NARAYAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS Appeal by the accused is directed against the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharwad, dated 18-3-1998, in S. C. 8/96. This appellant was charged and tried for the two offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, for murdering his mother. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are as follows : The accused, P. W. 3 and P. W. 8 are the sons of P. W. 1 and the deceased. P. W. 2 is the daughter of P. W. 1, who was staying in the house of P. W. 1 and the deceased, as her husband was working in Bombay. The accused separated himself from P. W. 1 and was staying in a portion of the same house separately with his wife and two children. P. W. 3 was working at Ichala Karanji while P. W. 8 was working at Bombay. P. W. 8 was sending Rs. 200/- every month to his parents for their maintenance. He was employed in a Factory at Bombay. The accused, a drunkard, was cordial with his parents, but he used to demand a share in the money sent by P. W. 8 - his brother. It is the case of the Prosecution that deceased used to receive this money sent by P. W. 8. Few days prior to the date of incident, which occurred on 1-9-1995 in the house of Haragapur-Gad, P. W. 8 sent Rs. 200/- through P. W. 9 to his mother. This came to the knowledge of the accused. Therefore, on 1-9-1995 at about 11. 00 P. M. , he came to the house of P. W. 1 and started quarrelling with his mother-deceased, demanding half of the amount sent by his brother. P. W. 2-Sevantha, daughter of P. W. 1, was also present. When the deceased refused to give him money on the ground that the money was insufficient for their maintenance, accused took out a wooden patti and started assaulting the deceased. P. W. 1 - his father and P. W. 2 - his sister, intervened to stop the assault. The deceased, thereafter, started running away from the house. When P. W. 1 intervened, accused bite his hands and also assaulted him. P. W. 1 - his father and P. W. 2 - his sister, intervened to stop the assault. The deceased, thereafter, started running away from the house. When P. W. 1 intervened, accused bite his hands and also assaulted him. On seeing his mother running away from the house, he chased her, lifted her, thrown her on the Katta, made her fall and thereafter, assaulted her causing severe injuries. The old lady died at the spot. On hearing the quarrel going on in the house of P. W. 1, two neighbours, namely, P. Ws. 4 and 5, Vishnu Appaiah and Nana Balku Jadhav, came near the house of P. W. 1 and found that accused was assaulting his mother. P. W. 1 took their help and sent information to his son-P. W. 3 and also to P. W. 8, who was at Bombay. While P. W. 3 reached his village on the next day morning at about 10. 00 A. M. , P. W. 8 came to his village subsequently. After P. W. 3 came home, he took his father to the jurisdictional Police, i. e. Sankeshwar Police Station and lodged a complaint as per Ex. P. 1. P. W. 17 - Dayanand, Sub-Inspector of Police, who was the Station House Officer, registered a criminal case in Crime No. 223/95 under Sections 302, 324 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of the allegations made in Ex. P. 1 and submitted the F. I. R. to the Court and despatched a copy of the FIR to the Circle Inspector of Police, P. W. 17 held Inquest Panchanama over the dead body as per Ex. P. 5 and drew up a Spot Mahazar as per Ex. P. 6. He made arrangements to send the dead body for Post-Mortem Examination. P. W. 11 - Doctor, conducted the Post-Mortem Examination on the dead body of the deceased and issued Post- Mortem Report - Ex. P. 11. Injured P. W. 1 was produced before the Doctor - P. W. 12. He noticed bite marks and lacerated injury and issued Wound Certificate - Ex. P. 13. The Circle Inspector of Police, P. W. 18 - Bapugouda Dadagouda Patil, took further investigation of this case, continued the investigation, laid a Charge-Sheet against the accused alleging the offences punishable under Sections 302, 324 and 504, IPC. He noticed bite marks and lacerated injury and issued Wound Certificate - Ex. P. 13. The Circle Inspector of Police, P. W. 18 - Bapugouda Dadagouda Patil, took further investigation of this case, continued the investigation, laid a Charge-Sheet against the accused alleging the offences punishable under Sections 302, 324 and 504, IPC. ( 3 ) THE accused entered appearance both before the Committal Court and the Court of Sessions, through his Advocate. He pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him. In proof of the charges, the Prosecution relied on the statements of 18 witnesses and got marked 23 documents and 11 Material Objects. The accused was also questioned as required under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has denied the truth of the Prosecution's evidence and pleaded his ignorance and not guilty. ( 4 ) LEARNED Sessions Judge, upon consideration of the material on record and the rival contentions, held the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324, IPC, and, therefore, convicted him for the said offences and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life, for the offence of murder and also sentenced him for three years for the offence under Section 324, IPC. The appellant has challenged the legality and correctness of the Judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the learned Sessions Judge. ( 5 ) WE have heard the arguments of Sri R. B. Deshpande, learned counsel for appellant-accused, and Sri B. C. Muddappa, learned Additional S. P. P. , for the State. We have perused the records. