The testimony of an injured witness is generally considered reliable, and delays in FIR registration do not inherently undermine the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant/accused in S.C.No.610 of 2013 dated 05.02.2019 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Villupuram.

The instant Criminal Appeal has been filed against the order of conviction and sentence dated 05.02.2009 passed in S.C.No.610 of 2013, by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Villupuram, wherein, the accused was convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment, and for the offence under Section 324 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo 1 month simple imprisonment.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in the appeal are addressed according to their ranks in the trial Court.

3.1. For better understanding of the prosecution's case, we deem it appropriate to flitter the facts of the case. According to the prosecution, the deceased and the accused were close relatives and that there were property disputes between them since 2004, and that there were also previous squabbles many times, between the accused and the deceased. While so, on 22.04.2013 at about 02.10 P.M., when the deceased and his wife Rohini were standing in their garden, the accused came with a billhook and abused the deceased and intimidated him to withdraw the complaint filed against him. Since the deceased refused to withdraw the complaint, the accused attacked the deceased with a billhook and caused injuries on his head and right side ear. When the wife of the deceased intervened, the accused had also caused injury to her, and fled away from the scene of occurrence. After the attack, the deceased became unconscious and was lying in a pool of blood. Thereafter, he was taken to Mundiyambakkam Government Hospital, but the doctors at the hospital declared him dead. After coming to know about the occurrence, the deceased's son namely Elanaganar went to the hospital and thereafter, he and his mother went to the Police Station to give a complaint.

3.2. Based on the complaint (Ex.P1) given by the wife of the deceased – Rohini (P.W.1), an F.I.R. (Ex.P15) was registered in Crime No.262 of 2013 by the Inspector of Police (P.W.15), and he went to the scene of occurrence. Since it was night time, P.W.15 could not effectively inspect the scene of occurrence and therefore, he again went on the next day i.e. on 23.04.2013 and prepared observation mahazar (Ex.P16) and rough sketch (Ex.P17) in the presence of Prabu (P.W8) and Ramesh (P.W.9). Thereafter, he collected sample soil, as well as the blood stained soil and the same were marked as M.O.2 and M.O.3. At about 9.00 to 11.00 A.M., he proceeded to Mundiyambakkam Government Hospital and conducted inquest upon the body of the deceased and prepared inquest report (Ex.p19). He also recorded the statements of P.W.1 – Rohini, P.W.2 – Sundharam, P.W.3 – Nagappan, P.W.4 – Venkatesan, P.W.5 – Murugan and P.W.6 - Elanaganar. Thereafter, he made arrangements for sending the body for post-mortem.

3.3. In the meanwhile, at about 12.00 P.M., P.W.15 arrested the accused and the accused had voluntarily given a confession statement in the presence of P.W.10 – Sampath, and P.W.11 – Anbazhagan, and thereafter, effected the discovery of facts by recovering the billhook, and the same was forwarded to the jurisdictional Magistrate under Form-95. He had also made arrangements for the forensic examination of the weapon. Thereafter, he had also recorded the statements of the forensic expert (P.W.13) – Jeyanthi, post-mortem doctor (P.W.12) – Dr.Geethanjali and P.W.14 – Dr.Viruthagiri, who gave treatment to P.W.1 – Rohini.

3.4. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution had examined 15 witnesses, namely P.W.1 to P.W.15, marke