D. S. R. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) THE judgment of the Sessions Judge, vizianagaram, in S. C. No. 88 of 1999, dated 02-08-2000, convicting the appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand Only) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months and RI for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer SI for 2 months respectively and directing the substantive sentences to run concurrently is under challenge in this appeal. ( 2 ) THE appellant is the sole accused. The charges levelled against him are under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal code. ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the first deceased by name Bangaramma and the second deceased by name Jogamma were mother and second wife of the accused respectively. The accused was earlier married to Yerukamma (P. W. 4) and divorced later. Even after the divorce with P. W. 4, the accused wanted to continue his relationship with her and when the second deceased did not accept for the same, the accused wanted to annihilate the second deceased on the ground that there used to be frequent bickerings between the second deceased and the accused. In that pursuit, the accused purchased a bottle of pesticide (Endosulphan)fromp. W. 7and administered the same in the curry prepared for the supper. None else, except the mother and the wife of the accused consumed that curry, which resulted in their death. Immediately after noticing their death, the accused informed others that accidentally the curry was poisoned and because of its consumption the 2 deceased died. He himself informed the police by a report under Ex. P-17 and upon such report Crime No. 100 of 1998 was registered under Section 174 of the Indian penal Code initially. But, after investigation, since the police found that the accused was the real person responsible for the death of the deceased, the sections of law were altered as 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused. ( 4 ) THE prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 14 witnesses and marked Exs. P-1 to P-21 along with M. Os. 1 and 2. ( 4 ) THE prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 14 witnesses and marked Exs. P-1 to P-21 along with M. Os. 1 and 2. ( 5 ) THERE are no eye-witnesses to the incident and this case is purely based on circumstantial evidence. Now, it is necessary to examine the evidence on record. ( 6 ) P. W. 1 is the younger sister of the accused. Her evidence was found to be not useful in view of her relationship with the accused. It was also rightly pointed out by the Sessions Court that her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr. P. C. Some contradictions were marked but the same cannot be treated as substantive piece of evidence. ( 7 ) P. W. 2 is the mother of the second deceased. Her evidence is useful only to the extent that the accused divorced the second deceased on the ground that he lost his father and another sister after the marriage and that the accused used to maintain the pre- divorce relationship with P. W. 4, which was not acceptable to her. Therefore, the accused wanted to get rid of the second deceased in order to pave the way for leading the past life with P. W. 4. ( 8 ) IN other words, the evidence of P. W. 4 is suggestive of the motive for the accused to commit the offence. At this juncture itself we are of the view that though motive cannot be taken into account to bring home the guilt of the accused in all cases, in a case like the present one, where particularly no ocular evidence is available and only circumstances have to be explained the motive can sparingly be taken into account. ( 9 ) THE next important witness is P. W. 7 who was doing business under the name and style of Hanuman Traders in vizianagaram in Fertilizers and Pesticides. He deposed that the accused purchased monocrotophos 100 M. L. , for Rs. 30/- and after one week of the said purchase, police came and examined him. He further deposed that he was a licencee to do the said business and passes receipts as and when the pesticides are sold, but the police did not seize any papers relating to his business during investigation. 30/- and after one week of the said purchase, police came and examined him. He further deposed that he was a licencee to do the said business and passes receipts as and when the pesticides are sold, but the police did not seize any papers relating to his business during investigation. On that score itself, as rightly pointed out by the Sessions Court, his evidence cannot be brushed aside. He has no earlier relationship with the accused much less either intimacy or enmity. Nothing useful could be extracted from the cross- examination by the defence. ( 10 ) P. W. 3 is another businessman who also involved in the same kind of business as p. W. 7. He deposed that police first brought the accused to his shop during the investigation and then the accused informed the police that he did not purchase the pesticide in his shop, but purchased the same in the shop of P. W. 7. Since the said statement by the accused was allegedly made in the presence of the police much significance cannot be attached to this piece of evidence. ( 11 ) P. W. 6 is Upa Sarpanch of the village who stated that on the fateful day the accused informed him that both the deceased died because of consumption of curry, which was poisoned due to fall of a dead lizard in the curry. He further stated that the accused himself went to the police station, came back again with the police and was present in the house till the next day. He was one of the inquest panchayatdars