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has assailed the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 on the ground of interestedness. P. Ws. 1 and 2 are none other than the husband and daughter of the deceased. It is contended that the learned Sessions Judge should have acquitted the appellant on the ground that independent witnesses - P. Ws. 4 and 5 have not supported the case of the Prosecution. The Order is further assailed on the ground that there is long delay in complaining to the Police and this delay has been conveniently used by the complainant to concoct a false case against the appellant. The Prosecution is guilty of suppression of two versions of incident. It is further contended that no reliance can be placed on the recovery of M. Os. The Prosecution is guilty of suppression of two versions of incident. It is further contended that no reliance can be placed on the recovery of M. Os. 10 and 11 - Pant and Shirt of the appellant, as they are not incriminating articles. It is further contended that the accused had no intention to kill his mother and the learned Sessions Judge has committed a serious error in holding that the accused had intention to kill his mother, without having any proper evidence. Even if the entire evidence is believed to be true, the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC, is not made out by the Prosecution. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that though accused had the knowledge that the injuries caused by him are likely to cause death, he had no intention to kill the deceased and this circumstance can be inferred from the correct appreciation of the evidence placed by the Prosecution. Therefore, it is submitted that the Judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is not sustainable in law. ( 7 ) REBUTTING these contentions, Sri B. C. Muddappa, learned Additional S. P. P. , for the State, has contended that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 cannot be discarded only on the ground that they are related witnesses. They are related not only to the deceased but also to the accused, as they are father and sister of the accused. The deceased was the mother of the accused. There was no grudge for P. W. 1 to falsely involve the accused, his son, in the murder of his wife. The eye-witnesses' account finds ample corroboration with the medical evidence. The presence of the accused in the house of P. W. 1 at the time of incident at 11. 00 P. M. , on 1-9-1995, quarrelling with his mother, are spoken to by the hostile witness - P. W. 5, and his evidence to that extent is helpful to the Prosecution. Having regard to these facts, the Prosecution has placed ample evidence before the Court and proved the charges against the accused and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly held him guilty of the offence of murder and assault. Having regard to these facts, the Prosecution has placed ample evidence before the Court and proved the charges against the accused and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly held him guilty of the offence of murder and assault. The order of the learned Sessions Judge is quite sustainable in law and there are no good grounds pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant calling for interference and, therefore, prays for dismissal of the Appeal. ( 8 ) BOTH the learned counsel took us through the evidence placed by the Prosecution. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions canvassed by both sides. ( 9 ) IN the light of these contentions, the two points that arise for our consideration are :1. Whether the finding of guilt recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is not sustainable in law? If so,2. Whether the appellant is entitled for an order of acquittal or whether it is a case for lesser offence and reduction of sentence? ( 10 ) REGARDING Point No. 1 :- The relationship of the parties involved in this incident is not in dispute. P. W. 1 - Ganapathi Babu Nalawade is the father of the accused. P. W. 2 is the daughter of P. W. 1 who was staying with her parents since her husband deserted her; P. Ws. 3 and 8 were working elsewhere and P. W 8 was sending money for maintenance of his parents. He was the only son who was assisting his aged parents for their maintenance. He must be a grateful son to his old parents. P. W. 3 and P. W. 8 had not separated from their parents, perhaps on the ground that they were working elsewhere. The accused was living separately from his parents in a portion of the same house along with his wife and two children. No allegation of enmity between the accused and his parents is made by the Prosecution. It is alleged by the prosecution that he is a drunkard. On the fateful day, i. e. on 1-9-1995 at 11. 00 p. m. , the accused came to know of the money sent by his brother - P. W. 8 to his mother. He, therefore, entered the house of his parents in a drunken state, though it was not proved that he was highly drunken. On the fateful day, i. e. on 1-9-1995 at 11. 