Narasimham, J.- This is an appeal against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Anantapur, in Sessions Case No. 70 of 1964. The appellant, who was the sole accused therein, has been convicted of an offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code, for the murder of her sister-in-law at about 3 p.m. on nth September, 1964 in their house in Old Guntakal and sentenced to imprisonment for life. We will in the course of our judgment refer to the appellant as the accused. The main facts of the prosecution case are these: The accused lost her husband about 10 years ago and she with her five children came to live with her mother and brothers in their family house in Old Guntakal. The accused has 3 younger brothers the eldest of whom is Kesava Reddy. The deceased was his wife who was married about 6 years prior to the occurrence. It is said that Kesava Reddy was promised Rs. 1,000 by way of dowry and that he should also receive about Rs. 300 being the cost of the ‘Thali’ which weighed two tolas. The accused being the eldest of the family and her mother Chowdamma being old, the accused was looking after the affairs of the family. She was often demanding the deceased to get them the money which was promised. About 2 years after the marriage, the deceased’s brother, Narayana Reddy (P.W. 9) paid Rs. 360 towards the costs of the ‘Thali‘and interest due on the cost. He paid the money to Chowdamma. But the promised dowry still remained unpaid and the accused was troubling the deceased often. The deceased was mild and well-behaved which made the accused more insistent and troublesome. Off and on the accused was troubling the deceased. She was finding fault with her for every little slip that she might have committed in her household chores. The family had 5 milch-buffaloes whose milk they sold. The deceased used to draw the milk from the buffaloes and sell the same to one Pinjari Kasamma (P.W. 1), a milk-vendor, who lived by collecting 3 seers in the morning and 2 seers in the afternoon and selling that milk herself and making a livelihood thereon. The family had 5 milch-buffaloes whose milk they sold. The deceased used to draw the milk from the buffaloes and sell the same to one Pinjari Kasamma (P.W. 1), a milk-vendor, who lived by collecting 3 seers in the morning and 2 seers in the afternoon and selling that milk herself and making a livelihood thereon. It is the prosecution case that on the day of occurrence the accused beat the deceased with a pestle and also strangled her and throttled her to death bearing a grudge that the promised dowry was not given, apparently finding fault with her that she allowed the calf to draw the milk from the she-buffalo and so the required milk could not be given to Pinjari Kasamma (P.W. 1). On the day of occurrence, the accused went to the fields for weeding grass. Other persons were also employed to weed grass, Eramma (P.W. 3) being one of them. The deceased took cold rice to the field for the accused and her mother Chowdamma. They took the cold rice and the deceased returned home. Kasamma (P.W. 1), who was to collect 2 seers of milk in the afternoon, came over at about 2 p.m. (she had referred to the time by the sound of the siren). Lakshmi Devamma i.e., the deceased was the only person then at home. The accused was not there. Her brothers also were absent. She asked Lakshmi Devamma to give the milk. At that time she was going to fetch water from the water tap. Meanwhile she asked her to collect milk from Bandeppa (another person who was selling her milk). After collecting 2 seers of milk from Kuruba Bandeppa’s house, P.W. 1 returned to the accused’s house. By then Lakshmi Devamma was drawing milk from one of the she-buffaloes. She drew about quarter of a seer of milk. To make up the remainder she tried to draw milk from another she-buffalo. But the she-buffalo got restive and began to kick her. The deceased then asked her to wait for a while. Then she sat on the steps of the pial of the house. It was about 3 or 3-30 p.m. then. The accused returned from the field. She questioned Lakshmi Devamma (the deceased) as to why she did not give the milk to P.W. 1 and was making her wait, Lakshmi Devamma replied that the she-buffalo was kicking. Then she sat on the steps of the pial of the house. It was about 3 or 3-30 p.m. then. The accused returned from the field. She questioned Lakshmi Devamma (the deceased) as to why she did not give the milk to P.W. 1 and was making her wait, Lakshmi Devamma replied that the she-buffalo was kicking. The accused became furious saying that the buffalo was kicking because Lakshmi Devamma had allowed the calf to drink away the milk. So saying she picked up a pestle and beat Lakshmi Devamma on the left side of her neck and also on the upper part of her chest. (The witness showed the middle portion). The pestle was 4“in diameter and 3 feet in length. The measurements were shown by the witness. The accused beat Lakshmi Devamma when she was in the ‘padasala’ i.e., the main hall of the house. On receipt of the first blow by the side of the neck, Lakshmi Devamma cried ‘Amma.