1. Whether a defect or illegality in the investigation vitiates the trial? If so, whether the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under S.302, IPC could be sustained on the facts and circumstances of this case are the concomitant questions that fall for consideration in this appeal.

2. The facts leading to the appeal are as follows:

PSI of Rajanakuntae police station (PW - 10) registered a F.I.R against the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') under S.302 of IPC. In the F.I.R he alleged that on 26-4-2010 when he was in the police station at 10.45 a.m., the accused appeared before him carrying in his hand a blood - stained chopper in a cement bag and informed him that his step mother Smt. Aswathamma was giving them trouble over property issue and was also interfering with the pensionary benefits of his father. She had also filed a civil suit against them. Hence, to do away with her, on seeing her alone sitting in Linganahalli Colony bus stand, he brought a chopper from his house and killed her by assaulting on her neck.

3. The PSI seized the blood - stained chopper under a Mahazar, Ex.P - 8 and registered a suo motu case against the accused. This F.I.R was registered on 26-4-2010 at 11.30 a.m. Thereafter, he arrested the accused and produced him before the Magistrate. Further investigation was continued by PW - 13 - CPI of Doddaballapur. He laid the charge sheet against the accused.

4. At the trial Court, the accused denied the charge. In proof of its case the prosecution examined 13 witnesses, produced in evidence 13 documents Exs.P - 1 to P - 13 and Material Objects at MOs. 1 to 14. By the impugned Judgment, the trial Court convicted the accused for the above offence punishable under S.302 of IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/-. The trial Court was of the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. In arriving at this conclusion, trial Court relied on the direct testimony of PW - 6 and PW - 11, the eye - witnesses to the incident and the evidence regarding the seizure of the weapon namely, MO. 13 coupled with the motive spoken to by PW - 1, PW - 6 and PW - 11 and found it appropriate to convict the accused for the above offence.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellant / accused has preferred the above appeal.

6. We have heard Sri. G. Manjunath, learned counsel appearing for the accused and Sri. Sandesh Chouta, learned State Public Prosecutor - II.

7. The learned counsel for the accused has raised mainly legal contentions touching the validity of the investigation. The principal contention urged by the learned counsel is that the registration of the F.I.R is not in accordance with the provisions of S.154 of Cr.P.C. The PSI who was the complainant himself has registered the F.I.R. Therefore, the initiation of the criminal prosecution is bad in law. The weapon said to have been used for the commission of the offence is seized before the registration of F.I.R, which is another serious flaw affecting the trial. PW - 10 who registered the F.I.R could not have embarked upon the investigation. Therefore, the evidence relating to the recovery of the weapon could not have been used in determining the guilt of the accused. It is the submission of the learned counsel that these irregularities vitiate the entire trial entitling the accused for honourable acquittal. On merits, the learned counsel contends that the evidence of the eye - witnesses is not reliable. Both the eye - witnesses examined by the prosecution are close relatives of the deceased and are interested witnesses. Their evidence suffers from improbabilities inasmuch as their presence at the spot of occurrence is doubtful. The confession of the accused could not have been made the basis for the conviction. Hence, he pleads for the acquittal of the accused.

8. The learned State Public Prosecutor ' “II has argued in support of the impugned Judgment. At the outset, he would