P. VELMURUGAN, J.

1. This appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court in S.C.No.14 of 2012 vide its judgment dated 30.11.2012 against the appellant to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304(1)IPC; and to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 201 IPC. The period of detention already undergone is ordered to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The sentence was ordered to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution on the basis of the evidence let in by prosecution witnesses is as follows:

The accused/appellant and the deceased viz., Chinnathambi are relatives. After the death of the father of the accused, a partition was effected over 6 acres of Mango grove. One acre mango grove belongs to the deceased Chinnathambi, lies adjacent to the share of the accused. Prior to the occurrence, while the accused committing an offence of theft of Mango which belonged to the deceased, the deceased caught hold of him. As a result, a panchayat was held and imposed fine on the accused. Further, there was a wordy quarrel between the deceased and the accused with respect of grassing of cows of deceased Chinnathambi in the piece of land of the accused and the same was objected by the accused. At that time, the accused challenged to kill the deceased Chinnathambi. In furtherence of the challenge, on 06.05.2010 after 02.00 a.m., while the deceased was sleeping at Mango grove belonging to one Govindaraj situated at Bodarahalli, the accused assaulted the deceased with koduval on his head, neck, chest and the Juvenile accused, who is the brother of the appellant assaulted the deceased with wooden log. Due to that, the deceased sustained fractures of Hyoid bone and skull. As a result, the deceased died on the spot and after committing the murder of the deceased, with intention to cause the disappearance of the murder, he put the body of the deceased in a gunny bag and carried the body through TVS-XL bearing registration No.TN-29AC-9399 and threw away the body of the deceased near the KRP Dam at Krishnagiri, in order to escape from the legal punishment and thereby the accused has committed offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 r/w.302 IPC.

3. The Judicial Magistrate, Palacode has taken the case on file in PRC.No.28 of 2011. After considering the case materials, the Judicial Magistrate, Palacode, came to the conclusion that, this case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and accordingly, committed the case to the Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, the Sessions Judge after completing the legal formalities framed the charges under Sections 302 and 201 r/w 302 of IPC.

4. In order to prove the case, on the side of prosecution as many as 14 witnesses were examined as PW.1 to P.W.14 and 15 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 and also 7 material objects were marked as M.O.1 to M.O.7. After considering the oral and documentary evidences, the trial Court has found the accused guilty under Section 304(1) IPC and 201 r/w 304(1)IPC and sentenced him as stated above. Being aggrieved with the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused/appellant has preferred the present appeal.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there is no eye witness in this case and the prosecution has filed the case based on the circumstantial evidence. Further, the chain of events are not linked without any break from the prior to the offence till the completion of the offence. The trial Court has merely based on the summarise and conjunction has come to the conclusion that except the accused no one could have committed the offence and the conviction is on the basis of confession recorded by the co-accused. Therefore, the conviction and