‘On receipt of the second blow on the chest, she fell down on her back in the main hall. P.W. 1 was frightened and so she left the place. As soon as she came out of the accused’s house, she saw one Thimmappa (P.W. 2) rushing into the accused’s house evidently having heard the cry of Lakshmi Devamma. Later she came to know that Lakshmi Devamma died. P.W. 2 is a Bus Conductor and a resident of old Guntakal. He lived about a furlong from the accused’s house. His junior paternal uncle, Venkataswami, had his house close to the accused’s house. There were 4 or 5 houses between the house of the accused and the house of his uncle. He knew the accused and Lakshmi Devamma, the wife of Kesava Reddy. At about 3 or 3-30 p.m. he was going to his uncle’s house and was passing in front of the accused’s house. He heard a cry ‘Amma’ from the accused’s house. He stood on the road and saw Kasamma (P.W. 1) rushing out of the accused’s house. He asked Kasamma as to what the matter was, but she went away without giving any reply. Thereupon he went into the house of the accused and saw the accused standing with a pestle in her hand in the padasala. Lakshmi Devamma had fallen on the ground in the padasala. He asked Kasamma as to what the matter was, but she went away without giving any reply. Thereupon he went into the house of the accused and saw the accused standing with a pestle in her hand in the padasala. Lakshmi Devamma had fallen on the ground in the padasala. It appeared to him that Narasamma (accused) had beaten Lakshmi Devamma with the pestle and Lakshmi Devamma fell down unconscious. So he questioned the accused as to why she had beaten Lakshmi Devamma. The accused resented and retorted that it was their family matter and that he need not show any concern in it. The pestle in the hand of the accused was about 4” diameter and 3 feet. in length. Thereupon he went away to his uncle’s house and from there to his own house. Later he came to know that Lakshmi Devamma died. The accused then sent for P.W. 3, and when she came, the accused told her that Lakshmi Devamma suddenly fell down unconscious and asked her to see her, and showed her the Pooja room saying that Lakshmi Devamma was lying there unconscious. She looked into the Pooja room, which was dark. She was frightened and so she came out of the room and cried out that Lakshmi Devamma was lying unconscious. Tulasamma (P.W. 6), Naganna (P.W. 4) and Salamma (not examined) came there. They all went into the Pooja room and brought Lakshmi Devamma out of the room into the ‘padasala.‘Sayanna (P.W. 5) also came there and felt the pulse of Lalshmi Devamma and said that Lakshmi Devamma was dead. All these persons saw bleeding from the nose and a bleeding injury on the chest and a contusion on the left shoulder near the neck. The Village Munsif of old Guntakal (P.W. 7) returned home at about 7-30 p.m. and he came to know that Lakshmi Devamma had died. Then he wrote reports to the Police and the Magistrate and sent them through a Talayari. Exhibit P-1 is the report to the Police at Guntakal and Exhibit P-2 to the Magistrate at Gooty. The Police Station was a furlong from his house. He waited for the Police to arrive. Exhibit P-1 was received by the Sub-Inspector of Police, No. II Town Guntakal Police Station (P.W. 13) at about 8-30 p.m. on 11th September, 1964, i.e., the day of occurrence. The Police Station was a furlong from his house. He waited for the Police to arrive. Exhibit P-1 was received by the Sub-Inspector of Police, No. II Town Guntakal Police Station (P.W. 13) at about 8-30 p.m. on 11th September, 1964, i.e., the day of occurrence. P.W. 13 registered a Crime No. 3 of 1964 under section 302, Indian Penal Code, against the accused and her brother, Kesava Reddy. He sent express reports to all the authorities concerned, Exhibit P-10 being the First Information Report that he prepared. Thereafter at about 10 p.m. he left the Police Station and arrived at the accused’s house. The Village Munsif (P.W. 7) followed the Police Inspector (P.W. 13). P.W. 13 saw the dead body in the ‘padasala’ of the house. There were injuries and blood marks on the body. The accused was not there. The mother of the accused and the other members of the family were in the house. As it was late in the night, he postponed the investigation to next morning. On 12th September, 1964 he held an inquest over the body from 7 A.M. to 10 A.M. Exhibit P-4 is the inquest report. He then despatched the body for post-mortem through P.C.No. 1136 (P.W. 12) and then inspected the accused’s house and drew a rough sketch of the rooms in the house (Exhibit P-11). The flooring of the Puja room consisted of Cuddapah slabs. There were indications of blood-stains having been washed away. There was a broom nearby. He seized the slab stones, M.Os. 4 and 5, the carpet M.O. 1 on which the body lay and the blood-stained