All the brothers haddifference of opinion as to the right of using a pathway.The deceasedMadasamy was claiming that the passage exclusively belonged to him and it shouldnot be used by others.While the matter stood thus, on 18.02.2005, the deceasedMadasamy set fire to the withered plants.The fire spread to accused No.1'sfield also and caused some damage to the plants.This was the motive for theoccurrence.(b)On 20.02.2005, when the deceased Madasamy and his wifeP.W.2 were doing work in their well situate in their land, at about 8.00 a.m.,accused Nos.1 and 2 came there, abused Madasamy and accused No.1 inflicted a cutinjury with aruval on Madasamy's left side of the neck, while accused No.2 cuthim on the back of the neck.When P.W.2 raised alarm, accused No.1 abused herand cut on her left cheek along with her left ear and accused No.2 similarlyabused her and cut on her left palm, in which P.W.2 lost her left thumb.P.W.1,P.W.5 and others have also witnessed the occurrence.Madasamy died on the spot.Both the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.P.W.5 and P.W.7 tookP.W.2 to Government Hospital, after instructing P.W.1 to inform about theaccident to the police.(c)P.W.3, the Doctor attached to Government Hospital, gavetreatment to P.W.2 and referred her for better treatment to Tirunelveli MedicalCollege Hospital.M.Os.4 to 7 arethe X-rays.Ex.P-5 is the X-ray Expert's Report.M.Os.1 to 3 are thebloodstained personal wearing apparels of P.W.2 recovered by the police from herin the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital.(d)On 20.02.2005 at about 11.00 a.m., when P.W.15, Sub-Inspector of Police, was on duty in the Sankarankovil Taluk Police Station,P.W.1 appeared before him and gave Ex.P-22 complaint, which was recorded byP.W.15 and on the strength of Ex.P-1, P.W.15 registered a case in CrimeNo.41/2005 under Sections 302 and 307 IPC.P-23 is the first informationreport prepared by him.He despatched the same to the concerned MagistrateCourt and copies to the higher police officials.(e)P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of copy ofEx.P-23 FIR, took up the case for investigation.He proceeded to the scene ofoccurrence, made an observation and in the presence of witnesses prepared Ex.P-24, the observtion mahazar and also drew Ex.P-25, the rough sketch.He alsorecovered M.O.12, bloodstained mud and M.O.13, sample mud, from the place ofoccurrence under Ex.P-26, the mahazar.Therafter, in the presence ofpanchayatdars and witnesses, the Investigator conducted inquest on the body ofthe deceased and prepared Ex.P-27, the inquest report.(Judgment of the Court was Delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM,J) The appellants, who stood charged and tried by the trialcourt, namely the Court of Additional Sessions No.I, Tirunelveli, inS.C.No.227/2005 under Sections 302, 307 and 294(b) IPC, were found guilty andsentenced to undergo imprisonments as detailed below.(a)Convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo lifeimprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo sixmonths rigorous imprisonment.(b)Convicted under under Section 307 IPC and Sentenced undergo rigorousimprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default toundergo three months rigorous imprisonment.(c)Found not guilty under Section 294(b) IPC and acquitted of the charge.(a)Convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo lifeimprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo sixmonths rigorous imprisonment.(b)Convicted under under Section 326 IPC and Sentenced undergo rigorousimprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default toundergo three months rigorous imprisonment.(c)Found not guilty under Section 294(b) IPC and acquitted of the charge.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal has beenbrought forth by the appellants.He sent the body forpostmortem with Ex.P-3, the requisition.(f)P.W.3, the Doctor, on receipt of Ex.P-3, the requisition,started the postmortem at 4.55 p.m. on 20.02.2005 and concluded the same at 6.00p.m.and found the following injuries on the body of the deceased.(i)A transverse cut incised wound of 15cm x 5cm x 8 cm in front of neck,starting from the left side of neck and passes in front of neck, above thethyroid cartilage and ends close to right ear.O/D. under lying muscular vesselsare cut Larynx cut.(ii)A transverse cut incised wound of 14cm x 6 cm x 7cm over back of cheekstarting from the left ear passes over the back of neck, over cervical vertebraand ends below right metoid process.C/D underlying muscles, cervical vertebraand vessels are cut."Ex.P-4 is the postmortem certificate issued by him.P.W.3 was of the opinionthat the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due toinjury Nos.1 and 2, 9 to 12 hours prior to postmortem.(g)After postmortem, P.W.12, the Police Constable, whoaccompanied the body to the Hospital for postmortem, recovered M.Os.8 to 11, thepersonal wearing apparels of the deceased and handed them over to theInvestigator.