JUDGMENT :

S. Vaidyanathan, N. Anand Venkatesh, JJ.

1. The sole accused has preferred this Criminal Appeal aggrieved by the Judgment passed `2012, dated 27.02.2017, convicting and sentencing the sole accused/appellant as follows:

2. The case of the prosecution:

The deceased Jenish Kirubakaran is the nephew of P.W. 1. P.W. 4 is the cousin of P.W. 1. P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are the close friends of the deceased and they are the members of Youth Christian Association. The accused was residing with his wife and P.W. 2 used to tease and make fun of the wife of the accused. Therefore, the accused had a grievance against P.W. 2. The deceased is the associate of P.W. 2 and others. The accused is said to have complained about this to the uncle of the deceased and asked him to advice the deceased and others not to associate with P.W. 2.

2.1. On the date of occurrence, i.e., on 05.05.2011, there was a festival conducted at the local church at about 6.00 p.m., followed by a feast. The deceased, P.W. 2 and others were serving food to the persons who had come to the festival. The accused is said to have been sitting in a table in front of his house. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 started serving rice to the accused. The accused is said to have shouted saying that he was only served with rice without mutton. At that time, the deceased told the accused that mutton is exhausted and asked him not to get angry. The accused enraged by the same, questioned the deceased, if he is such a big man to advice him and that he was insulted in front of the general public.

2.2. The accused thereafter is said to have rushed into his house and brought a knife (M.O. 1) and stabbed on the left shoulder of the deceased and he also threatened to attack the witnesses when they tried to go near the deceased. This incident is said to have taken place at about 10.45 p.m.

2.3. P.W. 1 to P.W. 4, thereafter took the deceased in a car belonging to P.W. 3, to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital and the Doctor (P.W. 10) examined the deceased at about 12.30 a.m., on 06.05.2011, and pronounced him dead.

3. Complaint and evidence collected in the course of investigation:

P.W. 1 is said to have proceeded to the respondent police station, which is one kilo metre from the scene of occurrence and lodged a complaint (Ex. P.1) to P.W. 12-the Sub Inspector of Police, at about 5.00 a.m., on 06.05.2011. P.W. 12 registered an FIR (Ex. P.13).

The express FIR was handed over to the Head Constable, Thirunavukarasu, and it had reached the Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri at about 06.00 a.m.

3.1. The investigation was taken up by P.W. 13 and he proceeded to the scene of occurrence at about 06.00 a.m., on 06.05.2011 and he prepared the observation mahazer (Ex. P.2). He also seized the material objects, like, blood stained earth, sample earth, etc., under Ex. P.3, which was attested by P.W. 6. He also prepared a rough sketch (Ex. P.14) and held an inquest over the body of the deceased between 9 to 11 a.m., at the hospital and prepared the inquest report (Ex. P.15). The body was handed over to P.W. 9 along with the requisition letter to take it for postmortem and thereafter to be handed over to the relatives. He recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C., at about 4.30 p.m., and on the same day, he arrested the accused person. Based on the confession recorded under Ex. P.4, the investigating officer recovered M.O. 1 under Ex. P.5. All the material objects that were seized were sent to the Court under Form 95. In the course of investigation, he recorded the statement of the pos