- (1.) This appeal by a solitary appellant arises out of the following facts: O n 11/8/1998 the deceased Ponnusa m y boarded a van bearing No.TN-72-Z-9171 belonging to P W.7 in order to bring some fish from Tuticorin to his village Puliyankkudi-P W.1 was the driver of the vehicle and P W.2 was its cleaner. As the van was on its way to Tuticorin the appellant Anil Ku m ar also boarded the van. Itappears that at about 11.00 p.m. P W.1 was driving the vehicle w h ereas P W.2 was sleeping when some quarrel took place between the appellant and the deceased and consequent to the quarrel the appellant pushed the deceased out of the van and then ran away. As the deceased had not returned ho m e till16/8/1998 his wife P W.4 went in search of him but to no avail.Thereafter, Subra m a nian, a brother in law of the deceased, went to the police station and lodged a report and on its basis an FIR was registered. As the number of vehicle had been disclosed in the report, the police exa mined the owner the driver, and the cleaner after the dead body had been found on 16/8/1998. Both the P w s in their statements under Sec.161 Cr.P.C. narrated the story as given above. The dead body was also subjected to a post-m orte m exa mination by the Doctor, P W.3 w h o found nine injuries thereon and opined that the death was due to m ultiple injuries to vital organs. He further opined that the death could have happened between 32-48 hours prior to the post-m orte m exa mination. O n the co m pletion of the trial, the accused was charged under Sec.302 of the IPC and as he pleaded not guilty,he was brought to trial.
(2.) The learned Sessions Judge relying primarily on the evidence of P W.2 (P W.1 having turned hostile),and P W.3 the Doctor and the recovery of the m urder weap o n, a knife, at the instance of the appellant, and the fact that the deceased and the appellant had been last seen together in the van, convicted the appellant for an offence under Sec.302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprison m e nt for life and a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default,to undergo RI for a period of 2 years. This judgment; has been affirmed by the High Court in appeal. The m atter is before us by way of special leave.
(3.) Mr. Gireesh Ku m ar, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised several argu m e nts during the hearing of the appeal. He has pointed out that as P W.1, the driver had turned hostile, the reliance of the Courts, though insignificant, on his statement, to corroborate the evidence of P W.2, was not justified. He has also sub mitted that the evidence of P W.2 itselfwas a m bivalent not only as to the actual incident but also on the question of the identity of the appellant and as such, could not be believed. He has further argued that as per the case of the prosecution, the m urder had taken taken place on 11/8/1998 and the post m orte m had been done in the afternoon on 17/8/1998 and as per the doctor's report, the death had occurred between 3-4 days prior to the post m orte m, falsified the prosecution story as it brought the date of m urder to 13 or 14 August, 1998.;