clothes of the deceased, M.Os. 2 and 3 and continued the investigation. The accused was absconding. The Inspector of Police, Guntakal (P.W. 14) took over investigation at about 2-30 p.m. on 12th September, 1964 and examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 and others. He gave instructions for the apprehension of the accused, who was later arrested on 18th September, 1964 at about 6-30 p.m. in a field near Guntakal. The post-mortem over the dead body of Lakshmi Devamma was conducted by the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Uravakonda (P.W. 8) commencing at about 4-30 P.M. on 12th September, 1964. Rigor Mortis had passed off in all the limbs and death appeared to have occurred about 20 to 26 hours prior to the post-mortem examination. The post-mortem over the dead body of Lakshmi Devamma was conducted by the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Uravakonda (P.W. 8) commencing at about 4-30 P.M. on 12th September, 1964. Rigor Mortis had passed off in all the limbs and death appeared to have occurred about 20 to 26 hours prior to the post-mortem examination. The body was that of a female aged about 25 years fairly nourished. Externally there were 10 injuries which he described thus: 1. A contused wound 3" × 2" over the left cheek. 2. A well-defined depressed mark about 1/2" in width situated below the thyroid cartilage clearly seen on the left side of the neck from below the occipital bone in the back upto the middle line in the front and faintly seen on the right side encircling the neck. The base of the mark was pale with ecchymosis of the margins. 3. A single finger mark on the left side of the neck and forefinger marks on the right side of the neck. The marks were brown in colour and parchment like. 4. A contused wound 1" × 1/2" situated 3’ below the right nipple in 7 o’clock position. 5. Another contused wound 3/4" × ¼" situated 2" away from the right nipple in 5 o’clock position. 6. A circular contused wound situated low or down the back about 3" in diameter just the Sternal notch being the centre. 7. A linear abrasion 2" in length situated 10" below on the left side in mid axillary line. 8. A contused wound over the left arm at the top 3" X 3". 9. Another contused wound 3" X 3" over the top of the right arm. 10. A contused wound 2" X 2" over the forehead. On dissection he found the tissues underneath all the injuries ecchymosed. The trachea was congested. The lungs were congested and exuding bloody fluid. The liver, spleen and kidneys were all congested. The stomach was distended and contained undigested korra food. The injuries of the deceased were all ante-mortem. The contused wounds could have been caused by a pestle. The abrasion might have been the result of contact with a hard and rough object. The deceased died of asphyxia due to strangulation and throttling The external injuries Nos. 2 and 3 caused the death. The other injuries were simple. The injuries of the deceased were all ante-mortem. The contused wounds could have been caused by a pestle. The abrasion might have been the result of contact with a hard and rough object. The deceased died of asphyxia due to strangulation and throttling The external injuries Nos. 2 and 3 caused the death. The other injuries were simple. The injured could be unconscious for about 15 minutes or less on receipt of injury No. 6. Exhibit P-3 is the post-mortem certificate that he issued. After the close of the investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the accused. At the committal enquiry she said that she did not know how the deceased received the injuries, that she had gone to the field and returned from the field in the evening and that was all that she knew. She said that she returned home from the field with a bundle of grass in the evening. Her son Prabhakar went into the Pooja room with his books. Prabhakar told her that his aunt had fallen in the house. Then she cried aloud for Eramma (P.W. 3) and Prabhakar brought her and that was all that she knew. In the Court of Session the denied the material facts appearing in evidence against her. She denied that she was absconding. She said that after she returned from the field, she entered the Pooja room and found the body of a living person touching her feet. The room was dark. On closely looking she found that Lakshmi Devamma was lying unconscious in the room. Meanwhile her son Prabhakar came and she sent him for Eramma (P.W. 3) and others. Others also came there and they carried Lakshmi Devamma into the padasala and laid her on a carpet. She denied having beaten and killed Lakshmi Devamma. She said that the Village Munsif demanded a bribe of Rs. 4,000 from her threatening her that it would not be difficult to create evidence against her. