ORDER

1. This appeal by a solitary appellant arises out of the following facts: on 11-8-1998 the deceased Ponnusamy boarded a van bearing No. TN 72 Z 9171 belonging to PW 7 in order to bring some fish from Tuticorin to his Village Puliyankkudi-PW 1 was the driver of the vehicle and PW 2 was its cleaner. As the van was on its way to Tuticorin the appellant Anil Kumar also boarded the van. It appears that at about 11.00 p.m. PW 1 was driving the vehicle whereas PW 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.

2. As the deceased had not returned home till 16-8-1998, his wife PW 4 went in search of him but to no avail. Thereafter, Subramanian, 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 examined the owner, the driver, and the cleaner after the dead body had been found on 16-8-1998. Both the PWs in their statements under Section 161 CrPC narrated the story as given above. The dead body was also subjected to a post-mortem examination by the doctor, PW 3 who found nine injuries thereon and opined that the death was due to multiple injuries to vital organs. He further opined that the death could have happened between 32-48 hours prior to the post-mortem examination.

3. On the completion of the trial (sic investigation), the accused was charged under Section 302 IPC and as he pleaded not guilty, he was brought to trial. The learned Sessions Judge relying primarily on the evidence of PW 2 (PW 1 having turned hostile), and PW 3, the doctor and the recovery of the murder weapon, 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 Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2000; in default, to undergo RI for a period of two years. This judgment has been affirmed by the High Court in appeal. The matter is before us by way of special leave.

4. Mr Gireesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised several arguments during the hearing of the appeal. He has pointed out that as PW 1, the driver had turned hostile, the reliance of the courts, though insignificant, on his statement, to corroborate the evidence of PW 2, was not justified. He has also submitted that the evidence of PW 2 itself was ambivalent 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 murder had taken place on 11-8-1998 and the post-mortem 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-mortem, falsified the prosecution story as it brought the date of murder to 13-8-1998 or 14-8-1998.

5. Mr S. Thananjayan, learned counsel for the State has, however, supported the judgment of the trial court and submitted that there was no reason whatsoever to disbelieve PW 2, who was a truly independent witness and bore no animosity with the appellant and none had even been suggested by the defence. He has further submitted that the minor discrepancy in his statement with regard to the date of the murder being either 10-8-1998 or 11-8-1998, could be attributed to a failure in memory as his statement had been recorded more than four years after the incident.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. It is true that PW 2, does prima facie, appear to be an independent witness and there is not even the slightest suggestion from the defence that he was in any way inimical to the appellant. To our mind, however, this is not the only test in order to determine the veracity of a prosecution