S.NAGAMUTHU, J.

The appellant is the first accused in S.C.No.208 of 2009, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Court for Essential Commodities Act, Thanjavur. There were two other accused by name, Jeyalakshmi and Murugan. Mr.Murugan was found to be a juvenile and therefore he was dealt with under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, by the Juvenile Justice Board. The appellant and his wife faced the trial in the present case. The Trial Court framed a lone charge against the appellant herein under Section 302 I.P.C. and framed a charge under Section 302 read with 109 I.P.C. against the second accused. By Judgment, dated 06.08.2010, the Trial Court acquitted the second accused, however convicted the appellant/first accused under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant 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 Mr.Moorthy. P.W.1 is his wife and P.W.2 is his brother. P.W.3 is the wife of P.W.2. One Mrs.Lakshmi was the mother of the deceased. The appellant/first accused is none else than the yet another brother of the deceased. The second accused is the wife of the first accused and the third accused is their son.

(ii) According to the further case of the prosecution, the first accused had a landed property in the occurrence village. The deceased had obtained the said property by way of an oral mortgage from the first accused for a sum of Rs.17,000/-. Thus, according to the case of the prosecution, the deceased was in possession and enjoyment of the said property. He had raised sugar-cane crop on the same. The first accused was demanding the deceased to hand over the possession of the property. He was disputing the very mortgage itself. This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence.

(iii) On 11.12.2002, according to the case of the prosecution, the deceased, his wife (P.W.1) and his mother (now no more) were working. The deceased was removing the dried leaves from the sugar cane crop. At that time, it is alleged that all the three accused came to the spot. The first accused questioned his authority to work in the field and to remove the leaves from the sugar-cane crop. According to the first accused, he was in possession and enjoyment of the property and he had only raised the sugar-cane crop. This quarrel went on for about 10 minutes. At the end of the quarrel, it is alleged that the accused 2 and 3 induced the first accused to kill him. The first accused took out an aruval and cut the deceased repeatedly. The deceased fell down sustaining serious injuries and breathed his last. P.W.1 and Mrs.Lakshmi raised alarm. P.W.2 was working in his filed, somewhere near the place of occurrence. On hearing the alarm raised, P.W.2 rushed to the place of occurrence. But, even before he could come, the occurrence had come to an end. He found the deceased lying dead. Thereafter, on hearing the message, P.W.3 came from her house and found the deceased dead. The people working in the neighbouring fields also rushed to the place of occurrence. Then, all of them shifted the dead body of the deceased in a coir cot to the house of P.W.2.

(iv) Mrs.Lakshmi, the mother of the deceased, then, went to the Police Station at Kabisthalam. P.W.12 was the then Sub Inspector of Police, at Kabisthalam Police Station. At 04.00 p.m. on 11.12.2002, Mrs.Lakshmi presented a written complaint. P.W.12, registered a case on the said complaint in Crime No.488 of 2002, under Section 302 I.P.C. He forwarded the complaint (Ex.P.8) and the First Information Report (Ex.P.9) to the Court and handed over the Case Diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. These documents were received by the learned Magistrate at 01.45 a.m. on 12.12