JUDGMENT M.S.RAMESH, J. The judgment of the Trial Court dated 14.08.2019 passed in S.C.No.55 of 2019 by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, holding the sole accused/appellant guilty of having committed the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment together with fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of which, to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment, is under challenge in the present Criminal Appeal. 2. The brief case of the prosecution is that the deceased had married one Kavitha, who is the daughter of the accused. Owing to a matrimonial dispute, on 20.12.2017, the wife of the deceased had left her matrimonial house and went to the house of her father/accused. According to the prosecution, when the deceased had gone to the accused's house to bring back his wife, he was scolded and assaulted by the accused, his wife and sister-in-law. Thereafter, the parents of the deceased had consoled and advised him to wait for 2 days to bring back his wife. In this background, on 24.12.2017 at 05.45 A.M., when the father of the deceased namely Aiyavoo, together with the deceased, Karuppasamy and Aiyyasamy were on the way to attend nature's call, the accused who was hiding, had suddenly stabbed the deceased with a knife on the left side of his neck and fled the scene. The father of the deceased, who was walking a few feet behind the deceased, rushed and took the deceased to the hospital. However, the doctors declared that he was brought dead. Thereafter, the father of the deceased along with Karuppasamy, went to Perur Police Station and gave a police complaint. On completion of the investigation, the accused was charged of having committed the offence under Section 302 IPC . 3. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution had examined 11 witnesses namely P.W.1 to P.W.11 and marked 22 documents namely Exs.P1 to P22, apart from 9 material objects namely M.O.1 to M.O.9. On the side of the defence, the daughter of the accused/wife of the deceased was examined as D.W.1. No documentary evidences were marked on the side of the defence. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution had examined 11 witnesses namely P.W.1 to P.W.11 and marked 22 documents namely Exs.P1 to P22, apart from 9 material objects namely M.O.1 to M.O.9. On the side of the defence, the daughter of the accused/wife of the deceased was examined as D.W.1. No documentary evidences were marked on the side of the defence. 4.1 The prosecution had projected the father of the deceased namely Aiyavoo (P.W.1), cousin of the deceased namely Karrupasamy (P.W.2), as independent witnesses who were walking along with the deceased on the fateful day and Aiyyasamy (P.W.3) as eye witness to the occurrence that took place on 24.12.2017 at 06.00 A.M. However, during the course of trial, P.W.2 and P.W.3 were treated as hostile witnesses by the prosecution, leaving P.W.1 alone, as the sole eye-witness, through whom the police complaint (Ex.P1) was marked. 4.2 Palaniammal (P.W.4), who is the mother of the deceased, is a hearsay witness. 4.3 Aiyyasamy (P.W.5) is a witness to the observation mahazar (Ex.P2) and seizure mahazar (Ex.P3), through whom blood stained earth (M.O.2) and sample earth (M.O.3), were marked. 4.4 Ravichandar (P.W.6), is the Village Administrative Officer before whom the accused had appeared and given a voluntary confession. After recording the confession, he had prepared a special report (Ex.P4) and produced the accused before Perur Police Station. The Investigation Officer had recorded the arrest of the accused under Form-91 (Ex.P5) and had seized the blood stained shirt (M.O.4) and dhoti (M.O.5) of the accused, through a seizure mahazar (Ex.P6). 4.5 Tanuja Banu (P.W.7) is the Forensic Science Expert, who had received the requisition letter (Ex.P7) from the Inspector of Police, Perur Police Station for chemical analysis. She had then issued forensic, biological and serological reports (Exs.P8, P9 and P10 respectively), recording that out of 9 items received, blood stains in 4 items were human blood of O group. 4.6 Jayasingh (P.W.8) is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem. The requisition letter for post-mortem (Ex.P11), post-mortem certificate (Ex.P12), viscera report (Ex.P13) and final opinion (Ex.P14) that the cause of death of the deceased was due to multiple stab injuries, were marked through him. 4.7 Janaki (P.W.9) is the head constable who had accompanied the corpse for conducting the post-mortem and the special report was marked as Ex.P.15. The dresses on the body of the deceased were marked as M.O.6 to M.O.9. 4.7 Janaki (P.W.9) is the head constable who had accompanied the corpse for conducting the post-mortem and the special report was marked as Ex.P.15. The dresses on the body of the deceased were marked as M.O.6 to M.O.9. 4.8 Damodaran, who is the Sub Inspector of Police and who registered the F.I.R. (Ex.P16), was examined as P.W.10. 