00 p. m. , the accused came to know of the money sent by his brother - P. W. 8 to his mother. He, therefore, entered the house of his parents in a drunken state, though it was not proved that he was highly drunken. No such defence is placed at the time of trial nor there was any evidence to show that the accused acted under the influence of the Alcohol and he lost self-control under the influence of intoxication. ( 11 ) IT is in the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 that on the day of incident, the accused was habituated to drink liquor. Whenever he used to drink liquor, he used to come and demand for money. Since they themselves had no money, there was no occasion for them to give him money. On the date of incident, he came to them and started quarrelling with them demanding money. According to P. W. 1, four days prior to the date of incident, his son - P. W. 8 who was staying at Bombay sent Rs. 200/- through P. W. 9 - Sugandha. He has also sent the letter stating that he was sending Rs. 200/- to them and the accused had read that letter. The deceased had taken that amount, went to Sankeshwar Shandy Bazaar and purchased goods and returned home at about 8 or 9 P. M. The deceased started cooking food. At that time, accused entered the house. He had already consumed arrack and started quarrelling with his mother as to why he had not been paid any amount. Deceased told him that the money is not sufficient for them and as she has spent the amount, it is not possible to give him any money. Thereafter, accused took out a wooden Patti and assaulted on the head of his wife. When he assaulted his mother, the hit fell on the mirror and one glass bottle was also damaged. She fell down. Therefore, P. Ws. 1 and 2 went to separate them. The accused bit his right hand. Therefore, he took his wife outside the house. Accused came out and saw his mother running, he caught hold of her, threw her on the Katta, and assaulted her all over the body. On hearing the galata, the neighbours including P. Ws. Therefore, P. Ws. 1 and 2 went to separate them. The accused bit his right hand. Therefore, he took his wife outside the house. Accused came out and saw his mother running, he caught hold of her, threw her on the Katta, and assaulted her all over the body. On hearing the galata, the neighbours including P. Ws. 4 and 5, gathered there, but in the mean time, his wife was dead. He went to telephone to the Police Station, but the Post Master was not present. The accused thereafter left the place. He, therefore, sent C. W. 15 to bring his son - P. W. 3, who came to the place on the next day, and P. W. 3 accompanied him to the Police Station to lodge a complaint as in Ex. P. 1. Though these two witnesses are cross-examined at length, nothing worthwhile is elicited. It was elicited in the cross-examination of P. W. 1 that the deceased was suffering from Asthama and that she was also an Alcoholist. It is suggested that the deceased, who consumed Alcohol, fell down from the Katta and sustained injuries when P. W. 1 came to separate her from the accused. It is also suggested that the deceased again went to sit on Katta and fell from the Katta. These suggestions are denied by the witnesses. The presence of the accused on the spot is not disputed by the defence. The Prosecution has also placed positive evidence of his presence at the time of incident through the evidence of P. W. 5. P. Ws. 4 and 5, two neighbours of P. W. 1, were examined to corroborate their statements. But both these witnesses have turned hostile to the Prosecution's case. P. W. 4 has accepted his total hostility, while P. W. 5 has only stated that he heard the quarrel and he went near the house of P. W. 1 and found the accused quarrelling with his mother after 9. 00 p. m. , on 1-9-1995, the date of death of the old lady. ( 12 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-accused that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 has to be discarded as it is highly interested, do not find our support. The evidence of relative is not interested. 00 p. m. , on 1-9-1995, the date of death of the old lady. ( 12 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-accused that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 has to be discarded as it is highly interested, do not find our support. The evidence of relative is not interested. Where it is shown that the evidence is highly interested, the Court has to put itself on guard and make a careful scrutiny of the evidence. Therefore, what is required at this stage is only a careful scrutiny of the interested witnesses. Even assuming for argument's sake that P. Ws. 1 and 2 are interested witnesses, though they are really not so, in our view, their evidence does not suffer from any serious infirmity. The defence is not able to point out any discrepancy, major or minor, to discard their evidence. P. Ws. 1 and 2 are natural witnesses and in our opinion, their evidence is quite natural and convincing. They have only spoken to the incident as occurred in their presence in their house. ( 13 ) THE nature of injury sustained by the deceased is spoken to by P. W. 11, the Doctor who conducted the Post-Mortem Examination on the dead body of the deceased-Shivubai. He noticed the following Ante Mortem injuries on the person of the deceased, who was aged 65 years :1. One contusion with lacerated wound over the right parietal bone 5 cms. x 2. 5 cms. , red colour;2. An abrasion over the right side of fore-head, 2 cms. , diameter, brown in colour;3. A contusion over the right side of forehead 2 cms. , above the injury No. 1 oval in nature, 2 cms. , in diameter;4. Scratch abrasion over the right side of cheek, 2 cms. , long, brown in colour;5. Scratch abrasion over the neck and chin, 2 cms, long, brown in colour. On dissection, the Doctor noticed the rupture of spleen. The Doctor was of the opinion that the deceased was very much emaciated with both lungs had tuberculosis caseation; and the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to injury to the vital organ in lungs and spleen. The time of death is not in dispute. On dissection, the Doctor noticed the rupture of spleen. The Doctor was of the opinion that the deceased was very much emaciated with both lungs had tuberculosis caseation; and the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to injury to the