.W-21] had deposed that they were all employed by Thiru.Daniel [P.W-4], son of Poomani teacher, for laying tiles and on the date of occurrence, they fixed a tube light on the house terrace . It was also deposed by them that about 1.00 a.m. on 12-10-2016 they heard a loud voice. On looking outside, they saw the appellant arguing with his paramour and since they thought it to be a family dispute they did not interfere. However, the appellant all of a sudden took an Aruval hidden behind his Tshirt and attacked the victim brutally on her neck and shoulders due to which the victim died on the spot. They also saw the appellant flee from the scene of crime with the Aruval [M.O-1]. Daniel [P.W-4] has deposed that P.W-15, P.W-16 and P.W-21 were all masons employed by him and they were directed to finish the work in two days working day and night by staying in his house. He further deposed that on 12.10.2016, he had heard a loud scream outside the house and his mother Poomani teacher was sleeping. When he opened the window, he was informed by the labourers that the appellant attacked and killed the victim. ix. He further deposed that on 12.10.2016, he had heard a loud scream outside the house and his mother Poomani teacher was sleeping. When he opened the window, he was informed by the labourers that the appellant attacked and killed the victim. ix. After completing investigation, P.W-24 filed a final report against the appellant on 04.02.2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 302 and 506(ii) IPC, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No-V, Tirunelveli, in P.R.C.No.82 of 2017, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, after furnishing copies of records to the appellant under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, took up the case on file in S.C.No.789 of 2017 and framed charges under Sections 294(b), 302 and 506(ii) IPC, against the appellant. Since the appellant denied of having committed any offence, the case was posted for trial. x. In order to establish the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution examined twenty four witnesses, and marked nineteen documents and thirteen material objects. xi. When the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,with regard to the circumstances appearing in evidence against him he denied of having committed any offence. However, he filed a separate written submission wherein he has stated that on the date of occurrence Kavitha (the deceased) went to a public toilet during midnight and did not return home. When he went in search of her, he found her body lying in front of the house of Poomani teacher. According to him, she was killed by someone for her jewels and that it was a murder for gain. He also examined Senthil Kumar [D.W-1] Head Clerk, Principal Subordinate Court, who had deposed that P.W-15 and P.W-16 had already deposed in a Sessions case No.47/2018 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge(PSJ), Tirunelveli, as eyewitnesses. He also marked a copy of the final report filed in S.C.No.47/2018 as Ex.D1. xii. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, after analysing the oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides, held that the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubts, convicted and sentenced him as already stated . Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellant. 3. xii. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, after analysing the oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides, held that the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubts, convicted and sentenced him as already stated . Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellant. 3. This murder case rests on two pillars of evidence, one being the direct eyewitness accounts and the other the extra-judicial confession [Ex.P-2] made by the appellant to P.W-1. Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran, learned counsel for the appellant strongly argued that the veracity of extra-judicial confession is doubtful. His contention is that even as early as 3.00 a.m., that is, immediately after the registration of FIR at 2.30 a.m., the appellant was seen by P.W-1 in the police station. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant might have surrendered before the police station and in that case, could not have confessed to Thiru.Srinivasan [P.W-11], the Village Administrative Officer at 2.00 p.m., that is, about 11 hours after he was seen in the police station. Therefore, the question arises as to whether the appellant had surrendered in the police station or he was arrested at 4.00 p.m by the Investigation Officer after the alleged judicial confession statement was made. Therefore, the extra-judicial confession loses its evidentiary value due to this contradiction. There is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard. 4. However, there are other eyewitnesses to the occurrence. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the eyewitnesses cannot be believed in the instant case for the following reasons: i. P.W-2, who set the criminal law into motion by informing P.W-1 about the alleged commission of offence over phone turned hostile to the prosecution; ii. P.W-15 and P.W-16 had deposed as eyewitnesses in another case in S.C.No.47/2018 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli as is seen from the evidence of D.W-1, the Head Clerk of the said Court. In fact, in the final report Ex.D1, their names do find a place as eyewitness. Thus P.W-15 and P.W-16 are likely to be stock witnesses and their evidence cannot be relied upon; iii. The other two eyewitnesses, Thiru.Lakshmanan [P.W-13] and Thiru.Siva[P.W-14] also turned hostile to the prosecution; iv. Except the evidence of P.W-3 and P.W-21, there is no evidence on the side of the prosecution. Thus P.W-15 and P.W-16 are likely to be stock witnesses and their evidence cannot be relied upon; iii. The other two eyewitnesses, Thiru.Lakshmanan [P.W-13] and Thiru.Siva[P.W-14] also turned hostile to the prosecution; iv. Except the evidence of P.W-3 and P.W-21, there is no evidence on the side of the prosecution. It is also seen that P.W-21 actually reached the spot after the occurrence. v. When, according to the prosecution, there are eyewitnesses to the occurrence, it is not explained as to why they deployed the services of a sniffer dog, the learned counsel has questioned. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the entire case of the prosecution fell like a pack of cards. 5. In the instant case, it is seen from the evidence of Thiru.Daniel [P.W-4], son of Poomani teacher that he employed Krishnakumar [P.W-15], Rajkumar [P.W-21] and Mariappan [P.W-16] for laying tiles in his house and that they were requested to finish the job in two days by working day and night. According to him, they were staying in his house and all of them were already known to him. His further evidence is that at about 1.00 a.m., he woke up after hearing some loud noise from outside his house and when he opened the window, he saw Murugan [P.W-2] and others and when he enquired them, they informed him that the appellant killed the victim with a bill hook. Thus, the presence of P.W.15 and P.W.21 in the house of P.W.4 for laying tiles stands established. P.W.15 and P.W.21 have stated that they were engaged by P.W-4 to lay tiles in the terrace of his house and they were working even in the night hours for which purpose, they had even specially erected a tube light; when they heard a quarrel outside the house, out of curiosity, they looked down from the terrace and saw the appellant and the deceased fighting; therefore, they came down to the street and at that time, the appellant took a bill hook that he had kept hidden in his back and belaboured the deceased; when they went to rescue the deceased, the appellant threatened them also. They were subjected to grilling cross-examination by the defence but to no avail. 6. They were subjected to grilling cross-examination by the defence but to no avail. 6. The defence wanted to demonstrate to the Court that P.W.15 and P.W.16 were stock witnesses for the police and therefore, the defence examined Senthil Kumar, Head Clerk in the Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli, as D.W.1. Through the said Senthil Kumar, they marked the final report in S.C.No.748 of 2016 as Ex.D.1, which has the name of one Krishnakumar, S/o.Sundar, in the list of witnesses appended thereto. Likewise, the defence marked the final report in S.C.No.769 of 2016 in which the name of one Mariappan, S/o. Gandhi, has been shown as a prosecution witness in the list of witnesses. That apart, they marked a copy of the deposition of Mariappan, S/o.Gandhi in S.C.No.769 of 2016 as Ex.D.2. Based on Exs.D.1 and 2, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that Krishnakumar and Mariappan are stock witnesses for the police. 7. We are unable to appreciate this submission for the simple reason that P.W.15 and P.W.16 were not confronted with this fact in their cross-examination. When Suresh Kumar (P.W.24) was questioned in the cross-examination about this, he has denied that P.W.15 and P.W.16 were cited as witnesses in S.C.No.769 of 2016 and S.C.No.436 of 2017. Thus, there is absolutely no evidence to link the names in Exs.D.1 and D.2 as that of P.W.15 and P.W.16. On a demurrer, even if they had been cited as witnesses in those cases, that by itself, would not be sufficient to hold that they were planted witnesses, because, at the risk of repetition, P.W.4 has clearly stated that he had engaged the services of the masons, viz., P.W.15, P.W.16 and P.W.21 for laying tiles in his house and that they were working day and night to finish the job in two days. He has even stated that he had asked them to stay in his house and finish the job. P.W.15 and P.W.16 have also stated that they were engaged by P.W.4 to lay tiles in his house. P.W.4, P.W.15 and P.W.16 have no personal axe to grind against the appellant. No motive has been suggested to them for falsely implicating the appellant in the offence. Therefore, we have no reasons to jettison the testimony of P.W.4, P.W.15 and P.W. 16 as their testimony does inspire our confidence. P.W.4, P.W.15 and P.W.16 have no personal axe to grind against the appellant. No motive has been suggested to them for falsely implicating the appellant in the offence. Therefore, we have no reasons to jettison the testimony of P.W.4, P.W.15 and P.W. 16 as their testimony does inspire our confidence. The other mason who was engaged by P.W.4 to work along with P.W.15 and P.W.16 was one Rajkumar (P.W.21) who has substantially corroborated the evidence of P.W.15 and P.W.16 against whom there is no allegation that he was a stock witness. Thus, P.W.15, P.W.16 and P.W.21 are chance witnesses and their presence in the terrace of the house of P.W.4 had provided them an opportunity to witness the crime. 8. The postmortem report, which mentions the extent of injuries on the body of the victim clearly shows the intensity of the attack by the appellant. The appellant in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. had claimed that the death of the victim was actually 'murder for gain' and that she was attacked by some unknown persons, when she went to a public toilet in the early hours of 12.10.2016. However, none of the eyewitnesses were cross-examined on this aspect and the accused also did not elaborate upon it. Absence of any suggestion, which ought to have been made during the course of cross examination of eyewitnesses clearly shows that the claim made by the appellant is an invented one. Moreover, all the jewels namely, gold earrings [M.O-9], gold nose stud [M.O-10], silver anklet [M.O-11] and a ring [M.O-12] worn by the deceased were intact on her body and removed by the Investigation Officer [P.W-24] and handed over to the father of the deceased, Thiru.Chellamuthu [P.W-23]. P.W-23 admitted that he got back all the jewels worn by his daughter. Therefore, it is clear that the present case is not a murder for gain and the version of the appellant is a figment of imagination. 9. The FIR, which was registered at 2.30 a.m., also mentions the name of the appellant and it reached the Court at 6.00 a.m. on the same day. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the prosecution cannot take advantage of the weakness of the case of the defence and even if dishonest defence is revealed, it will not shift the onus and obligation cast upon the prosecution to prove its case. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the prosecution cannot take advantage of the weakness of the case of the defence and even if dishonest defence is revealed, it will not shift the onus and obligation cast upon the prosecution to prove its case. No doubt, it is true that the prosecution cannot take advantage of the weakness of the case of the defence, but wherever the defence taken by the appellant, is dishonest or untrue, it would add to the credibility of the case of the prosecution. It is also pertinent to mention that the victim did not belong to that place. Her only acquaintance was the appellant and he cannot feign ignorance or innocence in such a serious matter which was witnessed by independent witnesses. 10. All the witnesses, PW3, PW4, PW15, PW16 and PW21 have deposed clearly the sequence of events and there is no good ground to discard their evidence. There is nothing in the evidence of PW21 to contend that he arrived at the scene of occurrence only after the commission of crime. As already observed, all the eye witnesses withstood the testimony of cross-examination. The deployment of sniffer dog was also not substantiated by the defence. It was only meekly argued showing that it had no strength. The Investigation Officer was not also cross-examined on this aspect. 11. In the circumstances, we do not see any reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli and therefore the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 12. In the result, (i) This Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. (ii) The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, against the appellant in S.C.No.789 of 2017 dated 20.08.2019, is hereby confirmed.