4.9 Manoharan (P.W.11), Inspector of Police, is the Investigating Officer in this case. On receiving the F.I.R., he had gone to the scene of occurrence and prepared the rough sketch (Ex.P17). He then sent the body for post-mortem through P.W.9 and the accident register of the deceased was marked as Ex.P18. He also prepared the inquest report (Ex.P19) and the post-mortem report (Ex.P20). Since the accused had an injury in his right hand, he had referred him to the Government Hospital through a Head Constable, wherein, an accident register (Ex.P21) of the accused was prepared. He thereafter forwarded the seized items under Form-91 (Ex.P22) to the jurisdictional Magistrate. On completion of the investigation, he had filed the final report. 5. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court had recorded the guilt of the accused and sentenced him to life imprisonment, as detailed above. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that though P.W.2 and P.W.3 were projected as eye witnesses by the prosecution, both of them had not supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, much reliance need not be placed on the sole testimony of P.W.1. He further submitted that the extra-judicial confession made by the accused before P.W.6 itself, is a weak piece of evidence and does not carry much evidentiary value. He also referred to Ex.P21, which is the accident register of the accused and submitted that the Investigating Officer had not properly explained the injuries sustained by the accused, during the alleged occurrence, which would be fatal to the prosecution's case. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent/Police, had placed reliance on the oral evidence of P.W.1, who is the eye-witness and submitted that even though P.W.2 and P.W.3 had not supported the prosecution's case, the sole testimony of P.W.1 is sufficient to record the guilt of the accused. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent/Police, had placed reliance on the oral evidence of P.W.1, who is the eye-witness and submitted that even though P.W.2 and P.W.3 had not supported the prosecution's case, the sole testimony of P.W.1 is sufficient to record the guilt of the accused. Insofar as the extra-judicial confession is concerned, he would submit that when the confession of the accused corroborates with the oral evidence of P.W.1, reliance can be placed on the submission of P.W.6 also. He further referred to the medical evidences and submitted that the overt act attributed in the oral testimony of P.W.1, matches with the injuries detected by the post-mortem doctor on the body of the deceased. 8. We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective counsel and perused the materials available on record. 9. Though the prosecution had projected P.W.2 and P.W.3, claiming them to have accompanied P.W.1 and the deceased during the morning walk to attend nature's call, both these witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution and hence, were treated as hostile witnesses. Thus, P.W.1 alone, who is the father of the deceased, was examined before the Trial Court, as an eye-witness to the incident. In his oral testimony, he speaks about the earlier incident that occurred on 20.12.2017, when the wife of the deceased had left to her father's house after a quarrel. He also mentions about the quarrel and the assault which the accused and his daughters picked up with the deceased, when he went to bring back his wife. P.W.1 had thereafter convinced his son/deceased and offered to go with him after 2 days to bring back his wife. It is based on this incident that motive has been attributed on the accused for having committed the crime on 24.12.2017. 10. The defense, during the course of cross-examination, was not able to elucidate any adverse statements to discredit the evidence of P.W.1 on the motive aspect. Regarding the incident, P.W.1 had justified that on 24.12.2017 at about 05.45 A.M., the deceased was walking about 30 feet ahead of him, when the accused attacked him suddenly with a knife. He has also spoken about the injuries caused by the accused on the deceased with a knife over his left neck. Regarding the incident, P.W.1 had justified that on 24.12.2017 at about 05.45 A.M., the deceased was walking about 30 feet ahead of him, when the accused attacked him suddenly with a knife. He has also spoken about the injuries caused by the accused on the deceased with a knife over his left neck. His testimony thus establishes his presence at the scene of occurrence and his overt act of attacking the deceased. 11. The doctor (P.W.8), who conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased, had opined that the death would have been caused due to multiple stab injuries in the neck of the deceased. The post-mortem certificate (Ex.P12) also records the damage to the carotid artery. Thus, the overt act attributed to the accused with regard to the stab injuries co-relates with the doctor's evidence, as well as the post-mortem certificate. 