JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in S.C.No.404 of 2006 dated 05.08.2008.) 1. The accused in S.C.No.404 of 2006 on the file of the 1st Additional Sessions Court, Coimbatore, is the appellant herein. 2. The appellant/accused was prosecuted by the Inspector of Police, B-6 Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore, for having caused murder of Kaliappan on 14.08.2005. Hence, he was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 3. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses (P.W.1 to 13) and marked 19 documents (Ex.P.1 to 19) and also produced 12 Material Objects (M.O.1 to 12). On the side of the accused/defence neither the witnesses were examined nor the documents were marked. 4. The Trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence found that the charge was proved as against the appellant/accused and hence, convicted and sentenced as follows:- Offences under Section Sentence 304 Part (ii) IPC 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment 5. The period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant/accused was ordered to be set off against the sentence of imprisonment as per Section 428 Cr.P.C.,. 6. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, this Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant/accused. Case of the Prosecution is as follows:- (i) The prosecution case is that the appellant - Naganathan, deceased-Kaliappan and Selvam (P.W.11) were working as Security at Bakiyam Engineering Corporation situated at Kaalappatti Road, Nethra Nagar, Coimbatore. They were also staying in a rented house, situated at Pazhaniappa layout. In the year 2005, during the tamil month Aadi, 18, the deceased Kaliappan brought one Pushpalatha @ Kamalam (P.W.6) to the rented house and introduced her to Selvam (P.W.11) and the appellant/accused. The said Pushpalatha (P.W.6) on that day stayed in the house and next day morning she left the place. (ii) On 14.05.2008 at about 3 p.m., the deceased Kaliappan went to office to change the shift work of accused/Naganathan. At that time, the accused/Naganathan asked the deceased/Kaliappan about the alleged complaint made by him to Sulokshana (P.W.4). In this connection, there arose a wordy quarrel. At that time, Selvam (P.W.11), also available in the place of occurrence and after signing in the attendance register, he went ahead 50 feet. At that time, the accused/Naganathan asked the deceased/Kaliappan about the alleged complaint made by him to Sulokshana (P.W.4). In this connection, there arose a wordy quarrel. At that time, Selvam (P.W.11), also available in the place of occurrence and after signing in the attendance register, he went ahead 50 feet. The accused/Naganathan and the deceased/Kaliappan started fighting with each other. Hearing the noise of quarrel, P.W.11 came back to the place of occurrence and on seeing him the accused as well as the deceased stopped the quarrel. Thereafter, the deceased/Kaliappan telephoned to the Stalwart Security office and complained that the appellant/accused assaulted him. Thereafter, Selvam (P.W.11) proceeded 50 feet ahead and heard the cry of the deceased. Immediately Selvam (P.W.11) turned back and seen what had happened. There, he found the deceased/Kaliappan fell down and the accused/Naganathan assaulted him with iron pipe on the deceased face. Due to which, blood came from his face and teeth were fallen down. Due to fear, P.W.11 came out to G.F. Bakery and telephoned for ambulance. They informed ambulance is not available at that time. Immediately he informed about the incident to Mathivanan (P.W.2), Manager of Stallwart Security Service, who in turn informed to arrange for an ambulance and in the meantime, he stated that he will come to the place of occurrence. During the relevant period, the appellant/accused (Naganathan) hurriedly left the place with iron pipe and started walking in the Kaalappatti Main Road. It was also witnessed by Manoharan (P.W.5). Meanwhile, Mathivanan (P.W.2) also came to the place of occurrence and further informed about the alleged occurrence to the Govinda Raj (P.W.1), Marketing Manager in Bakiyam Industries Corporation. They took the deceased to hospital, through ambulance, at hospital, the deceased was declared as dead. Thereafter, Govinda Raj (P.W.1) went to Peelamedu Police Station and gave the complaint (Ex.P.1). (iii) Mr.Annadurai, Inspector