2 The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant would submit that the motive for the commission of the offence is that the deceased is the uncle of the petitioner/appellant and the petitioner/appellant was loitering around without any job and was staying in the house of P.W.1 and on 14.11.2016 at about 00.45 hours, the petitioner/appellant who had gone out, knocked the door of the house in which the deceased and his family members were residing. The deceased had opened the door and castigated the petitioner/appellant which developed into a wordy altercation and in the process, the petitioner/appellant took M.O.1-knife and stabbed the deceased on the left side of the neck and when P.W.1-daughter of the deceased and P.Ws.2 and 3-neighbours came, they were also threatened with dire consequences by the petitioner/appellant by brandishing the knife and the deceased Vijayakumar, on account of the injuries sustained, had breathed his last. The primordial submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant is that though the prosecution has cited three eyewitnesses to the occurrence, except P.W.1-minor daughter of the deceased, nobody had supported the case of the prosecution and admittedly, the testimony of P.W.1 is an interested one and in the absence of any corroboration or material particulars, that testimony cannot be relief upon to point out the guilt on the part of the petitioner/appellant. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant that one Premkumar, who is the son of the deceased, actually tried to murder his father and when the petitioner/appellant intervened, he sustained injuries on his hand and the same has not been explained by the prosecution and in the light of the said infirmities, prays for suspension of the substantive sentences of imprisonment.
