Kemal Pasha, J.

1. The accused in S.C.No.123 of 2008 of the Kottayam Sessions Division, who stands convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, has come up in appeal.

2. The accusation against the appellant is one of uxoricide. The accused, a Carpenter by profession, had always suspected the infidelity of his wife, deceased Usha. There were frequent quarrels between the appellant and the deceased at their house. The deceased contacted her mother (PW 2) and brother (PW7) who are residing at Cherthala over the phone and complained them about the harassment meted out to her by the appellant and requested PW2 to reach their house immediately. PW 7 sent PW 2 over to the house of the appellant on 16.6.2005, a Thursday. On 17.6.2005 after having lunch, PW 2 went to the nearby house of the elder brother of the appellant to watch a movie in the television. By about 4.30 pm., on hearing a scream of a woman, PW 2 rushed back to the house of the appellant. On reaching the house, she could see the deceased lying in a pool of blood in the bedroom and the accused standing near her with MO1 chisel in his hand. On seeing PW 2, the appellant declared that he has done away with her, and by dropping MO1 chisel near the body of the deceased, he stepped out of the house. The cries of PW2 invited the attention of the neighbours.

3. Among the persons gathered there, one Punnackal Prasad was also there. He went to the road for hiring a vehicle to take the deceased to the hospital, and there he could see PW 1. PW 1 came to know about the incident from the said Punnackal Prasad. Both of them hired an ambassador taxi and came to the house of the appellant. PW 1 could see the deceased lying with a severe injury on her neck, at the southern bedroom of the house. As he could realise that the deceased was lying dead, she was not taken to the hospital. The matter was informed to the police over telephone and, in turn, PW11, the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, and the police party swiftly reached the place. PW1 furnished Ext.P1 First Information Statement before PW11 near the place of occurrence. PW11 returned to the police station, and registered Crime No.392 of 2005 of Vaikom Police Station for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, through Ext.P1(a) First Information Report.

4. The first part of the investigation was conducted by PW13 Sub Inspector of Police, Vaikom as the Circle Inspector of Police, Vaikom was on leave for two days. PW 13 reached the scene of occurrence on 17.6.2005 itself at 6 pm. and conducted the inquest of the dead body and prepared Ext.P3 inquest report. He seized MO1 chisel found near the dead body. He further seized MO2 to MO4 ornaments, MO7 bed sheet seen spread on the cot, MO5 wrist watch found in the room and MO6 and MO8 to MO10 dress worn by the deceased. On 17.6.2005 at 8 pm., as the appellant was seen in the neighbouring property, he placed the accused under arrest through Ext.P9 arrest memo and Ext.P10 custody memo. On 18.6.2005 at 10 am., he reached the scene of occurrence and prepared Ext.P2, scene mahazar.

5. The investigation was taken over by PW 12 Circle Inspector of Police, Vaikom. He verified the investigation conducted by PW 13. He continued the investigation. PW14 Circle Inspector of Police, Vaikom, who was the successor-in-office to PW12, completed the investigation, and laid the final report.

6. On the side of the prosecution, PW 1 to PW 14 were examined and Exts.P1 to P12 were marked. MO1 to MO11 were identified. On the side of the accused, Exts.D1 and D2 were marked as contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Ext.C1 was marked as Court exhibit. Ext.X1 was also marked.

7. When the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he has resorted to the following contentions: "He was not present at the scene of occurrence at the time of incident. On the date of incident at 4 pm., a ve