of Police (P.W.12) received the complaint on 14.08.2005 at 15.40 hours from Govinda Raj (P.W.1) and recorded his statement and registered a case in Crime No.1042 of 2005 for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The FIR was marked as Ex.P.10. (iv) Mr.Balraj, Inspector of Police (P.W.13) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Investigating Officer’) received the FIR at 19.45 hours and on the same day, he went to the place of occurrence along with police photographer. The FIR was marked as Ex.P.10. (iv) Mr.Balraj, Inspector of Police (P.W.13) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Investigating Officer’) received the FIR at 19.45 hours and on the same day, he went to the place of occurrence along with police photographer. At 20.15 hours, he prepared the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P.11), in the presence of witnesses, Ramesh Varma (P.W.7) and Vadivelan and also recorded their statements. The Investigating Officer recovered M.O.1 - 6 from the place of occurrence under Form.95 and it has been marked as Ex.P.13 in the presence of witnesses, Ramesh (P.W.7) and Vadivelan. (v) On 15.08.2005 in the presence of panchayatars, the Investigating Officer (P.W.13) conducted inquest on the body and prepared Inquest Report (Ex.P.12) and thereafter, he sent the body to Government Hospital for post mortem through Sasikanth, Head Constable (P.W.10). (vi) Dr.Malliga (P.W.9) received the requisition letter of the Investigating Officer (P.W.13) on 15.08.2005. The said requisition letter was marked as Ex.P.6 and conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased at 12.45 pm., and found the following injuries:- “External Injuries: 1) Horizontal, lacerated would 7x4 cm exposing underlying fractured bone seen on the left forehead, 1 cm above inner end of left eye brow. 2) A vertical lacerated would 3x1x0.5 cm muscle deep seen on the left forehead 1 cm lateral to wound No.1. 3) An oblique lacerated wound 7x4 cm exposing oral cavity seen in the left check region. The wound starts from left angle of mouth to angle of left lower jaw. The angle of left lower jaw found fractured and left upper medial incisor, both left lower incisors and left lower canine found absent in their sockets and their sockets found filled with unwashable blood clots. 4) Laceration 5x2x0.5 cm muscle deep seen in the right upper lip. 5) Oblique laceration left side of scalp in fronto parietal region 6x1x1 cm bone deep. The anterior inner end of the wound is 7 cm above inner and of left eyebrow, exposing underlying fractured bones. 6) Lacerated would 2x1x1 cm bone deep seen in the right side back of scalp 11 cm behind right ear. Internal Injuries:- a) sub scalp contusion over right parieto occipito termporal region 17x10 cm and left fronto temporo parietal region 14x13 cm. b) Fissured fracture right temporo parieto occipital region 17x1/2 -¼ cm. 6) Lacerated would 2x1x1 cm bone deep seen in the right side back of scalp 11 cm behind right ear. Internal Injuries:- a) sub scalp contusion over right parieto occipito termporal region 17x10 cm and left fronto temporo parietal region 14x13 cm. b) Fissured fracture right temporo parieto occipital region 17x1/2 -¼ cm. Fracture starts from occipital region to right ear and extents down as crack fracture in the right middle and anterior cranial fosse to a length of 14 cm. c) Left fronto temporal bone found fractured 17 cm length along the line of external would no (5). d) Fracture left Temporo occipital region 6 cm in length vertical in direction and another horizontal fracture in left temporal bone, 10 cm in length. e) Upper jaw bones on both sides and nasal bones found fractured communitedly. f) Right lower jaw found fractured close to the angle. g) Diffuse sub dural and subarachnoid haemorrhage seen over entire brain surface. h) Laceration of brain in the both frontal and left temporal poles of the brain. i) Communited fracture of left anterior and middle cranial fossa 8x5 cm. Other findings:- -Pleural and peritoneal cavities empty. -Heart -Right side chambers contain fluid blood, left side chambers empty, coronaries patent. -Lungs -cut section congested. -Hyoid bone intact. -Stomach contains partially digested cooked rice particles 200 gm, no specific smell, mucosa congested. -Small intestine contains 20 ml of bile stained fluid, no specific smell, mucosa congested. -Liver, spleen