JUDGMENT :

M.M. SUNDRESH, J.

1. The appellant, who is the sole accused in S.C. No. 268 of 2015 on the file of I Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore, is found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default to undergo further period of three months simple imprisonment. Challenging the same the present Criminal Appeal has been filed.

2. Case of the Prosecution:

2.1. The appellant was the son in law of the deceased Pazhanal @ Palaniammal. Fifteen years ago, the deceased has received two sovereigns of gold from the deceased to meet out the medical expenses of her husband. Though she did not return back the jewel, she repaid a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) to the appellant. The appellant not satisfied with the return of money, insisted for the return of the jewel on the previous day. The deceased while refusing insulted him. On 20.11.2014 at about 5.30 a.m., the appellant once again asked her to return the jewel. The deceased once again spoke harshly. Out of anger, the appellant hit her on the head with the wooden log-M.O. 1, due to which, she sustained injuries and fell down. The witnesses viz., PWs. 1 to 4 took the deceased to the hospital in an Ambulance though she was alive initially, she succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, PW-1 gave a complaint under Ex. P1 at about 1.00 p.m., on the same day.

2.2. PW-9-Anandhan is the Special Sub Inspector of Police, who registered a complaint under Ex. P7-printed First Information Report and recorded the statement of PW-1. Thereafter, PW-13 took up the investigation and prepared Exs. P17-Rough Sketch and P18-Inquest Report on the very same day. He arrested the appellant/accused at about 12.15 p.m., based upon the confession statement given by him before PW-8 and one Sathayanarayanan (not examined) and recovered M.Os. 1 to 4 through mahazars. After completion of the investigation, PW-13 filed the final Report.

3. Before the trial Court, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses while marking Exs. P.1 to P.18 and material objects M.Os. 1 to 7. On behalf of the defence, though one witness (DW-1) has been examined viz., the wife of the appellant, she has stated that the appellant was on duty at that point of time.

4. In compliance with the mandate of Section 313-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, incriminating materials were placed before the appellant and he denied the same.

5. After considering the evidence available and by placing reliance upon, particularly, the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4, the trial Court rendered a conviction against the appellant.

6. PW-1 is the son of the deceased. He had stated about the motive. According to PW-1, he along with PWs. 2 and 3 were present at the place of occurrence. They saw the accused running away with the wooden log-M.O. 1 while the deceased was in a pool of blood. Thereafter, he along with PW-2 took the deceased in an Ambulance to the Coimbatore Medical College and Hospital, Coimbatore. After the death of the deceased, he gave the complaint under Ex. P1.

7. In his cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that it is true that the deceased used to be in a trance and dancing in possession of God. However, she used to fall only in his presence. He has also acknowledged the fact that he has made a statement that the deceased died of accident as could be seen under Ex. P16-Accident Register. He did not see the deceased when entered the house at about 1.30 a.m. The accused was running with M.O. 1 after the occurrence. He did not know what actually happened when his mother shouted.

8. From the abovesaid evidence, we could see that PW-1 gave two different versions. His first statement was made to PW-12 Doctor, who treated the deceased in the hospital. He seeks to justify it by saying that such a statement was made in order to expedite the treatment. However, in the complaint given under Ex. P1 he has stated that the earlier statement was made as