If a particular fact or circumstance is within special knowledge of the accused then he must explain.

M. Chockalingam, J.

The sole accused/appellant in the case of murder on being found guilty as per the charge on trial and awarded life imprisonment in S.C.No.2/2002 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar District, has challenged the judgment before this Court.

2. The short facts necessary for disposal of this appeal can be stated thus:

(a) The accused is the husband of Somu since deceased in the incident. P.W.1 is the sister of the deceased. P.W.3 is the daughter of the deceased and the accused. Out of wedlock, the accused and the deceased had two children. From the time of marriage, he was suspecting the fidelity of his wife. From the place where they were living, she often used to go P.W.1s house at Mathur. Thereafter, the brother of the deceased by name Sundarraj shifted the house from Mathur to Kothankulam. The deceased along with her children came to her brothers house four months prior to the occurrence. The accused, two months prior to the occurrence, came to Kothankulam and called her back. But, she refused. Then, the accused agreed to live with his family at Kothankulam. Accordingly, he came and they took a rented premises of one Gopal and they were living with their children. The deceased was employed in Alagammal Villow Factory while the accused was doing some pipeline work at Srivilliputtur.

(b) On 17.2.2001 during evening hours, the accused came in a drunken mood and quarreled with his wife. The next day, i.e., on 18.2.2001, at about 8 Oclock, the accused took his wife to Pillaiyarkulam Kanmai Bund for collecting firewood. At that time, he took an aruval also. At about 1.00 p.m. he returned home and informed the children that they could be in the house along with their senior maternal aunt, P.W.1 and he would be coming back with his wife. At the place of occurrence, he called his wife, the deceased, to share the bed. When she refused, he cut her with aruval, M.O.1 and caused her death and fled away from the place of occurrence. P.W.1, since her sister, the deceased did not turn up, was in search of her and found her dead at the place of occurrence. P.W.1 gave a complaint to P.W.12 the Sub Inspector of the respondent Police, on the strength of which a case came to be registered under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The Express F.I.R-Ex.P.10, was despatched to the Court. P.W.14, when he was the Inspector of Police, Srivilliputtur Taluk Police Station, on the receipt of the copy of the F.I.R., took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made inspection in the presence of witnesses, prepared Ex.P.3-Observation Mahazar and also the sketch-Ex.P.12. He conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.13-the Inquest Report. He also recovered the material objects from place of occurrence. Following the inquest made, a requisition was forwarded to the Government Hospital for the purpose of autopsy. P.W.10, the doctor attached to the Government Hospital conducted the autopsy on the dead body and gave the postmortem certificate, Ex.P.9, where he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died 24 to 28 hours prior to autopsy due to shock and haemorrhage.

(c) The accused appeared before P.W.8, the Village Administrative Officer of Pillaiyarkulam who was in his office on 20.2.2001 at about 1.00 p.m. and gave a confessional statement narrating the entire incident, which was marked as Ex.P.5. Along with the confessional statement, the Village Administrative Officer produced the accused before the respondent Police Station. The Inspector also enquired him. When he came forward to give the confessional statement, the same was also recorded by the investigating officer, the admissible part of which was marked as Ex.P.7. The aruval M.O.7 was also produced along with M.Os.8 and 9, the blood stained shirt and dhothi. They were all recovered under the cover of Mahazar. The accused was sent for judicial remand.

(d) All the material ob