vital organ in lungs and spleen. The time of death is not in dispute. He has further opined that the internal injury - fracture of left 4th and 5th ribs can be caused if a person is assaulted with full force with hands. The rupture of spleen and injury to lungs can be caused by giving a forceful blow with hand. He has also opined that Tuberculosis which the deceased had, has nothing to do with injuries noticed in the lung. ( 14 ) IT is elicited in the cross-examination of the Doctor that the injuries are simple in nature, but are sufficient to cause death in the natural course as there were injuries not only to the lungs but also to the spleen. The lady sustained head injuries also. The cumulative effect of these injuries caused the death of the sixty-five years old lady. Some hypothetical suggestions are made to the witness to impress upon the Court that these injuries can be caused by other means, namely if the deceased had fell on the ground from the Katta and if she rolled on a rough surface. Why should this old lady fall from the Katta and roll on the rough surface, is not made out by the defence while making suggestions. Therefore, the suggestions remained as suggestions without helping the Court to investigate it further. Hence, we do not find much force in these contentions placed by the defence. We, therefore, reject these contentions requesting us to reject the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2. ( 15 ) THE other evidence placed by the Prosecution is very formal. But, one other important contention requires a detailed consideration. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-accused that there is a delay in lodging the complaint to the Police. It is admitted that written complaint was lodged before the Police at about 12 Noon on the next day of the incident. It is in the evidence of P. Ws. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-accused that there is a delay in lodging the complaint to the Police. It is admitted that written complaint was lodged before the Police at about 12 Noon on the next day of the incident. It is in the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 3 that P. W. 1 waited for the arrival of P. W. 3 and it is P. W. 3, who took his father to the Police Station. Having regard to the hostility of the evidence of P. Ws. 4 and 5, the delay in lodging the complaint which was explained by P. W. 3 has to be accepted. We have made a careful scrutiny of the entire evidence on record to find out whether P. Ws. 1 and 3 had any grudge to take against the accused. In fact, P. W. 1 has made it clear in his examination-in-Chief itself that the accused was very cordial with them prior to the date of incident. It is also elicited that the brothers were not inimical at any time. Therefore, we rule out any concoction of a criminal case against the accused in this case at the behest of his brothers or his father or sister. Therefore, a short delay of about 12 hours in lodging the complaint, in our opinion, has not affected the Prosecution's version. As we have observed above, the other evidence let in by the Prosecution is formal in nature. The accused was arrested a few days after the date of incident. In fact, the evidence of P. W. 1 shows that the accused left the place immediately after the death of his wife and he was not found in the Village till the date of his arrest. Recovery of material objects 9 and 10 namely pant and shirt of the accused is not an incriminating evidence and is not of any help to establish the guilt of the accused. The Prosecution has also examined the witnesses to show that the F. I. R. was promptly submitted to the jurisdictional Magistrate, the dead body was taken to the Doctor for conducting Post-Mortem Examination, and the seized blood-stained articles were promptly delivered to the Chemical Examiner for his examination and opinion. All these materials have not been seriously questioned by the defence. All these materials have not been seriously questioned by the defence. These materials are only collateral in nature and no discrepancy is noted in this part of the evidence. ( 16 ) AT this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that if the entire evidence is accepted to be true, still the Prosecution has not made out a case punishable under Section 302, IPC. He has contended that, at the most, the Prosecution has made out a case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304, Part II, IPC, as there is no intention on the part of the accused to cause the death of his mother, and the evidence placed by the Prosecution goes to show that he had only knowledge of causing such injuries as is likely to cause death. ( 17 ) LEARNED Additional S. P. P. has relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court, reported in Harendra Nath Mandal v. State of Bihar, (1993) 1 Crimes 984 : ( AIR 1993 SC 1977 ). The point for consideration before the Apex Court was this (Para 6) :"before an accused is held guilty and punished under first part or second part of Section 304, IPC. , a death must have been caused by the assailant under any of the circumstances mentioned in the five Exceptions to Section 300, IPC. "elaborating the discussion at para 6, the Apex Court has held thus :"6. Section 304 does not create an offence but provides the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In view of Section 299 of the Penal Code, whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. In view of Section 300 of the Penal Code, except in cases covered by the five Exceptions mentioned therein, culpable homicide is murder. It is well-known that if a death is caused and the case is covered by any