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case and found the accused guilty of intentionally causing the death of her sister-in-law and convicted her under section 302, Indian Penal Code and sentenced her to imprisonment for life. The medical evidence proves beyond doubt that Lakshmi Devamma died by violence. There were as many as 7 hits on her body which could have been caused by a pestle. The medical evidence proves beyond doubt that Lakshmi Devamma died by violence. There were as many as 7 hits on her body which could have been caused by a pestle. They were all contused wounds described by the Doctor in his evidence which we have set out in the foregoing paras. Further there were signs of strangulation and throttling which were the fatal injuries. We have no doubt that she received all these injuries on her body and that she succumbed 1o these injuries. The nature of the injuries are clearly suggestive of a strong motive to kill a young married woman in that manner. The prosecution has alleged a motive for killing her so violently. We will deal with the motive in the appropriate context. We will first consider the direct evidence of the infliction of injuries on her. P.W. 1 according to the prosecution is the direct witness to the accused beating Lakshmi Devamma with a pestle. Before we consider the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, we would just refer to the contentions of the learned Counsel. The first contention of the learned Counsel is that the prosecution case is widely discrepant from the first information of the crime sent by the Village Munsif. He would say that by itself is a circumstance which spells a lot of doubt on the prosecution case. We would at the outset refer to the first information sent by the Village Munsif which set the Police in motion (Exhibit P-1): “Lakshmi Devamma, wife of Kesava Reddi, i.e., the elder daughter-in-law of Kotharamanagari Venkata Reddi, a resident of Guntakal has died between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. as her husband Kesava Reddi, Narasamma and others together have trampled over her neck. On enquiry it is learnt that the household affairs are not proper and that she (Lakshmi Devamma) was now and then quarrelling with her husband. Likewise, in the quarrel that took place to-day she was beaten and that she died. Hence it is requested that on seeing this report necessary action may be taken. (S/d.) G.P. Narayana Reddi, V.M. Sent at 8 P.M. through Thalayari Anjinappa.” On receipt of this report, the First Information Report (Exhibit P-10) was prepared. The crime was registered showing the accused Narasamma as the 1st accused and Kesava Reddy, son of Venkata Reddy, as the 2nd accused, both of old Guntakal. (S/d.) G.P. Narayana Reddi, V.M. Sent at 8 P.M. through Thalayari Anjinappa.” On receipt of this report, the First Information Report (Exhibit P-10) was prepared. The crime was registered showing the accused Narasamma as the 1st accused and Kesava Reddy, son of Venkata Reddy, as the 2nd accused, both of old Guntakal. Reading this first information, the learned Counsel invites us to strike down the prosecution case at the trial as widely discrepant with regard to the time of occurrence, the manner of killing and the accused involved. The contention appears plausible. But there can be no doubt that it is fallacious on scrutiny. The Village Munsif (P.W. 7) deposed that he reported to the Police and the Magistrate what he heard from the neighbours. He wrote Exhibits P-1 and P-2 enquiring some persons before sending the reports. He did not remember whom he enquired that night. He said that when he entered the village that night, he heard that Lakshmi Devamma was murdered but that he did not go to her house. This evidence manifestly shows that the information that he communicated in Exhibits P-1 and P-2 is not attributable to any witness who figured as a prosecution witness. The information appears to be nothing more than his version of the case. Where he got it from nobody knows. It appears to be his imagination. It is now well settled that the first information is not substantive evidence in the case. It is never per se a statement of the case of the prosecution. It is only an information which makes the Police know that a cognizable crime has been committed to enable them to take immediate action. At the trial it is meant to corroborate or contradict the maker. That the use of a first information at a trial is so, has been lucidly stated in the very early case Sankaralinga Thevan, In re1. Statements in the first information report can only be used for the purpose of contradicting or corroborating a witness and for no other purpose. If a witness in the Sessions trial makes a statement different to that attributed to the witness in the first information report, that discredits the evidence of the witness to that extent in the Sessions Court, but does not make the statement in the first information report the evidence upon that matter in the case. If a witness in the Sessions trial makes a statement different to that attributed to the witness in the first information report, that discredits the evidence of the witness to that extent in the Sessions