JUDGMENT :

R. Hemalatha, J.

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the judgment and order dated 23.04.2019 in S.C.No.44 of 2016 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.)

1. This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 23.04.2019 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, in S.C.No.44 of 2016, wherein the appellant was convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months.

2. Facts of the case as presented by the prosecution flows as follows:

i. The deceased Muthu @ Thuppakkikarar Muthu was a resident of Nagamalai Pudukottai village, Madurai. He was owning a goat shed in the same village and it is the case of the prosecution that the accused used to consume alcohol near the goat shed for which the deceased reprimanded him. On the fateful day, i.e., on 31.10.2013, Sathiya (P.W.1), the grandson of the deceased accompanied his grandfather, Muthu @ Thuppakkikarar Muthu to the goat shed, around 11.00 a.m. Ganesan (P.W.2), who is the son-in-law of the deceased had also come over to the goat shed. Both P.W.1 and P.W.2 were conversing with each other near the road side, when there was a scream from the victim. On hearing the scream, both P.W.1 and P.W.2 rushed towards the goat shed and found the victim being attacked by the accused with a wooden log(M.O.1). On seeing them, the accused fled the scene and the victim was found dead on the floor. Hearing the loud cries, the neighbours gathered at the scene of occurrence.

ii. P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to Nagamalai Pudukkottai police station and gave a written complaint (Ex.P1) signed by P.W.1 at about 12.30 p.m., on the same day, based on which FIR(Ex.P8) was registered by Thiru. K.P. Ganesan (P.W.10), the then Inspector of Police, Nagamalai Pudukkottai police station in Crime No.403 of 2013 against the accused for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. He sent the express FIR to learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI on the same day at about 4.00 p.m.

iii. Thereafter Thiru. K.P. Ganesan (P.W.10) went to the scene of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P2) in the presence of Solaimalai (P.W.6) and Ramasubramanian(not examined) and also a Rough Sketch(Ex.P9). P.W.10, conducted inquest on the body of the deceased at the scene of occurrence in the presence of panchayatdhars. Thereafter, the body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem through Thiru. Rajendran (P.W.9) Special Sub Inspector of Police to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai.

iv. Dr. G. Natarajan (P.W.8) conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and found the following injuries :

"(i) Linear contusion measuring 30 cm x 2 cm extending from front of upper part of left side of chest to front of right shoulder.

(ii) Linear contusion measuring 24cm x 2 cm extending from front of left side of upper part of chest to front of upper part of right side of chest 5 cm below the injury No.1.

(iii) Laceration measuring 3 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep noted on left index finger.

(iv) Abrasion measuring 2 cm x 1 cm noted on left index finger

(v) Contusion measuring 11 cm x 2 cm noted over front of middle of neck.".

Dr. Natarajan( P.W.8) opined that the deceased would appear to have died of multiple injuries, 4 to 6 hours prior to autopsy. Post-mortem certificate was marked as Ex.P7.

v. P.W.10 arrested the accused at about 4.30 p.m., on the same day and recorded his confessional statement, based on which a wooden log (M.O.1) was seized from behind a thorny bush near a channel in the same village under a cover of a mahazar (Ex.P4). P.W..10 sent M.O.1 to Court under Form-95 (Ex.P11). The accused was thereafter produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, who remanded him to judicial custody.

vi. P.W.10 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and after completing invest