a)P.W.1 is the husband of P.W.2. P.W.3 is the brother of P.W.2. P.W.4 isalso the resident of Kombadi village.The appellant/accused and the otheraccused, in whose respect the case was split up, by name Chinnasamy, wereinvolved in prohibition cases registered by the Maniyachi Police station.Two months prior to the occurrence, theaccused/appellant has stolen Rs.300/- from the shop of one Srinivasan and a casewas registered by the respondent police station.From that time onwards, theaccused/appellant was absconding.Donations were collected for the festivaloccasion in the temple at Kombadi village by the other accused Chinnasamy, whowas the Nattamai in the village.In the meeting convened, accounts were demandedby P.W.1 and others.The said Chinnasamy refused to hand over the accounts.The next day, on 21.11.1992 atabout 8.30 a.m., P.W.1 was reaping grass in the nearby field.When P.Ws.2 and 3and others were inside the house, the deceased Suseela was playing in front ofthe house.At about 9.00 a.m., P.Ws.2 and 3 and others heard the distressing cryof the child.They came outside and witnessed the accused taking the child onhis shoulder along with aruval in his hand and was running.Further, they raisedalarm.At that time P.W.1, who was in the field, also turned and saw the accusedwith the child.When all of them were chasing the accused, the accused cut thechild indiscriminately with the aruval and caused the death of the child.Theaccused, leaving the dead body, fled away from the place of occurrence.d)P.W.1 went to the respondent police station at about 12.30 p.m., whereP.W.7 was the Sub Inspector of Police, to whom P.W.1 gave Ex.P.5, the F.I.R. was despatched to the court.Onreceipt of the copy of the F.I.R., the Inspector of Police one Manoharan, whowas attached to the respondent police station, took up the investigation.Duringinvestigation, he died and hence, P.W.11, Manoharakumar, the Inspector ofPolice, after perusing the case records, gave evidence on behalf of him also.e)The said Investigator took up the investigation, proceeded to the spot,made an inspection in the presence of the witnesses and prepared Ex.P.7, theobservation mahazar and Ex.P.13, the rough sketch.He conducted inquest on thedead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars andprepared Ex.P.14, the inquest report.He recovered material objects from theplace of occurrence, namely M.O.6, bloodstained earth and M.O.7, sample earth.The dead body was sent to the Government Hospital, Ottapidaram for the purposeof post-mortem along with the requisition.f)P.W.5, the Doctor attached to Ottapidaram Government hospital, onreceipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of thedeceased.He has issued Ex.P.3, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he hasnarrated the injuries found on the dead body and has also opined that thedeceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuriessustained on her.g)Pending Investigation, the accused was arrested on 12.12.1992 at about7.30 p.m. in the presence of the witnesses.At that time, he gave confessionalstatement, which was recorded by the Investigating Officer.The admissible partof the same was marked as Ex.Following the same, the accused producedM.O.1, aruval, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar in the presence ofthe witnesses.The accused was sent for judicial remand.The dead body was subjected to post-mortem by P.W.5,the Doctor.(The judgment of the court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This criminal appeal has arisen from the judgment of the Fast Track CourtNo.1, Tuticorin made in S.C.No.282 of 2005, whereby the accused/appellant stoodcharged under Section 302 IPC, tried and found guilty as per the charge andawarded with life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default toundergo one year R.I.2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal could bestated thus:P.1, the report, onthe strength of which, a case came to be registered in Crime No.409 of 1992under Section 302 IPC.All the material objectsrecovered from the place of occurrence, from the dead body of the deceased andM.O.1, aruval recovered from the accused were sent for chemical analysis by theForensic Science Department.P.19, the Chemical Analyst's report and Ex.P.20,the Serologist's report were received.On completion of the investigation, theInvestigating Officer has filed the final report.i)The case was split up in respect of one Chinnasamy, against whom thecase was registered under Section 302 r/w S.109 IPC.The case was committed tothe court of sessions and necessary charges were framed.In order tosubstantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and relied on 20exhibits and 7 M.Os.On completion of the evidence on the side of theprosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to theincriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses,which he flatly denied as false.No defence witness was examined.The trialcourt, after considering the submissions made and perusing the materialsavailable, took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyondreasonable doubt and found the accused/appellant guilty and awarded punishment,which is the subject matter of challenge before this court.3.The learned counsel for the appellant, in his sincere attempt inassailing the judgment of the court below, made the following submissions:a)The prosecution has failed to explain an inordinate delay in registeringthe case and also sending the F.I.R. to the nearby Magistrate Court.Theoccurrence has taken place at 9.30 a.m., but the information was given to thepolice only at 12.30 hours and thus, there was an inordinate delay of threehours.Though the case was registered at 12.30 hours, the F.I.R. has reachedthe court at 6.15 p.m. and thus, there was a delay of nearly 6 hours.This wasalso not explained.b)Further, no specific motive is made against the appellant/accused.All the motives wereavailable only against Chinnasamy, against whom the case was registered underSection 302 r/w S.109 IPC, but he was acquitted of the charges, disbelieving theevidence of the very same eyewitnesses.Hence, the lower court should have takenthe same yardstick in respect of the appellant also and should have acquittedthe appellant.But, it has failed to do so.c)The learned counsel would further add that though the prosecution wouldclaim that the weapon was recovered on the confession made by the accused, itwas sent for chemical analysis after a period of 2 years.The ChemicalExaminer's report would reveal that no human blood was detected.Under thesecircumstances, it would be quite clear that the prosecution has not proved thecase beyond reasonable doubt.d)There was a meeting convened, demanding the accounts in respect of thedonations made for the temple