and kidneys cut section congested. -Urinary bladder empty.”” and gave the post mortem certificate (Ex.P.7). On chemical examination no poison found in the body. She finally opined that the deceased died due to head and facial injuries and gave the final report (Ex.P.8). It was also stated that the injuries found on the body may be caused by using the weapon - Iron pipe (M.O.7). (vii) After conducting post mortem, M.O’s.9 to 12 were recovered from the body of the deceased and prepared a separate report in Ex.P.9 and the same was forwarded to the Inspector, through Head Constable (P.W.10). (viii) On 17.08.2005 at about 08.30 a.m., the Investigating Officer (P.W.13) arrested the appellant/accused in the presence of witnesses Ganesan (P.W.8) and Ranjith. On enquiry, the accused gave confession statement. Admissible portion of the confession statement was Ex.P.4. (viii) On 17.08.2005 at about 08.30 a.m., the Investigating Officer (P.W.13) arrested the appellant/accused in the presence of witnesses Ganesan (P.W.8) and Ranjith. On enquiry, the accused gave confession statement. Admissible portion of the confession statement was Ex.P.4. Based on the disclosure statement, the accused took the Investigating Officer and witnesses to Kaalappatti road towards Text Park road on the northern side fence of that road, he identified the weapon in a bush and the Investigating Officer recovered the weapon - Blood stained iron pipe (M.O.7) and Blood stained shirt (M.O.8). He recovered the M.O’s.7 and 8 under Seizure Mahazar (Ex.P.5) in the presence of witnesses Ganesan (P.W.8) and Ranjith and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer forwarded the seized properties to the Court and remanded the appellant/accused for judicial custody. (ix) The Investigating Officer received the report (Ex.P.9) and recovered the M.O.9 to 12 under Form - 95 (Ex.P.13) and also prepared a requisition letter (Ex.P.15) for examination of blood stained weapon to Judicial Magistrate No.6. Based on that, chemical examination was conducted and received the result under Ex.P.16 and Toxicology Report (Ex.P.18). Blood Group Report was marked as Ex.P.19. (x) Further, the Investigating Officer, examined the doctor, who treated the appellant/accused and obtained a report (Ex.P.14) and thereafter completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet as against the appellant/accused under Section 302 IPC. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court failed to consider the prosecution evidence properly. The distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station is 4 kms only and the complaint was given belatedly. The Trial Court convicted the appellant, only on the evidence of Selvam (P.W.11). He was the only person focused as an eye witness by the prosecution. His evidence is not reliable and not corroborated with any other evidence. 8. It is further contended that the alleged eye witness, Selvam (P.W.11) did not gave complaint before the police station. The Trial Court failed to consider the injuries sustained by the appellant/accused and the prosecution failed to explain the injuries on the appellant. Hence the origin and genesis of the occurrence is suppressed by the prosecution. Further, the fact that non-examining the doctor, who gave treatment to the appellant is also not appreciated by the Trial Court. The Trial Court failed to consider the injuries sustained by the appellant/accused and the prosecution failed to explain the injuries on the appellant. Hence the origin and genesis of the occurrence is suppressed by the prosecution. Further, the fact that non-examining the doctor, who gave treatment to the appellant is also not appreciated by the Trial Court. The presence of eye witness, Selvam (P.W.11), at the time of the occurrence was doubtful and the Trial Court without considering the prosecution evidence found guilty and convicted, which is unsustainable on fact and liable to be set aside. To support his contentions, he relied on the following two judgments. 1. Judgment of this Court made in Crl.A.(MD).No.392 and 393 of 2016 dated 18.09.2017 - Saravanan @ Saravanakumar Vs. State reported in (2017) 3 MWN (Cri) 464 and 2. Judgment of this Court made in Crl.A.No.98 of 2012 dated 14.06.2016 - Vinayagamoorthy and Others Vs. The State. 9. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the State contended that the deceased/Kaliappan, eye witness - Selvam (P.W.11) and the appellant/Naganathan were all working as a Security at Bakiyam Engineering Corporation. During the time of occurrence, the deceased went to the office to change his duty with the appellant/accused. At that time, the eye witness, Selvam (P.W.11) also came to the office and signed the attendance register. Therefore the presence of Selvam (P.W.11) during the time of occurrence was possible and acceptable one. There was no reason to doubt his presence. He would further contended that immediately after the occurrence, Selvam (P.W.11) informed the occurrence to Mathivanan (P.W.2), Manager and Govindaraj (P.W.1). Both the witnesses, i.e., P.W.1 and 2 came to the place of occurrence and found the deceased with blood injuries and they took him to the hospital in an ambulance. Their evidence also corroborating with the evidence of Selvam (P.W.11) and the prosecution proved the charge against the appellant/accused and there is no reason to reject the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, viz., Selvam (P.W.11), Govindaraj (P.W.1) and Mathivanan (P.W.2). He further contended that as a general rule, a Court may act on the testimony of a single witness, though uncorroborated. In this case, the evidence of Selvam (P.W.11) was corroborated by the evidence of P.W.1 and 2. Therefore, the reliance placed by the Trial Court upon those witnesses is in order. He further contended that as a general rule, a Court may act on the testimony of a single witness, though uncorroborated. In this case, the evidence of Selvam (P.W.11) was corroborated by the evidence of P.W.1 and 2. Therefore, the reliance placed by the Trial Court upon those witnesses is in order. There is no reason to reject their evidence and there is no valid reason to interfere with the finding of the Trial Court. Hence, no merit in this appeal and pleaded to dismiss the same. 10. I have considered the submission of the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the records. 11. The prosecution case is that on 14.08.2005, at about 3 p.m., the deceased/Kaliyappan was working as a Security at Bakiyam Engineering Corporation, came to shift work and met the appellant/accused and quarreled with him, with regard to some complaint made by the Kaliappan to Sulochana (P.W.4), about the appellant/accused. It was witnessed by Selvam (P.W.11). He was also working as a security at Bakiyam Engineering Corporation. During the altercation between the parties, i.e., Kaliyappan and the appellant/accused, the accused assaulted the deceased with iron pipe (M.O.7) and caused severe injuries on the head and face of the deceased/Kaliyappan. Due to the injuries, he died on the same day and hence the appellant/accused was prosecuted for offence under Section 302 IPC. 12. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses and among the 13 witnesses, Selvam (P.W.11) was the eye witness to the occurrence. Govinda Raj (P.W.1) was working as a Manager at Bakiyam Engineering Corporation. Mathivanan (P.W.2) was working as Field Manager at Stallwart Security Services. Both, Govinda Raj (P.W.1) and Mathivanan (P.W.2) came to the place of occurrence on the information given by Selvam (P.W.11) and found the deceased/Kaliyappan with blood injuries on his head and face. Immediately, P.W.1 and 2 made arrangements for ambulance and took the deceased to hospital, where the deceased was declared as dead. 13. Therefore, in this case, Selvam (P.W.11) was the only eye witness to the occurrence and P.W.1 and 2 found the deceased/Kaliyappan with blood injuries at the place of occurrence. Manoharan (P.W.5) has seen the accused with blood stained iron pipe (M.O.7). 14. I have gone through the evidence of Govinda Raj (P.W.1), Mathivanan (P.W.2) and Selvam (P.W.11). 15. 13. Therefore, in this case, Selvam (P.W.11) was the only eye witness to the occurrence and P.W.1 and 2 found the deceased/Kaliyappan with blood injuries at the place of occurrence. Manoharan (P.W.5) has seen the accused with blood stained iron pipe (M.O.7). 14. I have gone through the evidence of Govinda Raj (P.W.1), Mathivanan (P.W.2) and Selvam (P.W.11). 