S. Nagamuthu, J. - (1.) The appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No. 77 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri. He stood charged for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC. By judgment, dated 28.02.2013, the Trial Court convicted the accused under Sec. 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ -, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 28.02.2013, the accused is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.
(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: - - "(i) The deceased in this case was one Arumugam. The deceased was a mason by profession. The accused was a construction contractor. On many occasions, the deceased was engaged by the accused for construction work. On account of the same, a sum of Rs. 2,500/ - was due from the accused to the deceased, as coolie. On several occasions, the deceased demanded the accused to pay the said amount. But, the accused was very evasive. Finally, on 01.09.2011, at about 7.30 p.m., the deceased along with P.Ws.1 and 2 had gone to the house of the accused and demanded payment of Rs. 2,500/ -. As the accused was evasive, this resulted in a sudden quarrel between the accused and the deceased. Enraged over the same, it is alleged that the accused took a stick lying there and attacked the deceased repeatedly on his head near the lower jaw, left cheek and other parts of the body. P.W.1 -Bharathi is the daughter -in -law of the deceased. P.W.2 -Madhammal is the sister of the deceased. They raised alarm. The accused ran away from the place of occurrence. The Villagers, on hearing the alarm raised, gathered there. Then, P.W.1 informed her husband (P.W.3 -Ganesh) over phone. Immediately, P.W.3 rushed to the place of occurrence. By that time, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Then, P.Ws.1 to 3 went to the Kadathur Police Station, where P.W.1 made a complaint. (ii) P.W.11 -P.Amudha, the then Sub -Inspector of Police, on receipt of the said complaint (Ex. P.1), registered a case in Crime No. 290 of 2011 under Sec. 302 IPC against the accused. At 11.00 p.m., on 01.09.2011, she forwarded both the documents to Court, which were received by the learned Judicial Magistrate at 6.00 a.m. on 02.09.2011. (iii) P.W.12 -N.Gnanaprakasam, the then Inspector of Police, took up the case for investigation. He proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex. P.2) and Rough Sketch (Ex. P.9) in the presence of P.W.4 -Poorananathan and another witness. Then, he recovered the blood -stained earth (M.O.2) and sample earth (M.O.3) from the place of occurrence in the presence of same witnesses under a mahazar (Ex. P.3). He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased on 02.09.2011 between 8.15 to 11.00 a.m. Then he forwarded the dead body to the hospital for postmortem. (iv) P.W.8 -Dr.Jebakkani of Government Medical College and Hospital, Dharmapuri, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 02.09.2011 at 11.10 a.m. She found the following injuries on the body of the deceased: "External Injuries: - - (1) Laceration right lower jaw 8 x 3 cm x bone depth left mandible fracture. (2) Laceration left eye brow 3 x 1 cm x bone depth. (3) Laceration (left) parietal region 5 x 1 cm x bone depth. (4) Laceration (Left) upper lip 3 x 3 cm left maxilla fracture. (5) Contusion (right) chest 5 x 5 cm. Internal Examination: - - Hyoid bone - Intact. Sternum - Intact. Ribs (R) 4, 5 and 6 fracture Lungs - Right, Left, Pale. Heart - empty c/s. pale. Thoracic cavity - 200 ml of clotted blood present. Stomach - empty. Liver - pale. Spleen - pale. Kidney - Right, Left, Pale. Urinary Bladder empty. External genitalia (N). Head - Frontal bone fracture 5 cm depressed (2) fracture extending from frontal bone to occipital bone 22 cm. Base of skull fracture (3) meninges torn 10 cm (4) 200 ml of clotted blood present in cerebrum over occipital region frontal region." Ex. P.7 is the Post -Mortem Certificate. The Doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to shock and haemorrhage, due to the head injuries. (v) P.W.12 - Mr. N. Gnanaprakasam, the then Inspector of Police, in the course of investigation, arrested the accused on 02.09.2011, at 1.30 p.m., near Malai Veerappan Temple in the presence of P.W.5 -Sathiyamoorthy, the Village Administrative Officer, and another witness. On such arrest, the accused made a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden the Wooden Log. In pursuance to the same, he took P.W.5 and P.W.12 to the said place and produced M.O.1 (Wooden Log) and also a dhothi and a shirt stained with blood. P.W.12 recovered the dhothi (M.O.6) and the shirt (M.O.7) under a Mahazar (Ex. P.4) in the presence of the same witnesses. On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand and handed over the Material Objects also to the Court. Then, he recovered the clothes, which were found on the dead body of the deceased. At his request, the Material Objects were sent for Chemical Analysis Report. The report revealed that there were blood -stains on the Material Objects, except the Wooden Log (M.O.1). On completing the investigation, he laid the chargesheet against the accused. (vi) Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed the charge under Sec. 302 IPC against the sole accused. The accused denied the same. During the trial, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution as many as 12 witnesses were examined and 15 documents and 11 material objects were exhibited. Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. They have vividly spoken about the entire occurrence. P.W.3, husband of P.W.1, on receiving the telephonic message from P.W.1, rushed to the place of occurrence and then, he took P.W.1 to the Kadathur Police Station and made a complaint. P.W.4 has spoken about the preparation of Observation Mahazar (Ex. P.2) and Rough Sketch (Ex. P.9) and also recovery of Material Objects from the place of occurrence. P.W.5 has spoken about the arrest of the accused, the disclosure statement made by him, and the consequential recovery of M.O.1 -Wooden Log and dhoti and shirt with blood -stains. P.W.6 has not stated anything incriminating against the accused and he has spoken only about the hearsay information. P.W.7 has spoken about the fact that a sum of Rs. 2,500/ - was due as coolie from the accused to the deceased. P.W.8 -Dr.Jebakkani has spoken about the post -mortem conducted by her and her final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.9 -Rajamani, the then Head Constable, has stated that he carried the First Information Report from the Police Station and handed over the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Pappireddipatty, at 6.00 a.m. on 02.09.2011. P.W.11, the then Sub -Inspector of Police, has spoken about the registration of the case on the complaint of P.W.1. P.W.12, the Inspector of Police, has spoken about the investigation done by him and the filing of the final report. (vii) When the accused was questioned under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied them as false. But, he has not chosen to examine any witness nor to mark any document. His defence was a total denial. Having considered all the above, the Trial Court convicted the appellant/accused for the offence under Sec. 302 IPC. That is how, the appellant/accused is now before this Court with this appeal."
(3.) We have heard Mr. S. Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. M. Maharaja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.;