Court, but does not make the statement in the first information report the evidence upon that matter in the case. In the said circumstances, we are not persuaded that the first information discredits the eye-witnesses, P.Ws. 1 and 2 examined for the prosecution. The next contention of the learned Counsel is that P.Ws. 1 and 2 were merely got up as they were examined by the Police after the inquest and not earlier. This contention, we would presently consider after considering the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. P.W. 1, Pinjari Kasamma, is a milk-vendor. She lives by selling milk. She used to purchase milk from the accused and from one Kuruba Bandappa. She said that she had been purchasing from the accused for the last one year 3 seers in the morning and 2 seers in the afternoon. On Friday, i.e., on the day of occurrence about 3 months ago she went to the accused’s house at about 2 p.m. for milk. There was none in the house at the time except Lakshmi Devamma. She stated the facts which we have referred to in the ‘resume’ part of this judgment. It is said that she was sitting there at about 3 or 3-30 p.m. waiting for the milk. Then came the accused saying that Lakshmi Devamma allowed the calf to drink away the milk, picked up a pestle and beat her. The pestle was said to be 3 feet long and 4 inches thick. But that has not been recovered. She is the direct witness to the accused giving blows with the pestle and Lakshmi Devamma falling down on receipt of the blows. She speaks only of two blows; that is to say, that is only a part of the violence inflicted on Lakshmi Devamma. In cross-examination it was elicited that on some occasions, she was sleeping in the accused’s house during nights and was taking food also in her house now and then. She said that Lakshmi Devamma was a good lady. As to her purchase of milk, she said that she was paying the cost of the milk to the accused’s mother Chowdamma every week. She said that Lakshmi Devamma was a good lady. As to her purchase of milk, she said that she was paying the cost of the milk to the accused’s mother Chowdamma every week. She denied the suggestion made to her that she was not given milk for about 10 days prior to the occurrence as she had not paid for the milk, and that the arrears amounted to Rs. 190. She also denied the suggestion that she was giving false evidence against the accused with a view to collect money from the accused’s relations. We do not consider that there is any truth in these suggestions, for there is the evidence of P.W. 6 that P.W. 1 goes to the house of the accused daily twice and takes the milk and it was not suggested to P.W. 6 that P.W. 1 was not getting the milk and had stopped away about 10 days prior to the occurrence. The suggestion that she was giving false evidence with a view to collect money from the accused’s relations is a vague and baseless allegation and we cannot possibly accept such suggestions as discrediting the witness. The learned Counsel, however, stresses on the fact that she was examined the next day at about noon time, that is to say, after the inquest and contends that that delay in examining her is sufficient to discredit this witness. The witness has stated that she did not tell anyone on the way about the accused assaulting Lakshmi Devamma. It may also be recalled that Thimmappa (P.W. 2) questioned her when she was rushing out of the house as to what the matter was, but that she went away without giving any reply and he had himself rushed into the house and saw for himself what had taken place there. The witness said that she was frightened and left the place straight for her house. The presence of P.W. 1 is corroborated by Thimmappa, P.W. 2, who heard a cry ‘Amma’ from the accused’s house and saw P.W. 1 rushing out of the accused’s house. When he asked her as to what the matter was, she went away without giving any reply. This shows that the witness was so scared that she would not even stop to tell P.W. 2 what had taken place inside the house. That is an indication of the attitude of the person. When he asked her as to what the matter was, she went away without giving any reply. This shows that the witness was so scared that she would not even stop to tell P.W. 2 what had taken place inside the house. That is an indication of the attitude of the person. So the adverse comment directed against this witness that she could be examined only after the inquest and for that reason we have to label her as a got-up witness does not bear scrutiny. We cannot accept as a general rule that in a case where a witness is examined after the inquest, he or she has to be labelled as a got-up witness. That depends upon the circumstances of each case. If, for example, the killing is the outcome of factious rivalry, Courts have to be rather very cautious and to be guarded against any possible false implication on the suggestions of the interested. Those considerations, however, would not apply in the case of a killing for