The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and incriminating circumstances to establish guilt, despite delay in lodging the complaint and discrepancies in the investigation.

V K Tahilramani, J.

This appeal is directed by the appellant - original accused against the Judgment and order dated 15th March 2017 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli in Sessions Case No.147 of 2016. By the said Judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 506(ii) IPC. For the offence under Section 302 IPC, the learned Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years. For the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution, briefly stated, is as under:-

2.1. The deceased - Thangammal was the mother of the appellant. She was also the mother of PW-1 - Selvam. About 14 years prior to the incident, the appellant had murdered his own father on account of a land dispute. In the said case, the appellant was convicted and thereafter, he was released. After his release, the appellant started residing with his mother. The appellant used to trouble his mother to give him money.

2.2. The incident took place on 26.12.2015, at about 05.30, a.m, in Musiri Bus Stand. On 26.12.2015, at about 05.30 a.m., the appellant, his mother - deceased Thangammal and PW-1 - Selvam were standing at Musiri Bus Stand. At that time, the appellant asked the deceased Thangammal to give him money. His mother - Thangammal replied that she had spent the money. Whereupon, the appellant stated that if she does not give him money, he will beat her. Saying so, the appellant caught his mother by her hair and assaulted her with a stone. Due to this, the deceased Thangammal sustained injuries. This incident was witnessed by PW-1 - Selvam. However, as the appellant threatened PW-1 - Selvam that he will also murder him, due to fear, PW-1 - Selvam did not go near.

2.3. The deceased Thangammal was taken to the Government hospital, Musiri, where she was declared dead. PW-1 - Selvam lodged his complaint, which is at EX-P1. Thereafter, it was registered, which is at EX-P14. Thereafter, the investigation commenced. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. In due course, the case was committed to the Court of Session.

2.4. Charges came to be framed against the appellant under Sections 302 and 506(ii) IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried. His defence is of total denial and false implication. To support their case, the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-15 and marked EX-P1 to EX-P16 and six material objects. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant, as stated in Paragraph No.1, above, hence, this appeal.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. After giving anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, the evidence on record and the judgment delivered by the learned Sessions Judge for the reasons stated hereinbelow, we are of the opinion that the appellant has committed the murder of his mother - Thangammal by assaulting her with a stone.

4. In order to support their case, the prosecution is mainly relying on the evidence of PW-1 - Selvam; PW-2 - Subbiah and PW-3 - Periyasamy. According to the prosecution, PW-1 to PW-3 are all eyewitnesses to the incident. We shall deal with the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 first.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that PW-2 - Subbiah and PW-3 - Periyasamy are not eyewitnesses to the incident and they are got up witnesse