12. This apart, the biological report (Ex.P9) has confirmed the blood on M.O.5, M.O.6, M.O.7 and M.O.9 as human blood belonging to O group. Likewise, the serological report (Ex.P10) confirms the deceased's blood group as O. 13. When the evidence of P.W.1 is cogently analysed with the oral evidence of P.W.7 – Forensic Expert and P.W.8 – post-mortem doctor, together with Exs.P7 to P11, we have no difficulty in concluding that P.W.1 had witnessed the deceased on the fateful day, committing the offence of murder. 14. P.W.6 is the Village Administrative Officer, before whom the accused had appeared with a blood stained knife and confessed to the crime. Based on his confession, the Investigating Officer had recorded his arrest and recovered his blood stained dresses (M.O.4 and M.O.5), as well as the knife (M.O.1). 15. It is no doubt true that the extra-judicial confession by itself is a weak piece of evidence. However, when such a confession statement is read along with the evidence of the eye-witness and the medical evidences, its evidentiary value increases and supports the case of the prosecution. 16. In ' Joseph Vs. State of Kerala ' reported in (2003) 1 SCC 465 and ' State of Haryana Vs. Inder Singh ' reported in (2002) 9 SCC 537 , it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Court should deal with the statement of sole eye-witness cautiously and after testing on the touchstone of the evidence tendered by other evidences available on record. Inder Singh ' reported in (2002) 9 SCC 537 , it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Court should deal with the statement of sole eye-witness cautiously and after testing on the touchstone of the evidence tendered by other evidences available on record. But at the same time, such a course can be adopted only if evidence had such a witness is credible, reliable, in tune with the case of the prosecution and inspires implicit confidence. In 'Ramnaresh & others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh' reported in (2012) 4 SCC 257 , reference was made to the cases in Jospeh and Inder Singh (supra) and thus held ' The principles stated in these judgments are indisputable. None of these judgments say that the testimony of the sole eyewitness cannot be relied upon or conviction of an accused cannot be based upon the statement of the sole eyewitness to the crime. All that is needed is that the statement of the sole eyewitness should be reliable, should not leave any doubt in the mind of the court and has to be corroborated by other evidence produced by the prosecution in relation to commission of the crime and involvement of the accused in committing such a crime.' 17. The learned counsel for the appellant attempted to place reliance on the oral statement of the Investigating Officer (P.W.11), who had deposed that after arresting the accused, he had referred him to the Government Hospital for treatment of an injury in his right palm. The injury was also recorded in the Accident Register (Ex.P21). According to the learned counsel, this injury was not at all explained by the Investigating Officer and therefore, the possibility of a scuffle between the accused and the deceased during the occurrence, cannot be ruled out. 18. On conclusion of the trial, when the incriminating circumstances were put forth to the accused, he had not come out with any explanation at all. Likewise, there is absolutely not even a single suggestion during the course of examination of P.W.1 or the Investigating Officer (P.W.11) to this effect. 19. On the other hand, the defence had attempted to bring in a theory of alibi by introducing the accused's daughter as a defence witness (D.W.1). According to her, the accused had left for his work at 05.00 A.M. itself on 24.12.2017 and had denied his presence at the scene of occurrence. 19. On the other hand, the defence had attempted to bring in a theory of alibi by introducing the accused's daughter as a defence witness (D.W.1). According to her, the accused had left for his work at 05.00 A.M. itself on 24.12.2017 and had denied his presence at the scene of occurrence. However, this statement of D.W.1 has absolutely no corroboration with any other piece of evidence let in before the Trial Court. Neither does the theory of alibi give support to the alternate defence of the accused having sustained injury during the occurrence. If at all the defence intends to rely upon the unexplained injury on the body of the accused, necessary suggestions ought to have been put forth to either P.W.1 or the Investigating Officer (P.W.11). Having failed to do so, it would now not be open to the defence to raise it at the appellate stage. 20. The Trial Court, on consideration of the evidence of P.W.1, as well as the medical evidences, had come to the conclusion that the accused had committed the offence of murder, owing to the motive of his estranged relationship with his daughter. When the eye-witnesses, as well as the medical evidences are appreciated co-jointly, we are of the affirmed view that the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused. 21. For all the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merits in the grounds raised in this Criminal Appeal. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.