(a) P.W.1 Kannammal is the sister of the deceased Mallika.They wereresiding at Bagawathiamman Temple Street at Kottaimedu, Thottiyam.P.Ws.2, 3, 4and 5 are also the residents of the same street and are also the relatives ofthe deceased.Heused to often quarrel with Mallika in a drunken mood.Mallika was unmarried.On 3.1.2007 at about 6.30 a.m., when the deceased went out to attend nature'scall, the accused restrained her and asked to come to his house that night.Then, P.W.1 questioned the conduct of the accused.On the same day, P.W.1 went to the ration shop in front of Venkateswara CinemaTheatre at Thottiyam for receiving the token to get free saree.At about 11.00a.m., when the deceased also went over there, the accused quarreled with her andthreatened her that he would kill her. P.W.3 also witnessed the same.At about12 Noon, when P.W.1 was in her house, P.W.5 informed her that the accused wasquarrelling with Mallika in the public road.Immediately, P.W.1 went to theplace.At about 1.15 p.m., the deceased was comingin front of the house of one Periyakkal.At the street junction, the accusedwaylaid Mallika, stabbed with a knife on her hip, thigh and again on stomach.When she fell down, he sat on her and gave number of blows.P.W.4 has alsowitnessed the occurrence.P.Ws.1 to 4 tried to go near Mallika; but, theaccused threatened them with dire consequences.Immediately, the accused fledaway from the place of occurrence.The said Mallika met her death.ImmediatelyP.W.1 went to the respondent police station and gave Ex.P1, the report.(b) P.W.8, the Sub Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent policestation, on receipt of Ex.P1, the complaint, given by P.W.1, registered a casein Crime No.5/2007 under Sec.302 of IPC, at 2.00 p.m. The express FIR Ex.P12,was sent to the Court.(c) P.W.9, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the FIR,took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and preparedEx.P6, the observation mahazar, and Ex.P13, the rough sketch.Then, herecovered the material objects from the place of occurrence.He conductedinquest on the dead body of Mallika in the presence of witnesses andpanchayatdars and prepared Ex.P14, the inquest report.Then, he enquired thewitnesses and recorded their statements.The dead body was sent to theGovernment Hospital for the purpose of postmortem along with Ex.P10, therequisition.The accused volunteered togive a confessional statement which was recorded in the presence of witnesses.The admissible part is marked as Ex.P8, pursuant to which he produced M.O.1,knife, which was recovered under a cover of Ex.P9, the mahazar.He was sent forjudicial remand.(g) P.Ws.1 to 4 were taken to the Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur, andtheir statements were recorded under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C., which were marked asExs.P2 to P5 respectively.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This criminal appeal has arisen from the judgment of the SessionsDivision, Tiruchirappalli, made in S.C.No.144 of 2007 whereby the soleaccused/appellant stood charged under Sections 341, 302 and 506(ii) of IPC andon trial, he was found guilty as per the charges and awarded life imprisonmentalong with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence under Sec.302 IPC and fiveyears Rigorous Imprisonment under Sec.506(ii) IPC.No separate sentence wasgiven under Sec.341 IPC.2.Necessary facts for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus:(d) P.W.7, the Senior Assistant Surgeon, attached to the GovernmentHospital, Musiri, on receipt of the said requisition, conducted autopsy on thedead body of Mallika and has given Ex.P11, the postmortem certificate, whereinhe opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhagedue to injuries to the vital organs about 20 to 24 hours prior to autopsy.(e) On 5.1.2007, P.W.9, the Investigator, came to know that the accusedsurrendered before the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tiruchirappalli.(f) P.W.10, the Inspector of Police, took up further investigation.Hefiled an application for police custody, which was ordered.All the material objects recovered from the place ofoccurrence and from the dead body, and also M.O.1, knife, recovered from theaccused, were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences Departmentwhich resulted in two reports namely Ex.P22, the Chemical Analyst's report, andEx.P25, the Serologist's report.On completion of investigation, theInvestigating Officer filed the final report.3.The case was committed to Court of Sessions, and necessary charges wereframed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 10witnesses and also relied on 25 exhibits and 7 material objects.On completionof the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned underSec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidenceof the prosecution witnesses.He denied them as false.No defence witness wasexamined.The trial Court heard the arguments advanced, and took the view thatthe prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, and hence, itentered a judgment of conviction and sentence which is the subject matter ofchallenge before this Court.4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, Mr.T.Senthilkumar,learned Counsel would submit that according to the prosecution, the occurrencehas taken place on 3.1.2007 at about 1.15 p.m. in a public place; that P.Ws.1 to5, who, according to the prosecution, were occurrence witnesses, were allclosely related to the deceased and also to P.W.1, her sister; that it would bequite clear that they were all interested and partisan witnesses; that accordingto the prosecution, there was a quarrel between both the deceased and theaccused even by 6.30 a.m. on that day, and it continued till the time ofoccurrence; that as far as the other part of the quarrel is concerned, all thewitnesses have given inconsistent versions; that according to P.W.6, the V.A.O.,he immediately received the information and went to the spot, and at about 1.30p.m., he was available there; but, the police did not come, and it was he whogave information to the police; that under the circumstances, the claim of theprosecution that P.W.1 went over to the police station and gave a complaint asfound under Ex.P1, was not correct, and it was rather false; that further,according to P.W.1, she was in her house, and it was P.W.5 who