(h)In continuation of the investigation, P.W.16, theInvestigator, examined some witnesses on 21.02.2005 and recorded theirstatements.Accused Nos.1 and 2 surrendered before the Tenkasi Magistrate.Oncoming to know the same, P.W.16, the Investigator, filed an affidavit before theCourt seeking police custody of the accused and accordingly they were taken onpolice custody.On enquiry, accused Nos.1 and 2 voluntarily gave separateconfessional statements.P-28 and P-29 are the admissible portions of theconfessional statements given by accused Nos.1 and 2 respectively, pursuant towhich, M.O.15, bloodstained aruval produced by accused No.1 and M.O.16,blodstained aruval produced by accused No.2, were recovered under Exs.P-30 andP-31 Mahazars, respectively.(i)All the material objects recovered from the place ofoccurrence, from the body of the deceased and also from the accused weresubjected to chemical analysis.Ex.P-18 is the Chemical Examiner's Report andEx.P-19 is the Serologist's Report.On completion of the investigation,P.W.16, the Investigator, filed final report against both the accused underSections 302, 307 and 294(b) IPC.3.The final report was taken on file by the concernedMagistrate and the same was committed to the Court of Session.Necessarycharges were framed by the trial court against the accused.On completion of the evidence on the side ofthe prosecution, the accused/appellants were questioned under Section 313 of theCode of Criminal Procedure about the incriminating materials found against himin the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the accused/appellants denied allof them as false.No witness was examined on the side of the defence and alsono document was marked.The trial court heard the arguments advanced and onconsideration of the evidence adduced, found the accused/appellants guilty andimposed imprisonment as stated in the earlier part of this Judgment.Hence,this appeal at the instance of the appellants.4.Advancing his arguments on behalf of the appellant, thelearned counsel for the appellant would raise the following points.(a)In the instant case, P.W.1, who is stated to be an eye-witnessand given Ex.P-22 complaint, has turned hospital and therefore Ex.P-22 was notin any way helpful to the prosecution case and in such circumstances it is notsafe to convict the appellants based on the solitary and uncorroboratedtestimony of P.W.2, who is the wife of the deceased Madasamy.(b)Learned counsel would further add that in the instant case, P.W.2has sustained injuries in the occurrence that has taken place at 'kanmoi', asper the statement given before P.W.3, the doctor, who examined P.W.2 and gavetreatment to her, but, according to the prosecution, the occurrence has takenplace near the well in the filed of the deceased Madasamy.He would furthersubmit that the distance between the field and the kanmoi is 1 k.m.and thus itwould be quite clear, according to P.W.2, she has sustained injuries not in theplace where Madasamy was attacked and therefore she could have witnessed theoccurrence in which her husband was attacked.(c)Added further, learned counsel submitted that in the instant caseP.W.2 has given categorical admission that they took the food at 7.00 a.m. asusual and went to the field for work and the occurrence has taken place at about8.00 a.m. and now as per P.W.3, the doctor, who conducted autopsy, the stomachwas empty and hence the medical evidence was contrary to the evidence of P.W.2and hence the occurrence would not have taken place at the time projected by theprosecution.He would further add that as a matter of fact, the Doctor hasdeposed that the deceased would have taken food 3 to 6 hours prior to his deathand therefore the time of death could not be the time as alleged by theprosecution.(d)It is the further submission of the learned counsel thataccording to P.W.2, before she was taken to the hospital, they went to thepolice station and informed the police about the incident but, the saidcomplaint has been suppressed by the prosecution which is fatal to theprosecution case.(e)Adding further, learned counsel would submit that the occurrencehas taken place at 8.00 a.m. on 20.02.2005, but the first information about theoccurrence has been given to the police only at 11.00 a.m. and in turn the FIRhas reached the Court only at 6.00 p.m. and there is delay in registering thecase as well as the FIR reaching the Court, which is fatal to the prosecutioncase.(f)Learned counsel therefore contended that the lower court has notconsidered the materials and the evidence of prosecution witnesses in properperspective and thus recorded an erroneous finding and therefore the appellantsare entitled for acquittal at the hands of this Court.5.