15. Perusal of evidence of Selvam (P.W.11) proved the fact that he was working as a Security at Bakiyam Engineering Corporation, situated at Kaalappatti Road. Along with him, the deceased/Kaliyappan and appellant/accused (Naganathan), Manikanda Doss were also working as security. The persons who were working as Security were stayed at the house situated at Pazhaniappa layout, provided by the Bakiyam Engineering Corporation. In one of the house, Selvam (P.W.11), deceased/Kaliappan and the appellant/accused (Naganathan) were residing. On 14.08.2005, at about 3 p.m., the deceased (Kaliappan) came to office to change his shift with the appellant/accused (Naganathan). At that time, the appellant/accused (Naganathan) asked the deceased/Kaliappan what he had informed to sulochana (P.W.4), who was working at the office. In this regard they quarreled with each other. Selvam (P.W.11) signed in the duty register and at that time, time was around 3.50 p.m.,. After making his signature in the attendance register, he moved to his workplace and while crossing 50 feet ahead, again the deceased/ Kaliappan and appellant/accused (Naganathan) quarreled and on hearing the noise from them, P.W.11 came back and both of them stopped the quarrel. Immediately, the deceased/Kaliappan telephoned the Stalwart Security Office and informed that the appellant/accused (Naganathan) assaulted him. Then the Selvam (P.W.11), moved over 50 feet distance, again he heard the cry of the deceased. Immediately, he came back to the place of occurrence and found the deceased/Kaliappan was laying on the floor. The appellant/accused (Naganathan) assaulted him with iron pipe (M.O.7) and due to which, blood came from the head and face of the deceased/Kaliappan. His teeth were also broken down. On seeing the incident, Selvam (P.W.11) had fear and came out of the premises, to get ambulance. Meanwhile, he also informed the occurrence to Stalwart Security Manager –Mathivanan (P.W.2). After informing for ambulance, he came back to the place of occurrence and also informed about the incident to the Manager of Bakiyam Engineering Corporation, Govinda Raj (P.W.1). He also came to the place of occurrence. Meanwhile, he also informed the occurrence to Stalwart Security Manager –Mathivanan (P.W.2). After informing for ambulance, he came back to the place of occurrence and also informed about the incident to the Manager of Bakiyam Engineering Corporation, Govinda Raj (P.W.1). He also came to the place of occurrence. They took the deceased to the hospital through ambulance, where, the deceased was declared as dead. Before, the Trial Court, he identified the weapon used by the appellant/accused the Iron pipe (M.O.7). For better appreciation of the evidence of P.W.11, it is reproduced hereunder:- 16. I have gone through the evidence of Govinda Raj (P.W.1), who gave the complaint (Ex.P.1) and Mathivanan (P.W.2), who immediately came to the place of occurrence and found the deceased with the injuries. These two witnesses clearly corroborated with the evidence of Selvam (P.W.11). During the cross examination, nothing brought from them to disbelieve their evidence. There is a ring of truth in the evidence of Govinda Raj (P.W.1), Mathivanan (P.W.2) and Selvam (P.W.11). Further, Manoharan (P.W.5) deposed that he had seen the appellant/accused with iron pipe (M.O.7) at Kaalappatti Main Road. 17. The Investigating Officer (P.W.13) immediately came to the place of occurrence and seized the 4 broken teeth under M.O.5 series. He further deposed before the Trial Court that he arrested the appellant/accused on 17.08.2005 at about 08.30 a.m., at Thottipalayam Pirivu, Near Avinashi Road on the back side of Cart Tract road, in the presence of the witnesses Ganesan (P.W.8) and Ranjith. The appellant/accused gave the confession statement, the admissible portion of the confession was marked as Ex.P.4. Based on his disclosure statement, the Investigating Officer seized the blood stained Iron pipe (M.O.7) and blood stained shirt (M.O.8) under Mahazar (Ex.P.5). Which was corroborated by the evidence of Ganesan (P.W.8). Further, the Forensic report (Ex.P.17 and 18) with regard to analysis of blood in the alleged weapon (M.O.7) and the blood stained Shirt (M.O.8), support the prosecution case. 18. Dr.Malliga, who conducted post mortem upon the deceased deposed that the external injuries found on the body of the deceased may be caused by using the weapon (M.O.7), and also opined that the deceased appear to have died due to the head and facial injuries sustained by him. Thus, the medical evidence was also in support of the evidence of Selvam (P.W.11). Thus, the medical evidence was also in support of the evidence of Selvam (P.W.11). From the above said prosecution evidences, it is clear that the appellant/accused assaulted the deceased/Kaliappan with Iron pipe (M.O.7) and caused the injuries on his head and face. Due to the injuries sustained by the deceased, he died. The entire occurrence was witnessed by Selvam (P.W.11) and after the occurrence, immediately the witnesses, P.W.1 and 2 seen the deceased in the place of occurrence with injuries. All these witnesses proved the prosecution case beyond all reasonable doubt. 