one of the five Exceptions of Sec. 300 then such culpable homicide shall not amount to murder. In view of Section 300 of the Penal Code, except in cases covered by the five Exceptions mentioned therein, culpable homicide is murder. It is well-known that if a death is caused and the case is covered by any one of the five Exceptions of Sec. 300 then such culpable homicide shall not amount to murder. Section 304 provides punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and draws a distinction in the penalty to be inflicted in cases covered by one of the five Exceptions, where an intention to kill is present and where there is only knowledge that death will be a likely result, but intention to cause death or such bodily injury which is likely to cause death is absent. To put it otherwise if the act of the accused falls within any of the clauses 1, 2 and 3 of Section 300 but is covered by any of the five Exceptions it will be punishable under the first part of Section 304. If, however, the act comes under Clause 4 of Section 300 i. e. , the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability cause death but without any intention to cause death and is covered by any of the Exceptions, it will be punishable under the second part. The first part of Section 304 applies where there is guilty intention whereas the second part applies where there is guilty knowledge. But before an accused is held guilty and punished under first part or second part of Section 304, a death must have been caused by him under any of the circumstances mentioned in the five Exceptions to Section 300, which include death caused while deprived of power of self-control under grave and sudden provocation, while exercising in good faith the right of private defence of person or property, and in a sudden fight in the heat of passion without premeditation. So far the present case is concerned, when death itself had not been caused, there was no occasion for convicting the appellant under Section 304 of the Penal Code. So far the present case is concerned, when death itself had not been caused, there was no occasion for convicting the appellant under Section 304 of the Penal Code. "so, on the facts of the said case, the Apex Court reached a conclusion that the Prosecution has failed to prove the homicidal death of the deceased and, therefore, the question of considering - whether it is a culpable homicide amounting to murder or not amounting to murder, did not arise in that case at all. ( 18 ) IN this case, we noticed that the accused has caused the death of his mother who was aged 65 years. It is true that the murder was initially not prompted either for gain or with any motive or intention. He had no intention to kill her when he entered the house. He entered the house to ask part of the money sent by his brother to his mother. She was not in a position to give money as she had spent the same for purchasing the necessary commodities. P. W. 1 and the deceased pleaded with him that the said amount itself is not sufficient for their maintenance, therefore, it is not possible to pay him also. After hearing this excuse, the accused became ferocious, took out a wooden plank and started assaulting his mother indiscriminately on the head and other portions of the body. It is the case of the Prosecution that he did not allow his father and sister to intervene and to rescue his mother. When his mother attempted to escape from his clutches and run away from the house, he caught hold of his mother lifted her and threw her on the ground and assaulted her. It is true that he entered the house after consuming Alcohol, but at no stage, accused pleaded that he was highly intoxicated and this will not help the accused even to claim any general excuse. There is no evidence on record to show that he was deprived of power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation. No such provocation was given to him. There is also no evidence to show that he has lost his self-control on account of intoxication. There is no evidence on record to show that he was deprived of power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation. No such provocation was given to him. There is also no evidence to show that he has lost his self-control on account of intoxication. We do not find any material to accept the contention that his act in causing death of his mother falls under any one of the Exceptions to Section 300, I. P. C. If that is so, the accused cannot escape the liability under Section 300, I. P. C. ( 19 ) IN the light of this discussion, we find that the conclusions reached by the learned Sessions Judge holding him guilty of the offence of murder, is clearly sustainable in law. Therefore, we have no hesitation to affirm the judgment of conviction. ( 20 ) THE learned Sessions Judge has also convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 324, I. P. C. , for causing injury to P. W. 1 by biting. The nature of injury caused to P. W. 1 is spoken to by P. W. 12. We have already relied on the evidence of P. W. 1, which evidence is quite convincing. The conviction of the accused for causing injury to P. W. 1, which is punishable under Section 324, I. P. C. , is also liable to be confirmed. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge who has sentenced the accused to the life imprisonment, minimum punishment provided for the offence under Section 302, I. P. C. We find no good ground calling for interference with the Judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. We do not find any merit in this Appeal. ( 21 ) WE, therefore, dismiss this Criminal Appeal. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .