JUDGMENT :

1. The sole accused, aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi dated 27.08.2013, made in S.C. No. 201/2012 convicting him for an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment, has preferred the present criminal appeal before this Court.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant and the deceased are husband and wife and the appellant used to quarrel with the deceased frequently by demanding money from her for drinking liquor. On 01.02.2011, at about 2.00 p.m. he demanded a sum of Rs. 100/- from the deceased to purchase liquor and when she refused to pay the money, he poured a pot of water over her head and therefore, the deceased came running out of the house. The appellant followed her and by uttering that if she refuses to pay him money for drinking liquor, then, she is not fit to be alive and saying so, he is said to have attacked the deceased with iron rod (M.O.1) on her head, mouth, chin, chest and left leg and thereby committed the murder of the deceased.

3. The daughter of the deceased (PW-1), who was examined as eyewitness in this case, had taken the deceased to the hospital at Tirunelveli in an Ambulance with the help of PW-2, who is the sister of the deceased and another and the deceased was declared to be brought dead. The police reached the hospital and the Sub Inspector of Police (PW-7) recorded the statement from PW-1 (Ex. P-1) and she returned back to the police station at about 8.00 p.m. and registered an FIR in Crime No. 24/2011 for an offence under Section 302 IPC. She prepared an express FIR and had sent it through Head Constable (PW-9) and it reached the Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikundam, at about 12 midnight.

4. The investigation was taken up by the Inspector of Police (PW-11) and he came to the scene of crime and prepared the observation mahazar (Ex. P-2) and the rough sketch (Ex. P-18) in the presence of the witnesses (PW-3). He also recovered the material objects in the scene of crime. The Investigating Officer thereafter left to the hospital on 02.02.2011 at about 9.30 a.m. and conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of Panchayatdars and prepared the Inquest Report (Ex. P-19). After completion of the inquest, the dead body was handed over to the Special Sub Inspector of Police (PW-10) with the requisition for conducting the postmortem and thereafter hand over the same to the relatives. The dress of the deceased (M.O.5 and M.O.6) were also sent to the Court with the requisition to send the same for serological report. The Investigating Officer arrested the appellant on 02.02.2011 at about 4.00 p.m. and based on the voluntary confession given by him, recovered M.O.1 and brought him before the Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikundam and thereafter he was remanded to judicial custody.

5. The statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. The postmortem certificate (Ex. P-10), chemical examination report (Ex. P-13), serological report (Ex. P-14) and blood report (Ex. P-15) were all collected and on completion of the investigation, the final report was filed on 24.02.2011 before the Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikundam.

6. The case was committed to the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin and a lone charge was framed under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-11 and marked Ex. P.11 to Ex. P-19 and M.O.1 to M.O.7.

7. The appellant was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure putting all the incriminating materials collected during the course of trial and the same was denied as false.

8. The trial Court, on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts and proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant in