S. Tamilvanan, J.

1. The appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 31.10.2014 made in S.C. No. 168 of 2013 on the file of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur. The appellant stands convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to undergo further period of six months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused has preferred this criminal appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

There was a dispute between the appellant/accused and his wife Rukmani (P.W. 7). The deceased Muthukumar @ Muthukumaran was residing in a portion of the property belongs to P.W. 7. Whenever there was a dispute between the accused and his wife, the deceased Muthukumar used to intervene between them. Hence, the appellant/accused warned the deceased to vacate the house. However, the deceased refused to vacate the house. On 06.04.2011 at about 11.00 p.m., the appellant stabbed the deceased with a pen knife, when he was taking dinner in one Muthu Tiffin Centre, at Surappattu Main Road, Mugambigai Nagar. Immediately, P.W. 4-Balaji, took the deceased in Two Wheeler to one Kumaran Hospital. As the said Kumaran Hospital refused to provide treatment, the deceased was taken to Government General Hospital, Chennai, through 108 Ambulance, however, on the way to the hospital, the deceased was found dead.

2.1. After the occurrence on 06.04.2011, P.W. 1-Muthuraman, who is running the Muthu Tiffin Centre had lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police - P.W. 13, Puzhal Police Station and on 07.04.2011 at 1.15 a.m. P.W. 13 registered the case in Crime No. 281/2013 under Section 302 IPC and the First Information Report was marked as Ex. P12. P.W. 13 went to the place of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar Ex. P13 in the presence of P.W. 5 and also prepared the rough sketch Ex. P14. On 07.04.2011 at 6.30 a.m., he obtained blood stained mud, i.e. M.Os. 7 and 8 in the presence of the same witnesses under Ex. P15. Thereafter, he prepared inquest report Ex. P. 16 in the presence of Panchayatdars, Kamarudhin, Subramani, Somasundaram, Loganathan and Ravichandran and thereafter, he sent the dead body for postmortem through one Sakthivel, constable. In the place of occurrence, he investigated the case, examined witnesses Muthuraman, Nirmala, Rajesh, Udhayakumar, Balaji, Sriram, Sathishkumar, Rukmani, Rani, Baburaj and recorded their statements. P.W. 9, Dr. Selvakumar conducted postmortem on 08.04.2011 and for which, Sakthivel, Constable 3421, had identified the body of the deceased Muthukumar. On 09.04.2011 P.W. 13-Inspector arrested the appellant/accused at 1.00 p.m. in the presence of witnesses Rabert and Manikandan and recorded confession statement of the appellant.

2.2. In order to establish the case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 13; marked Exs. P1 to 23 and produced material objects M.Os. 1 to 10. It is seen that no witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the defence.

2.3. The Trial Court, after analysing the oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused as already stated above.

2.4. Mr. Shahjahan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has not established the guilt against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and according to him, the prosecution case suffers from serious infirmities and inconsistencies. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused would contend that the case is foisted against the appellant. He further contended that there are material contradictions in the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 and 6 and that the entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence, which is not sufficient to prove the alleged guilt against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

2.5. The learned counsel further submit that there is an unexplained and inordinate delay in lod