JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the judgment and order dated 26.04.2019 made in S.C.No.85 of 2015 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Paramakudi.) R. Hemalatha, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 26.04.2019 in S.C.No.85 of 2015 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Paramakudi in and by which, the Appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up in this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as follows: i. The deceased Natarajan was a resident of Kannirayapuram living with his wife Rathinakani (P.W-1). He was into the activity of taking palm trees on lease, climbing on them and bringing down the palm products for sale. The palm products include toddy. On the fateful day of 05.11.2014 at around 7.30 p.m., there was a group of people which included the deceased Natarajan, his wife Rathinakani (P.W-1), Velayutham (P.W-2), Vazhaivetti (P.W-3), Vedhamanickam(P.W-4), Ramar (P.W-5), Gurusamy (P.W-6) and Esakkimuthu (P.W-8) and one Gopal (not examined) were all discussing outside and near the residence of Gopal where incidentally the appellant's residence was also located. The appellant Vayanaperumal approached these persons and asked whether anyone is interested in the menial job of pulling the net attached to fishing boats basically used for harvesting fish from the sea water. Velayutham (P.W-2) responded to the appellant by stating that he was ready to join. The appellant infuriated and irked by this reply verbally abused him in filthy language pointing out that he was physically challenged and of what help he would be. The victim Natarajan reprimanded the appellant by asking as to why he abused P.W-2 when the latter was ready to join him. What had started as a conversation between the appellant and P.W-2 turned out into a heated arguments between the victim and the appellant. The appellant questioned the act of the victim and made it clear that the victim had no business to advise him. The appellant had also pointed out that the victim had a habit of interfering in every dispute and taking sides with the appellant's opponents. The appellant questioned the act of the victim and made it clear that the victim had no business to advise him. The appellant had also pointed out that the victim had a habit of interfering in every dispute and taking sides with the appellant's opponents. The appellant had apparently referred to another dispute he had with his brother one Mariappan during which the victim supported the said Mariappan and this incident was the second such one. The verbal dual allegedly turned out into a brawl and the appellant, who went back home came out with an axe  (M.O-1) and attacked the deceased Natarajan with the axe right on top of his forehead causing grievous bleeding injury on his head. The victim, then and there collapsed while the appellant fled the scene of crime taking the axe (M.O-1) with him. Medical help was sought for immediately by calling 108 Ambulance and the victim was taken to the Government Hospital, Kadaladi, where the duty doctor declared him as brought dead. ii. Rathinakani (P.W-1), wife of the deceased went to Sayalkudi Police Station on the same day, ie., on 05.11.2019 at about 21.30 hours along with Joseph (P.W-10) and gave a written complaint (Ex.P1), based on which Thiru. Ganesamurthy (P.W-16), Special Sub Inspector of Police registered FIR (Ex.P9) in Crime No.187 of 2016 against the appellant for an offence under Section 302 IPC. He sent the FIR to Court which was received by the Magistrate at 6.00 a.m., on 06.11.2014. iii. Thiru.Balamurugan (P.W-18), Inspector of Police, Sayalkudi Police Station took up investigation, went to the scene of offence on 06.11.2014 at about 2.00 a.m., and prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P2) and a rough sketch (Ex.P11). He also recovered bloodstained earth (M.O-5) and ordinary earth(M.O-6) under the cover of a mahazar (Ex.P3) in the presence of Mathisekar (P.W-7) and Asokan (not examined). He then recorded the statements of the witnesses (P.W-1 to P.W-6 and P.W-8). He proceeded to the mortuary of Government Hospital, Kadaladi, where the body of the deceased was kept and conducted inquest (Ex.P12) on the body of the deceased and thereafter sent the body through Thiru.Bose (P.W-11), Head Constable of Police, for postmortem. iv. Dr.Sugumaran(P.W-17) conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and found the following injuries: “ i. 10 x 5 x 4 cm deep cut injury over left front of temporal region. No other external injury. ii. iv. Dr.Sugumaran(P.W-17) conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and found the following injuries: “ i. 10 x 5 x 4 cm deep cut injury over left front of temporal region. No other external injury. ii. Skull opened, 5 cm linear fracture over left front temporal bone meninges were cut, around 10 ml of clotted blood over left frontal lobe of brain. Whole brain congested and ordematom. iii. Neck: no external injury/marks over neck. Hyoid bone intact. iv. Lungs congested. Heart: contains fluid blood. Stomach:contains partially digested food material present. No suspicion odour. All internal organs are pale and intact. Bladder:empty.” In the opinion of the Dr.Sugumaran(P.W-17) “the deceased would appear to have died due to intracerebral bleed, hemorrhage, shock and skull bone fracture, 12 to 16 hours prior to autopsy.” v. On 06.11.2014 at about 12.00 noon, P.W-18, arrested the appellant near Kannirajapuram Police Station and recorded his police confession, (admissible portion of which was marked as Ex.P4) based on which he recovered an axe (M.O-1) and a bloodstained half slack (M.O-2) under the cover of a mahazar (Ex.P5) in the presence of the witnesses Ayup Gani(P.W-9) and Murugesan (not examined). The appellant thereafter sent to judicial custody. vi. P.W-18 examined the witnesses, doctor and experts and recorded their statements and also collected reports from experts. After completing investigation, he filed a final report against the appellant for an offence under Section 302 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate, Muthukulathur, in P.R.C.No.XI of 2015, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions after furnishing copies of documents to the appellants under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Paramakudi, took up the case on file in S.C.No.85 of 2015. To the charge framed for an offence under Section 302 IPC, the appellant pleaded not guilty. Hence, the case was posted for trial. vii. In order to establish the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses and marked 12 documents and marked 6 material objects. viii. When the appellant was questioned with regard to the circumstances appearing in evidence against him under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he denied of having committed any offence. However, he did not examine any witness on his side. ix. viii. When the appellant was questioned with regard to the circumstances appearing in evidence against him under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he denied of having committed any offence. However, he did not examine any witness on his side. ix. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC, and convicted and sentenced him as stated in paragraph No.1. Challenging the same, present appeal is filed by the appellant along with a petition to condone the delay of 36 days under Section 5 of Limitation Act in Crl.M.P(MD)No.6932 of 2019. The said petition was allowed on 05.08.2019. 3. The murder of the victim in the presence of as may as seven persons, all of them were residents of the same locality and knowing each other is spine chilling. The P.W-1 to P.W-6 and P.W-8 were eyewitnesses to the incident and what was proceeding as a casual chat amongst these 7 persons, who were all involved in the same profession of Palm products and occasionally fish harvesting ended in a gruesome murder. They were in a discussion regarding various factors affecting their profession and no one would have ever expected such a tragic turn of events with the entry of the appellant Vayanaperumal. Though it apparently appears that the appellant posed the question to the group and did not like the consent from P.W-2 for joining in his activity. The intention of these appellant was different. The narration of these prosecution witnesses P.W-1 to P.W-6 and P.W-8 do not give an answer as to why only the victim reprimanded the appellant for his rude behaviour and not any one of those present there. The simmering discontent on the part of the appellant over the behaviour of the victim was quite obvious in the manner in which the appellant reacted when the victim intervened between the appellant and P.W-2. The appellant seems to have been raring to confront the victim and he grabbed at the opportunity when the victim ventured into an advisory mode. It was clear that the appellant was nursing a grudge against the victim and on the slightest provocation, this murder took place. The appellant seems to have been raring to confront the victim and he grabbed at the opportunity when the victim ventured into an advisory mode. It was clear that the appellant was nursing a grudge against the victim and on the slightest provocation, this murder took place. It is also deposed by these eyewitnesses that before going home to pick up the weapon (M.O-1) the appellant had threatened the victim of dire consequences. The depositions of eyewitnesses also show that the entire episode lasted hardly for 10 minutes and ended up in the ghastly crime. One of the suggestions put to P.W-1 as to why the police complaint was not made though the police station was enroute the hospital is not worth answering as the focus of the kith and kin would be to save the victim and not to go through any other formality. 4. Mr.T.J.Ebenezer Charles, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the complainant (P.W-1) herself was not aware of the contents of the complaint based on which FIR (Ex.P9) was registered. His further contention is that the prosecution did not establish the motive and infact, the deposition of P.W-3 that there was no previous enmity between the victim and the appellant is clear on this aspect. Thirdly, nonexamination of the doctor, who declared the victim as brought dead is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Yet another contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the sequence of events, which ended up in death of the victim clearly showed that both of them attacked each other and therefore, the ingredients of culpable homicide was not made out to attract the provisions of Section 302 IPC. 5. These arguments give an impression of a damage control exercise in order to fetch some relief for the appellant. The evidence of all the seven eyewitnesses are not only corroborative but overwhelmingly clear as to who the culprit was. Even assuming that there was exchange of blows between the two, the intention of the appellant was very evident from the verbal spat and foul language he used. Subsequently, when he went home to fetch the axe (M.O-1) and attacked the victim he was also in know of the consequences the attack would result in. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it could be termed as a grave and sudden provocation. Subsequently, when he went home to fetch the axe (M.O-1) and attacked the victim he was also in know of the consequences the attack would result in. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it could be termed as a grave and sudden provocation. The utterance of the appellant that the victim was always siding his opponents was adequate to prove that his target was the victim and not P.W-2 as the impression the narrative appears to give. The case of the prosecution is on a solid footing and these aspects pointed out by the counsel for the appellant are not even able to cause a minor ripple in the case. Ironically P.W-4 to P.W-6 and P.W-8 were not cross-examined by the defence during trial. Moreover, P.W-1 to P.W-3 though were examined in chief on 06.09.2016 were cross-examined only on 27.09.2016, ie., after a lapse of three months. Inspite of that P.W-1 to P.W-3 withstood the testimony of cross-examination. The eyewitness account is also corroborated with the medical evidence. Further more, the Forensic reports revealed the presence of human blood 'A' group in the material objects (except Axe) including the dresses worn by the appellant. The appellant did not explain this even in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Hence, we are of the view that the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court do not warrant any interference by this Court and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. In the result, (i) This Criminal Appeal is dismissed. (ii) The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Paramakudi, in S.C.No.85 of 2015, dated 12.04.2019, is confirmed.