Conviction can be founded on the testimony of a single witness if found trustworthy and corroborated by record on material particular. Motive is irrelevant when direct evidence of the commission of the offense is credible.

S. Vimala, J.

The son, the hapless and innocent, as he was, earned the enmity of his evil incarnate father, just because of his efforts in eroding the chances of erotic encounters of his father with his elusive life partner, whose cause and concern the son believed to be espousing. Thus, the son exposed his own life to fatality, fit enough to be a sacrifice, sufficient to save his mother from her tormentor for a considerable period, but not sufficient to save his own life.

2. The triangular emotional inner burst between the father, mother and the son had been at the cost of the father taking away the life of his own son. How it happened will be known by unfolding the prosecution case.

3. It is a rare case where the father has allegedly murdered the son and in respect of the same, the wife of the accused is the main witness.

Facts in brief:

i. The accused is the husband of PW1/Sasikala and the father of the deceased. The accused is a drunkard and he would sexually abuse the wife, whenever he was inebriated. Even twice or thrice in a single day, he used to have sex with his wife, in a normal way as well as in an abnormal way and also unmindful of the presence of the children. The accused was also interested in having oral sex with his wife. The wife was compelled to see obscene sexual movies at night in the T.V. The midnight quarrel reached the ears of the son and daughters at home and the son used to question the conduct of the accused. The relationship was not cordial between the accused and the deceased. The accused believed that the deceased is the road block for his sexual journey towards his wife.

ii. While so, at about 11:30pm on 18.09.2010, when the deceased was sleeping in the Muttram (a place in front of the house), the accused, while returning from agricultural field with a spade, murdered him by using the same weapon. When the wife attempted to prevent the occurrence, it was beyond reparation and the accused ran away with the weapon from the scene of occurrence. In respect of the same, the wife preferred a complaint before the concerned police with the assistance of her brother PW5.

iii. PW13/Joseph, the Sub Inspector of Police received the complaint at about 01:00am in midnight and registered a case in Crime No.246 of 2010 under Section 302 IPC (Ex.P6) and the complaint is Ex.P1.

iv. PW17/Inspector of Police continued the investigation and after visiting the scene of occurrence, recording statement of witnesses, recovering material objects from the scene of occurrence, sending the body for postmortem after inquest, recovering the cloth from the body of the deceased, arresting the accused, recording the confession, recovering the material objects based on the confession given by the accused, completed the investigation and laid the final report.

v. Considering the oral and documenetary evidence, the Trial Court came to the conclusion it was only the accused, who is responsible for causing the death of the deceased.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the accused is entitled to acquittal on the following grounds:

a. PW2/eyewitness has turned hostile,

b. motive for the occurrence is not proved,

c. the medical evidence with regard to cause of death did not corroborate the oral evidence

d. it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of the wife, who was not in cordial terms with her husband.

5. Before considering these contention, it is necessary to find out the reasons, which led the Trial Court while finding the accused guilty of the offence.

5.1. The Trial Court has relied upon the following decision, in which, it has been held that conviction can well be founded on the testimony of a single witness, if the Court finds the version to be trustworthy and corroborated by record on material particular. [2015 SAR (Criminal) page 891] (Kamala kant Dubey vs. State of U.P. And others).

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the question of motive is irrelevant, where the direct evidence of