private grudges. True it is that a material witness should be examined as soon as possible and if for any reason that is not the case, the matter needs a probe and an explanation, for a witness may not be immediately forthcoming for various innocuous reasons: he or she might be indifferent; might be misguidedly sympathetic; or the witness was away on his or her avocation and was not available. We cannot rush to a conclusion that the witness is a got-up witness for the simple reason that the witness turns up after the inquest. All that we can say is that that aspect of the case might need an explanation. But, on a perusal of the relevant evidence we find that the cross-examination has not been directed that way, that is to say, to elicit an explanation as to how it is that she came to be examined after the inquest and not before. The Investigating Officer was not also questioned in this regard. So it is manifest to us that this is something like a stock criticism that the witness is not entitled to credit because the witness is examined after the inquest. We are not persuaded that this criticism has any substance, and we have good reasons to say that it is a baseless criticism. So it is manifest to us that this is something like a stock criticism that the witness is not entitled to credit because the witness is examined after the inquest. We are not persuaded that this criticism has any substance, and we have good reasons to say that it is a baseless criticism. We would now come to the evidence of P.W. 2, who had spoken to the clinching circumstances that the accused was holding a pestle in her hand, that she was in the ‘padasala’ and that Lakshmi Devamma had fallen down in the padasala The witness said that it appeared to him that the accused had beaten Lakshmi Devamma with the pestle and that Lakshmi Devamma fell down unconscious He asked the accused as to why she beat Lakshmi Devamma. The accused said’ that it was their family matter and that he need not show any concern in it. This evidence as to the question of the witness and the answer given by the accused gives rise to a reasonable inference that the accused has beaten Lakshmi Devamma and that the witness was nobody to question her. He had also spoken to the dimensions of the weapon in the manner stated by P.W. 1. So his evidence furnishes material corroboration to the direct testimony of P.W. 1. This witness also has come in for adverse comment that he was examined after the inquest. The witness is a Bus Conductor. He said that the Police came for him to the Bus stand at about 9 a.m., but that he was then at the Post Office to collect tappals and that the Inspector examined him at about 12-30 p.m. at the house of the accused. To the extent necessary this evidence explains how he was not available for examination till about 12-30 p.m. It is the case of P.W. 1 in the case of this witness as well, the Investigating Officer was not questioned, as to how it transpired that this witness also was examined after the inquest. The discussion pertaining to the availability of the witness, in the context of P.W. 1’s testimony applies equally to this witness and we need not repeat the discussion here But, it stands out clearly that P.Ws. 1 and 2 have no grudges against the accused and they have therefore no motive to implicate the accused falsely. The discussion pertaining to the availability of the witness, in the context of P.W. 1’s testimony applies equally to this witness and we need not repeat the discussion here But, it stands out clearly that P.Ws. 1 and 2 have no grudges against the accused and they have therefore no motive to implicate the accused falsely. We have scrutinised the evidence of these two witnesses carefully and we find good reasons for accepting them as disinterested and independent witnesses and not one reason to discredit them. The learned trial Judge has accepted the testimony of these witnesses as truthful as we find no reasons for disagreeing with him on the credibility of their testimony. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 proves that the accused beat the deceased with the pestle and that the deceased fell down unconscious in the ‘padasala.‘ We then have the evidence of P.Ws. 3 to 6 as to what transpired subsequently. P.W. 3 was sent for by the accused and the accused told her that suddenly Lakshmi Devamma fell down unconscious and asked her to see her. The accused showed her the Pooja room saying that Lakshmi Devamma was lying unconscious therein She looked into the Pooja room. It was dark. She was frightened and so she came out of the room and cried out that Lakshmi Devamma was lying unconscious. Tulasamma (P.W. 6), Naganna (P.W. 4) and Salamma (not examined) came there. They all went into the Pooja room and brought Lakshmi Devamma out of the room into the ‘padasala.‘Sayanna (P.W. 5) also came there. He felt the pulse of Lakshmi Devamma and said that she was dead. The evidence of P.W. 3 is corroborated by P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 to the extent it concerned them. P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 have also seen bleeding injuries and other injuries on Lakshmi Devamma. Nothing has been elicited against the testimony of these witnesses. It is not also contended before us that these witnesses did not tell the truth in so far as they had spoken to what they saw. P.Ws. 4, 5 and 6 have also seen bleeding injuries and other injuries on Lakshmi Devamma. Nothing has been elicited against the testimony of these witnesses. It is not also contended before us that these witnesses did not tell the truth in so far as they had spoken to what they saw. The evidence of these witnesses brings out two facts clearly; firstly that Lakshmi Devamma was lying unconscious in the Pooja room and the accused had sent for P.W. 3 and told her that Lakshmi Devamma had fallen unconscious; and secondly that there were no other inmates of the house at the time, when these witnesses came into the house, that is to say, that at all material times the accused was the only person who was seen in the company of the deceased. When the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is read with the evidence of P.Ws. 3 to 6, we have to infer that Lakshmi Devamma had received more hits with the pestle after P.Ws. 1 and 2 left and that she was also strangled and throttled to death and put in the Pooja room and it was only later that she was brought out from the Pooja room to the ‘padasala’. We also consider that in the circumstances we might reasonably infer that by the time P.W. 3 came into the house, Lakshmi Devamma was dead. The prosecution has led evidence of motive for this occurrence. We have the evidence of P.W. 9, the brother of Lakshmi Devamma, that the accused was often troubling his sister and was demanding her to bring money towards the ‘dowry and the thali.‘He said that about 2 years after the marriage he and his father had paid Rs. 360 towards the cost of the ‘thali’ and the interest due on the cost. He himself paid the amount to Chowdamma, i.e., the mother of the accused. The dowry amount remained unpaid and the accused was troubling his sister often. Then he spoke to an incident a week prior to the occurrence when he visited his sister. That day she (his sister) wept before him. He asked her why she was weeping, and she said that she was being much troubled as they did not pay the dowry. Then he spoke to an incident a week prior to the occurrence when he visited his sister. That day she (his sister) wept before him. He asked her why she was weeping, and she said that she was being much troubled as they did not pay the dowry. He told his sister that he would arrange payment of the dowry soon after harvesting the crop and advised her to put up with the troubles for a short while. That night he, Kesava Reddy and the children of the accused were all dining together. There were small stones in the rice and salt was in excess in the curry. When the witness remarked that salt was in excess in the curry, the accused immediately said that his sister was responsible for putting the salt in excess and said that his sister did not do domestic work properly. His sister said that the accused was always inventing some fault or other against her and falsely accusing her as dowry was not paid. The next morning he left for his place. Thereafter he came to know 8 days later that his sister had died. In cross-examination it was elicited that his father Chenna Reddy was a cousin of Chowdamma, the accused’s mother. He also said that his sister never complained against her husband. There is nothing in the cross-examination to show that the witness was not telling the truth. If his evidence is accepted, as it should be, we have to say that the accused was troubling the deceased because she did not get the promised dowry and that the accused was giving expression to her ill-will in so many ways. The evidence of P.W. 9 also receives corroboration from independent witnesses like P.W. 6 and P.W. 7. P.W. 6 said that the accused was troubling Lakshmi-Devamma every now and then and that Lakshmi Devamma was mild and well-behaved. P.W. 7 said that the accused was troubling Lakshmi Devamma on the ground that Lakshmi Devamma’s parents did not give any dowry to Kesava Reddy. We find that this evidence proves that the accused bore a grudge against the deceased. The learned Counsel argued that this evidence of motive led by the prosecution is flimsy and that could hardly be a motive to kill the woman. This criticism bears on the question of sufficiency of motive. We find that this evidence proves that the accused bore a grudge against the deceased. The learned Counsel argued that this evidence of motive led by the prosecution is flimsy and that could hardly be a motive to kill the woman. This criticism bears on the question of sufficiency of motive. Sufficiency of motive is again a matter which varies with persons and circumstances in which they are placed. Whereas utter absence of motive might be a point in favour of the accused, we cannot enter into questions of sufficiency of motive argued in derogation of direct evidence of crime. The accused has denied the evidence implicating her, and said in effect that by the time she returned home she saw the deceased in an unconscious state. There is also a variation in her statement before the committal Court and the trial Court. Whereas in the committal Court she stated that her son had told her that aunt had fallen in the house (by aunt, the reference is to the deceased), in the Court of Session she said that she was the first to see that Lakshmi Devamma was lying unconscious in the Pooja room and then her son returned home and she sent him to get P.W. 3. We need not, however, discuss this inconsistency further except to say that both these versions are clearly belied by the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution who are all undoubtedly worthy of credence. We cannot possibly accept her bald denials of facts proved against her. Next the learned Counsel has argued that even accepting the case of the prosecution, there is no direct testimony that the accused had strangled or throttled the deceased and all that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 could show is that the accused beat the deceased with a pestle. We do not think that there is any force in this contention. The prosecution evidence, as we said, proves that the accused beat the deceased with a pestle and caused her injuries and that the injured fell down unconscious. The direct evidence is that two blows were given. But the medical testimony shows that the deceased had received 7 blows with the pestle and further to that, she was strangled and throttled to death. The external injuries a and 3 deposed to by the doctor are all tell-tale. The direct evidence is that two blows were given. But the medical testimony shows that the deceased had received 7 blows with the pestle and further to that, she was strangled and throttled to death. The external injuries a and 3 deposed to by the doctor are all tell-tale. The evidence therefore raises the question whether the accused who had a motive to beat the deceased and who beat the deceased with a pestle, is responsible for all the injuries caused including the strangulation and the throttling which caused the death. True it is that there is no direct evidence of strangling and throttling. But we have a strong array of circumstances which gives rise to an inference that the accused it was who had strangled and throttled her to death and had also given the other blows with the pestle. The circumstances are: (1) P.W. 1 saw Lakshmi Devamma falling down when the accused gave her two blows with a pestle. (2) P.W. 2 saw her with a pestle and the injured lying unconscious. (3) There were no other inmates of the house at the material time. (4) The deceased was seen unconscious in the Pooja room in circumstances which show that she was dead by the time and the accused told P.W. 3 that Lakshmi Devamma had fallen down unconscious. (5) The deceased had died by strangulation and throttling by that time. (6) The accused denied the circumstances implicating her and gave a false explanation that the deceased was found by her lying unconscious for the first time in the Pooja room. The circumstances read with the false explanation, which is again a further circumstance, are incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation on the hypothesis other than that she it was who had inflicted all the injuries including the fatal injuries on the deceased. We find also evidence that the accused was absconding. She was nowhere to be found after the Village Munsif and the Police came to the accused’s house at about to p.m. that night. Her whereabouts were not known till she was found on 18th September, 1964. This conduct of hers considered with the facts proved against her is undoubtedly inculpatory and is presumptive evidence of the commission of the crime by her. The accused denied that she was absconding. Her whereabouts were not known till she was found on 18th September, 1964. This conduct of hers considered with the facts proved against her is undoubtedly inculpatory and is presumptive evidence of the commission of the crime by her. The accused denied that she was absconding. But we have to say that we have no reason to discard the evidence that she was absconding. Apart from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, there is other evidence in the case that she was not seen after sometime that night till she was apprehended on 18th September, 1964. On this evidence we find that it is proved that the accused had committed the murder she was charged with. The conviction under section 302, Indian Penal Code, is therefore right. She has been awarded only the lesser sentence. The conviction and the sentence are affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. G.S.M. ----- Appeal dismissed.