R. Subbiah, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/sole accused as against the conviction and sentence, dated 24.11.2015, made in S.C. No. 65 of 2013 by the learned Sessions cum Mahila Court Judge, Pudukkottai. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as detailed hereunder:

Conviction u/S.	Sentence	Fine amount
302, IPC	To undergo imprisonment for life.	To pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.
364, IPC	To undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment	To pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.
201, IPC	To undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment	To pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.

All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently

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

(a) The accused is the son of the deceased by name Mathalai Mery. PW9 is the brother of the accused. The husband of the deceased died 15 years back. After the death of the husband, the deceased along with the accused and PW9 went to her parental home at Eechampatti and lived together. The accused studied upto I.T.I. and learned to drive cars. For the last one year, the accused was working in a private concern at Manapparai by staying in the house of one Thiyagarajan. During that period, he was addicted to alcohol and other bad habits, and in order to spend money for his wayward life, he borrowed loan from several persons and he had become a debtor. The deceased had an ancestral property. The accused schemed that if the said property of the deceased is sold, he could clear his debts, purchase a new car and drive the same for hiring, after giving some paltry amount to his brother-PW9. Hence, the accused was pressurizing the deceased/mother to sell the ancestral property and give money to him. The deceased has not accepted the same. The accused, therefore, decided to murder his mother (deceased), under the impression that only if she dies, he could inherit the ancestral property and sell the same.

(b) On 27.12.2012 one Rangaraj had given the TATA Sumo Car bearing Registration No. TN-46-E-7201 to the accused to go to Sabarimala. The accused went to Sabarimala, where he had purchased a knife and hidden the same in the TATA sumo vehicle. On 01.01.2013, in the morning, the accused called his mother (deceased) over phone and asked her to come to Manapparai stating that based on the loan given by his friends, he is going to purchase a property near the twin tamarind trees at Keelapoosaripatti and that after seeing the land, she could give the advance amount. Believing the words of the accused, on the same day, at 6.00 p.m., the deceased came to Manapparai from Eechampatti. As it was late night, the accused left the deceased in her aunt's house-PW7 at Manjampatti and the accused returned back to Manapparai Taxi market in the TATA Sumo Car.

(c) Next day, i.e., on 02.01.2013 at 8.00 a.m. the accused went to PW7's house with the TATA Sumo car and took his mother, PW7 and another aunt's daughter-PW8 in the TATA Sumo car and dropped PW7 and PW8 at the Litter Flower School at 8.30 a.m. and proceeded in the car along with his mother. Thereafter, the accused stopped the vehicle at the twin tamarind trees outskirts and closed the glasses of the car. The accused came nearer to his mother, who was sitting in the backside of the driver seat. At that time, the deceased asked where was the land that was going to be purchased by him. The accused has stated that he has mounting debts and therefore, she should give money after selling half of the ancestral property. The deceased replied that she will not sell her property. Enraged over the same and stating that until she was alive, she will not leave him to enjoy the fruits of the pr