JUDGMENT :

M.M. SUNDRESH, J.

1. Challenging the conviction and sentence rendered by the III Additional Sessions Court, Salem in S.C. No. 245 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the appellant has filed this appeal, while seeking to set aside the same.

2. PROSECUTION CASE IN A NUT SHELL:

2.1. The deceased was the wife of the appellant. They had two children by name Sivakumar and Kiruthiga (PW-6). The appellant was leading a wayward life. Thus the deceased was taking care of the family. The appellant was harassing the deceased for money to be used for his drinking. Pursuant to the prior quarrel that emanated out of drinking on 16.03.2012, the appellant attacked the deceased by slapping on her cheek, hitting her head on the wall and thereafter strangulated her. He also attempted hanging her but could not do so. Therefore, he took the saree of the deceased, which was said to be used for hanging and left the place of occurrence.

2.2. PW-1, who is the brother-in-law of the appellant, saw the deceased at 6.00 a.m. on 17.03.2012 in an unconscious stage. On verification, he found injuries. He confirmed the death by checking the breath of the deceased. Thereafter, at about 12 noon, he gave a complaint to PW-14, the Station Officer. A case was registered in Crime No. 117 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC in Ex. P12. After sending the originals of the complaint and the FIR to the jurisdictional Court, he took up the investigation on the same day. Ex. P2 is the observation mahazar and Ex. P13 is the rough sketch. Inquest was also conducted at the same time under Ex. P14. A requisition was made for post-mortem by sending it through PW-12 -Head Constable.

2.3. The appellant surrendered before the Court on 19.03.2012. He was taken to police custody on 28.03.2012 and pursuant to the confession statement given by him, recovery has been made under Ex. P8. M.O. 1 is the saree recovered. After completion of the scientific investigation and after examining the witnesses, a final report was filed on 30.05.2012.

3. The Trial Court framed charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC against the appellant. The charge was put to him, which was accordingly denied. The prosecution has examined 14 witnesses - PWs. 1 to 14, marked Exs. P1 to P16 and marked five material objects - M.Os. 1 to 5. On the side of the defence, neither any document was marked nor anyone was examined. The Trial Court, considering the evidence available, convicted the appellant.

4. PROSECUTION WITNESSES:

PW-1 is the brother of the deceased. PW-2 is the father of the deceased. PWs. 3 and 4 are the sisters of the deceased. PW-5 is the mahazar and rough sketch witness. PW-6 is the sole eye witness being the daughter of both the appellant and the deceased. PW-7 is the wife of PW-1. PW-8 is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem. PW-9 is the Village Administrative Officer, who speaks about the seizure and recovery. PW-13 is the Forensic Doctor and PW-14 is the Investigating Officer, who registered the complaint, investigated and thereafter filed the final report.

5. SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT:

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the very existence of Ex. P1 - complaint registered under Ex. P12 - First Information Report dated 17.03.2012 is seriously in doubt. The evidence of PW-6 is not natural as she was not present at the time of occurrence. Nothing prevented her from giving complaint or informing others immediately. There was a huge delay in sending the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-6. Thus, under those circumstances, the judgment of the Trial Court requires to be reversed.

6. SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that the Trial Court found the motive for the murder committed by the appellant. PWs. 1 to 4, 6 and 7 speak about the motive. The evidence of PW-6 has been rightly taken note of by the Trial Court. PW-6 not only speaks about the motive but