festival and there was a refusal by Chinnasamy.But, nowhere in the complaint, it was found.Further, two cases in Crime Nos.408 and 410 of 1992 were registeredagainst the appellant, but these are all nothing, but foisted against theappellant in order to implicate him in the offence.Hence, P.W.1 has givenexaggerated version.So far as the scene of occurrence was concerned, theprosecution has come forward to state that the child was playing in front of thehouse of P.W.1 and the accused took the child from that place and the occurrencehas taken place away from that place.But, when the Investigating Officerprepared the sketch, he has not mentioned the place where-from the child wastaken.Had the child not been taken from the place where it was playing, asalleged by the prosecution, P.Ws.2 and 3 could not have seen the occurrence atall.Hence, their evidence should have been rejected by the trial court.He has issued Ex.P.3, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he hasopined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage dueto the injuries sustained.The fact that the child died out of homicidalviolence was never questioned by the appellant at any stage of proceedings.Hence, without any impediment, it could be recorded so.6.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against theaccused/appellant that it was he, who attached the child and caused her deathinstantaneously, the prosecution rested its case on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and2, the parents of the child and P.W.3, the brother of P.W.2. P.W.3 has turnedhostile.But, the prosecution had to its advantage the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2.From the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it would be quite clear that in the past,number of cases were registered by Maniyachi Police Station against theappellant and one Chinnasamy also, since they were indulging in illicit arrackactivities.Itis also quite clear from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the said Chinnasamyand the appellant were close relatives to each other.Further, the accused wasabsconding for a period of two months pursuant to the theft case registeredagainst him.According to P.Ws.1 and 2, on the date of occurrence, when P.W.2was inside the house, she heard the distressing cry of the child and she cameoutside and found the accused, taking the child in his shoulder with aruval inhis hand and the accused was running.When P.W.2 shouted along with the otherwitness P.W.3, P.W.1 heard the same.According to P.Ws.1 and 2, they werechasing the accused, but they could not reach him.Further, they witnessed theaccused cutting the child indiscriminately with aruval and causing her deathinstantaneously.Despite cross-examination in full, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and2, who are the eyewitnesses, remained unshaken.Now, the contentions put forthby the learned counsel for the appellant have got to be considered.Much commentwas made on the delay caused in registering the case and also despatching theF.I.R. to the court.The place of occurrence is situated 9 Kms.away from therespondent police station.The occurrence has taken place at about 9.30 a.m. Thecase was registered by P.W.7, the Sub Inspector of Police at 12.30 hours.Takinginto consideration the nature of the act committed by the accused and also thefact that the police station is situated 9 Kms.away from the place ofoccurrence, the delay of three hours, in the opinion of the court, is naturaland not deliberate.Further, after registration of the case, it has reached thecourt at 6.15 p.m. Thus, there was a delay of 5 to 6 hours in sending the F.I.R.to the court.away from the police station.Even assumingthat there was delay in sending the F.I.R. to the court, the court is of theconsidered opinion that no prejudice could have been caused to the accused,since there was no further embellishment or improvement in the case, in view ofthe facts and circumstances of the case as narrated above.8.In the instant case, the other contention put forth by the learnedcounsel for the appellant that the appellant had no motive at all has got to berejected.According to P.Ws.1 and 2, the appellant was indulging in illicitarrack activities along with Nattamai Chinnasamy and number of cases have beenregistered by Maniyachi Police Station against the appellant accused.Apart fromthat, when the evidence of P.W.1 was scrutinized, the facts that there wasdemand of accounts by P.W.1 and others and there was denial of renderingaccounts by the said Chinnasamy were spoken by P.W.1 during trial.9.The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused isthat in the instant case, there was delay in placing the material objects forchemical analysis and further, the Serologist's report did not contain humanblood.It is pertinent to point out that though there was delay noticed inplacing the weapon before the Forensic Department and also the report wasreceived that there was no human blood noticed, the court is of the consideredopinion that when direct evidence is available pointing to the act of theaccused, the court cannot reject the prosecution case, though the scientificevidence did not support the prosecution case.Further, Crime Nos.408 and 410 of1992 were registered by the respondent police station against the appellantherein.The contention that in order to show that the appellant was available on21.11.1992, these cases have been registered, cannot be accepted for the simplereason that in a given case where there is direct evidence available, there isno need for the police to register foisted cases.Further, so far as CrimeNo.408 of 1992 was concerned, the specific contention of the prosecution wasthat after the registration of the theft case, the accused was absconding andthereafter, he appeared a day prior to the date of occurrence.10.In the instant case, both the witnesses, namely P.Ws.1 and 2, saw thebarbarous act of the accused/appellant, in which he has attacked the child withthe deadly weapon like aruval and caused her death instantaneously.The act ofthe accused in taking the 4 years old child and killing the same has got to bedealt with sternly.The lower court was perfectly correct in finding theaccused/appellant guilty under Section 302 IPC and awarding life imprisonmentalong with fine and default sentence.Hence, the judgment of the lower courtdoes not require any interference either factually or legally.The criminalappeal must fail.Accordingly, this criminal appeal is dismissed.1.Additional Sessions Court-cum-Fast Track Court-I, Tuticorin.2.The Inspector of Police, Maniyachi Police station, Tuticorin District.3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Cited provisions: Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code