JUDGMENT :

R.N. MANJULA, J.

Prayer: This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 19.12.2012 in S.C. No. 150 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused to set aside the conviction and sentence made in S.C. No. 150 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode dated 19.12.2012, as tabulated hereunder:

2. The short facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

The appellant/Accused is a resident of the Indira Colony, Konamookanur, Poonachi, Bhavani. The wife of the accused had suspicion on the conduct of the deceased Kanaka that she had an illegal intimacy with her husband. Because of this, on 31.07.2009 at about 17.30 hours a quarrel occurred between the deceased Kanaka and the wife of the accused. In the said quarrel the accused also joined his wife. On seeing this, the deceased Kanaka abused the accused. Agitated over this, the accused attacked the deceased on various parts of her body with a sickle; as a result the deceased died. On a complaint (Ex.P.1) given by the husband of the deceased, a case has been registered in Crime No. 220 of 2009 under Section 302 IPC. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the accused. The committal Court took cognizance of the charge sheet in P.R.C. No. 21/2010 and after observing the due legal formalities charges have been framed against the accused under Sections 449 and 302 IPC and issued the committal proceedings. After the case was committed to the Sessions Court and taken on file, the trial commenced, after complying the legal mandates.

3. On the side of the prosecution, 13 witnesses have been examined as PWs. 1 to 13 and Exs.P-1 to P-16 and M.Os. 1 to 16 have been marked. On the side of the accused no witnesses were examined and no documents have were marked.

4. The trial Court upon hearing both sides and on analysing the oral and documentary evidences convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated supra. Challenging the same, the appellant/accused has preferred this Appeal.

5. The complainant Arumugam is the husband of the deceased Kanaka. He was examined as PW-1 and he has stated in his evidence that he is working in Kallakurichi; and the house of the accused is opposite to his house at Attavanai Pudur; a week before the occurrence, the deceased called her husband over phone and told that the wife of the accused was always quarrelling; on 31.07.2009, PW-1 came to the village from his work place and at that time his brother PW-2 and his brother’s son Parthiban were standing in the bus stand; PW-3 Sembannan who came from the opposite direction and informed PW-1 and PW-2 that the accused and his wife were quarrelling with the deceased in the afternoon and during that course the deceased also had abused the accused. By conversing about this PWs. 1 to 3 were walking to the house of PW-1. While they were nearing the house, they heard the noise of PW-1’s wife and hence they rushed to the house. There, they saw the accused cutting the deceased with aruval (M.O.1) and inflicting injuries on the various parts of her body. On seeing PWs. 1 to 3, the accused ran away. PW-1 to PW-3, saw the deceased dying due to her injuries. PW-2 and PW-3 have also corroborated the evidence of PW-1 and stated the same facts about the occurrence. After receiving the viscera report, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem had opined that the deceased had died due to haemorrhage, cut injuries on