informed that theaccused was quarrelling with the deceased, and only on that information, sheproceeded towards the nearby ration shop; but, P.W.5 would claim that P.W.1 wasin the house, and he accompanied P.W.1, and hence, the claim of P.W.1 that shewas informed by P.W.5 was nothing but false; and that under the circumstances,both these witnesses could not have been in the place of occurrence at all.5.Added further the learned Counsel that according to the prosecution,P.Ws.3 and 4 went over to the ration shop and on their way back, they saw theoccurrence; that as far as P.W.3 was concerned, she did not go to the rationshop at all; but, her husband P.W.4 went; that contrarily, P.W.4 has deposedthat it was not he who went to the ration shop; but, it was his wife P.W.3, andthus, it is highly doubtful whether P.Ws.3 and 4 have gone to the ration shop atall on that day and witnessed the occurrence, and that part of the evidencecannot be believed; that according to the witnesses, number of occasions, theaccused attacked her with knife; but only a few injuries are noticed, and thus,the eyewitnesses could not give correct account for the injuries sustained; thatall would indicate that these witnesses could not have seen the occurrence atall; that apart from that, the medical opinion canvassed, was not in favour ofthe prosecution, and hence, the prosecution has not proved the case beyondreasonable doubt.6.The learned Counsel would further submit that in the instant case, therewas a quarrel as spoken to by the witnesses, at about 1.15 p.m. at the place ofoccurrence; that due to the quarrel, the accused has lost his control and hasacted so; that even if the fact that he has stabbed the deceased to death istaken to be proved, that would not attract the penal provision of murder; thatit is only culpable homicide not amounting to murder; and that this legal aspecthas got to be considered by this Court.7.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all theabove contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.8.It is not in controversy that one Mallika, the sister of P.W.1, was doneto death in an incident that took place at about 1.15 p.m. on 3.1.2007, at theplace of occurrence as put forth by the prosecution.Following the inquest madeby P.W.9, the Investigator, the dead body was subjected to postmortem by P.W.7,the Doctor, who has categorically opined and also deposed before the Court thatshe died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained.The factthat Mallika died out of homicidal violence was never questioned by theappellant/accused, and hence, without any impediment it could be factuallyrecorded so.9.In order to substantiate the charge that it was the accused who stabbedher to death, and when the eyewitnesses intervened, he criminally intimidatedthem, the prosecution had examined five witnesses as occurrence witnesses.Itis true that all these witnesses were related to the deceased and P.W.1, hersister.At the same time, it is to be pointed out that they were all closelyrelated to the accused also.Under such circumstances, the first comment madethat the witnesses are closely related and thus, they were interested in thedeceased, and they have come forward to give such evidence cannot becountenanced.All these eyewitnesses have clearly spoken in one voice that theywere all present at the place of occurrence.According to P.W.1, she was in thehouse, and on information by P.W.5, she rushed over to see the quarrel.As far as P.Ws.3 and 4 areconcerned, they were all near the ration shop.The fact that on that day,tokens for free saree were issued in the village was not in dispute.Thus, allthe witnesses have claimed that they went over to the ration shop only for thepurpose of getting the free token on that day.The occurrence has taken placeat 1.15 p.m. in a public place nearby the ration shop.All the witnesses hadoccasion to see the same.Now, the contention put forth by the learned Counselfor the appellant that according to P.W.1, she was in the house, and she wasinformed by P.W.5 about the quarrel; but, according to P.W.5, she was in thehouse, and he accompanied P.W.1 need not be given much importance for the simplereason that from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5 it would be quite clear that theyrushed to the spot.Who gave information is not the material fact.Whetherthey went to the place of occurrence and whether the occurrence has taken placeare material.Now all the witnesses have spoken in one voice.10.Apart from the above, the evidence of these witnesses stood fullycorroborated by the medical evidence canvassed.The postmortem certificate hasalso been issued.In the case on hand, the occurrence has taken place at about1.15 p.m. The FIR has come into existence at 2.00 p.m., and the case has beenregistered, and it has also been sent to the Court within a reasonable time.Theinquest has been made by the Investigator within a short span of time, and thewitnesses have also been examined, and their statements have been sent to theCourt on the next day.All put together would be pointing to the truth of theprosecution case.Hence, the prosecution has sufficient evidence pointing tothe complicity of the assailant namely the appellant before this Court.From the evidence available, it is quiteclear that the accused was 37 years; but the said Mallika was 45 years, and shewas unmarried.There was no proposal by him to marry her.On the contrary, hewas making a demand to share bed, which was thoroughly reflection of his immoralattitude.It was against the individual freedom and social order.According tothe evidence, it was he who often quarrelled with her in drunken mood, callingher to his house.There was nothing to provoke him.Naturally, one wouldexpect her to refuse the same, and nothing else could be expected, but, only arepulsive answer from the lady.Accordingly, she did.Thus, nothing was thereto provoke him.He armed with a weapon namely knife, stabbed herindiscriminately and caused her death instantaneously.The same was rightly done by the lower Court.12.In the result, this criminal appeal must fail and fails, and the sameis dismissed.1.The Principal Sessions Judge Tiruchirappalli2.The Inspector of Police Thottiyam Police Station Trichy District (Cr.No.5/2007)3.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court

Relevant sections: Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code