JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, in SC No. 244/2018 dated 03.11.2018, convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased is the wife of the appellant and both of them were suffering from some health ailments. Prior to 15.08.2017, the deceased was facing serious health ailments and the appellant was not able to properly take care of the deceased since he also had health issues and he did not have any regular earnings. Hence, the appellant seems to have brooded over the fact as to who will take care of his wife after his demise. On 15.08.2017, the appellant was taken to the hospital at about 10.00 a.m. by PW-1, who is the son of the appellant and he was brought back home. At about 1.00 p.m. the appellant is said to have pushed down the deceased and held her on the floor with his right knee and hacked the deceased with a billhook [M.O.1], as a result of which, the head was almost severed and the deceased died on the spot. PW-1, who is the son of the deceased, is said to have seen the occurrence and hence he gave a complaint [Ex.P1] to PW-12 and an FIR in Crime No. 163/2017 came to be registered at about 2.30 p.m. on 15.08.2017.

3. The investigation was initially taken up by PW-13 and he proceeded with the investigation till preparation of the inquest report upon the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter the investigation was taken up by PW-14 and he completed the investigation and laid the final report before the Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankoil. The copies were served on the accused person and thereafter the case was committed to the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli and the case was made over to the Court below.

4. The Court below framed a charge against the appellant for offences punishable under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-14 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P.15 and identified and marked M.O.1 to M.O.7. The defence marked Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 to substantiate their defence. The Court below questioned the appellant under Section 313 (1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by putting the incriminating materials collected during the course of trial and the same was denied as false by the appellant.

5. The Court below, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of evidence, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the charge beyond reasonable doubts and proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant in the manner stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the criminal appeal has been filed before this Court.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

7. The prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-3 as eyewitnesses in this case. PW-1 is the son of the appellant and the deceased and PW-2 and PW-3 are the nearby residents. PW-3 is the husband of PW-2. PW-1, in his evidence, has stated that the appellant and the deceased were suffering from health ailments and the appellant was in a frustrated state of mind thinking about the fate of his wife after his demise. This witness states that the door was locked from inside and he heard the cry of the deceased and he peeped through the keyhole and witnessed the incident, whereby the appellant pulled the deceased by her tresses and by using M.O.1, he caused a cut injury. Thereafter, PW-2 and PW-3 are said to have rushed towards the house on hearing the sound. The statement of this witness was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the statement was marked as Ex.D1, since it was used to contradict the evidence of PW-1. The 164 Cr.P.C. statement is the earlier version that was given by PW-1, wherein, he states that at the time when he reached t