D. Murugesan, J. - (1.)THE appellant is the sole accused who was put on trial in S.C.No.31 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Namakkal. She was found guilty for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
(2.)THE prosecution case in brief is as follows:
a) THE accused is the third wife of the deceased Nallaiya Gownder. Due to the dispute regarding partition of property, she had grudge against the deceased and with an intention to murder him, at about 12.00 noon on 8.5.2004, the accused, while the deceased was sleeping in a steel cot in the front side of the house had cut him with the billhook indiscriminately. Due to the multiple injuries sustained, the deceased had died due to shock and haemorrhage. b) P.W.2. is the second wife of the deceased and elder sister of the accused. P.W.1 is the son of the deceased and accused. P.W.2 informed P.W.1 about the occurrence, in turn P.W.1 informed the same to the Police at 3.45 p.m. on 8.5.2004 through phone. THE Deputy Superintendent of Police came to the scene of occurrence at 6.00 a.m. on 9.5.2004 and P.W.1 gave a complaint to him which is Ex.P.26. P.W.23-the Inspector of Police, Tiruchengode, has received the complaint and registered the same in Cr.No.236 of 2004 under Section 302 I.P.C. at 10.00 a.m. on 9.5.2004 and forwarded the copies of F.I.R to his higher officials and has taken up the investigation. He went to the scene of occurrence at 11.00 a.m. alongwith photographer who took photographs of the deceased and the occurrence place. He has prepared Observation Mahazar Ex.P.28 and Rough Sketch Ex.P.29 in the presence of P.Ws.13 and 14. He has also recovered bloodstained clothes and earth M.Os.8 to 13 in the presence of the above witnesses under Mahazar Ex.P.30. He also conducted Inquest in the presence of Panchayatdars and prepared Inquest Report Ex.P.31. THEreafter he sent the body of the deceased to the Government Hospital for Post Mortem through the Head Constable along with a requisition letter Ex.P.6 and sent the recovered material objects to the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode under Form-95. He also sent the material objects worn by the deceased after the post-mortem to the Judicial Magistate, Tiruchengode on 10.5.2004. He examined withnesses Chandran, Subramani, Natesan, Chengoda Gownder, Chellammal on 11.5.2004 and recorded their statements. On 14.5.2004 he arrested the accused at about 1.00 p.m. at Tiruchengode, Kozhikkal Natham Road, near siththampalayam road and recorded her confession statement in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer and his Assistant. On the basis of the admissible portion of the confession statement Ex.P.24, P.W.23 recovered billhook, saree and jacket of the accused (M.Os.3 to 5) worn at the time of occurrence under Mahazar Ex.P.25. On 19.6.2004 he examined P.W.16-the Post Mortem Doctor and obtained final opinion of Post Mortem report-Ex.P.10. c) P.W.16 Dr. Tamilselvan, who conducted the post mortem has found the following injuries on the body of the deceased: (1) A clop wound of the size 3 x 2 x bone deep over (Rt.) side of face below the (Rt) over eye (t) (2) # of (Rt). Zygomatic bone (t) (3) chop wound of the size of 7 cm x 4 cm bone deep over the left face external from left side of nose to the left cheek (4) fracture of left Nexille bone (5) A chop wound of 3x2x1cm (x) over and below the tip of Nose (6) Left laver deformed and of the left Mondible (x) (7) Bleeding seen from the left ear. He also opined that the deceased would appear to have died 24 to 48 hours prior to autopsy, as a result of shock and hemorrhage, due to injury of vital structures of head and face including skull and base of brain. Upon completion of investigation, PW.23 the Inspector of Police laid Charge Sheet before the Judicial Magistrate, Trichengode for an offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. against the accused.

In order to substantiate the charges, prosecution has examined 23 witnesses, marked 32 exhibits and produced 13 M.Os. On behalf of the accused three witnesses were examined and 5 Exhibits were marked. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating materials available against her, she denied that the above evidence of witnesses is false. As if the learned Judge found the accused guilty of the offence, convicted and sentenced her as stated earlier.

Mr. K.V. Sridharan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution case rests on only two circumstantial evidence viz., 1. The Motive and 2. The Recovery

(3.)AS far as the motive is concerned though P.Ws.2,4 and 6 have spoken about the motive, as per their evidence, even the marriage of P.W.1 was arranged by the accused and deceased and they have performed the betrothal. They have also deposed that till the date of occurrence both the accused and deceased were living very happily and the dispute which has been put against the accused occurred 10 years prior to the date of occurrence and therefore the prosecution has not established the motive.
He would also submit that insofar as the recovery is concerned, the accused was present in the scene of occurrence when the police came to the place of occurrence. Even when the sniffer dog was brought, it did not catch the accused. But on the other hand it had gone to the house of P.W.3 and P.W.4. P.Ws.3 and 4 were taken to the police station on suspicion. They were enquired alongwith P.W.1. When the prosecution had brought up the case based on the presence of the bloodstains in the cloths of the accused viz., M.Os.4 and 5 (Saree and Jacket), if she was the real assailant, the sniffer dog could have easily caught hold of the accused and therefore the story of recovery is only invented for the purpose of false implication of the accused. He would also submit that though the Investigating Officer-P.W.23 has admitted that the report was obtained from the officer who brought the sniffer dog and he has also known the reasons adduced therein, the said report has been suppressed. Further, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that even according to the Investigating Officer, it is the admitted case of the prosecution that finger prints were also collected from the scene of occurrence and the report to that effect was also obtained. But again for the reasons best known to the Investigating Officer, the said report was not filed, throwing serious doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case to implicate the accused. He would also submit that even the arrest of the appellant was shown on 14.5.2004 is totally false as P.W.1 has spoken that the accused was also taken to the police station on the same day of the occurrence and kept by the police. After P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and 6 were let off, the arrest of the accused was shown, which would indicate the falsehood of the prosecution case.