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutorappearing for the respondent/State on the above contentions and paid its anxiousconsideration to the rival submissions made and carefully scrutnized thematerials on record.Further, this fact was neverquestioned by the appellants neither before the trial court nor before thisCourt and, therefor,e without impediment, it can be safely recorded thatMadasamy died due to homicidal violence.Insofar as P.W.1 is concerned, he turned hostileand P.W.5 is concerned, though she turned hostile, her evidence is available tothe prosecution as to the place of occurrence.Now, the only eye-witnessavailable was the evidence of P.W.2 and admittedly she is the wife of thedeceased.It is pertinent to point out that P.W.2 is an injured witness.In acase like this, when the witness happened to be an injured witness, unless anduntil strong circumstances or reasons are brought forth or noticed by the Court,it is settled position of law that the evidence of such witness need not bediscarded.In the instant case, according to P.W.2, in the course of sametransaction, immediately the deceased was attacked by accused Nos.1 and 2, wasattacked by both the accused and she sustained multiple injuries.She was takento the hospital by P.W.5 and P.W.7 to the Hospital and she was given treatmentby P.W.3, the doctor and the case came to be registered for the offencespunishable under Section 302 along with other provisions of Indian Penal Codeand the investigation was proceeded with and witnesses have been examined inthat regard.8.The first question would be whether there was any delay inthe registration of the case or in the FIR reaching the Court.The occurrencehad taken place at about 8.00 a.m. in the field of the deceased and leaving thebody of the deceased Madasamy in the field, P.W.2 was initially taken to P.W.3,the Government Doctor and thereafter on the advice of P.W.3, she was taken toTirunelveli Medical College Hospital, following which P.W.1 has proceeded to thepolice station and gave Ex.P-22 complaint before P.W.15, the Sub-Inspector ofPolice, who recorded the same at about 11.00 a.m. In the instant case, P.W.1has turned hostile.Though P.W.1 has turned hostile, merely because theinformant himself has turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case,it cannot be a reason to reject the evidence of P.W.2 who is an inured witness.(a)P.W.2 was actually present at the time of occurrence along withher husband, the deceased Madasamy and working in the field.The transaction has taken place nearthe well of the deceased Madasamy when he was working with his wife, P.W.2 andfrom the place of occurrence, bloodstained earth and sample earth have also beentaken and subjected to chemical analysis and found contained the same bloodgroup of the deceased.Apart from this, P.W.5, though turned hostile, in herevidence has stated that she saw the body of the deceased lying near the wellsituate in the field of Madasamy.10.In so far as the second contention that according to P.W.2,they went to the police station before she was taken to the hospital and theyinformed the police and therefore the first information given to the police hasbeen suppressed, the same has got to be rejected for two reasons.When P.W.2was taken to the hospital from the place of occurrence with injuries, she wasactually struggling for her life and she was under fear after seeing the deathof her husband.Under such circumstances, she would not have given anycomplaint to the police.Apart from this, there was no suggestion to the policethat P.W.2 gave another complaint and that has been suppressed.In suchcircumstances, there could not have been any other complaint except Ex.P-22 andhence there is no question of suppression of any other complaint.11.The other contention is that as per P.W.2 they took thefood at 7.00 a.m. and went to the field for work, but the opinion of thepostmortem doctor, P.W.3, was that the stomach was found empty at the time ofpostmortem and therefore the occurrence must have taken place prior to the timeprojected by the prosecution.P.W.2 is a rustic lady and she has added that to work in the field theyleave home at 7.00 a.m. itself.Now merely because such an answer was givenby P.W.2, that by itself would not, in the opinion of the court, shake thefabric of the prosecution case.From the evidence of P.W.5, though turnedhostile, it wold be available to the prosecution to the extent of place ofoccurrence and thus the prosecution has proved that the occurrence has takenplace in the field of Madasamy and P.W.2 was present and she has also beenattacked and she happened to be an injured witness and her evidence has inspiredthe confidence of the Court.12.Therefore, in the above circumstances, the prosecution hasproved its case beyond reasonable doubt that when P.W.2 and her husband, thedeceased Madasamy, were working in their field, the appellants/accused, armedwith weapons, have gone to the filed and attacked the deceased on his neck andcaused his instantaneous death and when it was questioned by P.W.2, accusedNo.1/appellant No.1 cut on her left cheek along with left ear and accusedNo.2/appellant No.2 cut on her left palm, in which P.W.2 lost her left thumb.Hence the Lower Court is perfectly correct in recording its findings as per thecharges and imposing punishments as detailed above.This Court is unable to seeany error factually or legally in the judgment of the trial court, which doesnot require any interference.13.Accordingly, the criminal appeal fails and the same isdismissed.1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.2.I-Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.3.The Inspector of Police Sankarankovil Taluk Police Station Tirunelveli District.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai.

Cited provisions: Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code; Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code