19. The Trial Court while considering the prosecution witnesses found that there was no motive or enmity between the deceased/Kaliappan and the appellant/accused. Though both of them were working in the same company and staying in the same house, there was no intention to cause the death of the deceased/Kaliappan. The appellant/accused without any pre-meditation in a sudden fight, heat of conversation, upon a sudden quarrel, assaulted the deceased with iron pipe and without any intention, caused the death of the deceased/Kaliappan. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly invoked the Section 304 (ii) IPC and convicted accordingly. 20. I have considered the argument placed by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to non explanation of injuries upon the accused. The Investigating Officer (P.W.13) forwarded the accused for medical examination and marked the Accident Register as Ex.P.14, in which it was recorded that the accused had sustained injuries in the quarrel happened between him and the deceased/Kaliappan, at the place of occurrence. On examination, he was found abrasion over the right elbow and eye brow and he was treated as out patient and it had been opined that the injuries were simple in nature. 21. The observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramlagan Singh and Others Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1973) 3 Supreme Court Cases 881 is worth to note here: “.................. (ii) Prosecution is not called upon in all cases to explain the injuries received by the accused persons. It is for the defence to put questions to the prosecution witnesses regarding the injuries of the accused persons. When that is not done, there is no occasion for the prosecution witnesses to explain the injuries on the person of the accused. (ii) Prosecution is not called upon in all cases to explain the injuries received by the accused persons. It is for the defence to put questions to the prosecution witnesses regarding the injuries of the accused persons. When that is not done, there is no occasion for the prosecution witnesses to explain the injuries on the person of the accused. In a cross case witnesses refrain from referring to the injuries on the persons of the opposite side because of fear of being implicated in the cross case.” 22. In this case, there is no cross examination of the prosecution witnesses with regard to injuries received by the appellant/accused. Therefore there was no reason given by the prosecution witnesses to explain the injuries on the accused. The settled principle is non explanation of injuries on the accused ipso facto cannot be held to be fatal to the prosecution case. Ordinarily, the prosecution is not obliged to explain each and every injury on the accused, even though injuries might have been caused during the course of occurrence. Where the evidence is clear, cogent and creditworthy, the mere fact that the injuries on the accused are not explained by the prosecution, cannot be a sole basis to reject such evidences and consequently the whole case. Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant is not helpful to the accused. Each case has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. The cases dealt in the decisions are factually distinguishable one. Therefore, it cannot be applied to the instant case. In this case, failure to explain the injuries on the accused person by the prosecution is not always fatal and the whole case does not become doubtful. 23. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the finding of the Trial Court and there is no merit in this appeal. Hence the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in S.C.No.404 of 2006 dated 05.08.2008 is confirmed. The Trial Court is directed to secure the appellant/accused to undergo the remaining period of sentence.