for the inquest conducted on the dead body of the first deceased. ( 12 ) P. W. 13 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who deposed that on 04-09-1998 the accused presented Ex. P-17 report and the same was registered as Crime No. 100 of 1998 under section 174 of the Indian Penal Code and issued Ex. P-18 FIR. But, in the Ex. P-17report the accused did not allege that both the deceased died because of any accidental poisoning of curry by falling a dead lizard into it. At this point, it is to be noted that the accused stated before P. W. 6 that both the deceased died because of accidental poisoning of curry. P-18 FIR. But, in the Ex. P-17report the accused did not allege that both the deceased died because of any accidental poisoning of curry by falling a dead lizard into it. At this point, it is to be noted that the accused stated before P. W. 6 that both the deceased died because of accidental poisoning of curry. It is indeed a surprising factor as to how the accused came to know that both the deceased died due to consumption of curry, which was poisoned, for any reason, particularly when allegedly he was notpresentatthe time of consumption of poisoned curry by both the deceased. As rightly pointed out by the Sessions Court, the accused must have prior knowledge of the curry being poisoned, there is no scope for anybody including the deceased to know that the curry was poisoned, particularly when the purchase of pesticide was established by P. W. 7. It is also to be noticed that P. W. 1 whose evidence was not relied on by the Sessions Court rightly, we are of the view that she spoke about one important factor i. e. , the presence of the accused just before taking dinner by the deceased. Therefore, the evidence of P. W. 1 can be taken into account to the extent that the accused was present at the time of offence, at the time of consumption of the curry by the deceased and subsequently he left the house and only at the time of the deceased struggling for their life, the accused entered into the house. ( 13 ) THOUGH feeble attempt appears to have been made by the defence that both the deceased wanted to consume the poisoned curry serving for themselves and without serving to none else in the house, on this aspect it has to be borne in mind that it is only p. W. 7 who sold the pesticide and the accused alone had knowledge that the pesticide was for the purpose, and in possession of the accused. Even assuming that either of the deceased have the knowledge of poisoning the curry, there is absolutely no need for one deceased to make the other also consume. In other words, if the mother of the deceased wanted to kill the second deceased, there is no apparent reason elicited by the defence, for the first deceased to consume for herself also. In other words, if the mother of the deceased wanted to kill the second deceased, there is no apparent reason elicited by the defence, for the first deceased to consume for herself also. So also the second deceased. ( 14 ) P. W. 8 is the mediator to Ex. P-5 panchanama. The relevant portion from his evidence is that the accused expressed his willingness to show the bottle of pesticide, which resulted in discovery and recovery of m. O. 2 (pesticide bottle ). ( 15 ) P. W. 14 is the Investigating Officer who stated that the accused led the police party to the place where he threw the pesticide bottle and the same was seized under the cover of Ex. P-8 mediator s report. ( 16 ) P. WS. 10 is the Village Administrative officer and one of the mediators to Ex. P-8 mediators report. He totally corroborated the evidence of P. W. 14 on all aspects, particularly as regards the discovery and recovery of M. O. 2. He further stated that the accused took the team of police and mediators to the shop of P. W. 7 and also to different places, which means, the accused had tried his best to confuse the investigating agency. He is also one of the mediators to Ex. P-10 mediators report. He fully corroborated the contents of Ex. P-10 as well as the version of the Investigating Officer on all material aspects including the seizure of all other material from the scene of offence. ( 17 ) P. WS. 11 and 12 are the then Civil surgeons who gave post-mortem reports of both the deceased. Ex. P-12 is the FSL report, which discloses that the second deceased died due to consumption of insecticide poisoning. Ex. P-15 is another FSL report, which indicate that the first deceased also died due to consumption of pesticide poisoning. ( 18 ) IN the background of the above evidence on record, the caricature of the offence is absolutely clear. Ex. P-12 is the FSL report, which discloses that the second deceased died due to consumption of insecticide poisoning. Ex. P-15 is another FSL report, which indicate that the first deceased also died due to consumption of pesticide poisoning. ( 18 ) IN the background of the above evidence on record, the caricature of the offence is absolutely clear. Further, a conjoint reading of the above evidence would clearly suggest that there was a motive for the accused and in the course of implementation of his plan he purchased poisonous pesticide from P. W. 7, which was fully established that he was present at the time of both the deceased consuming the poisonous curry and also when both the deceased breathed their last and that he went out immediately and informed P. W. 7 and gave a different version, then went to the police station again with a different version. The evidence of p. Ws. 8 and 10 would clinchingly proves that the accused mislead the Investigating officer along with mediators to the place where M. O. 2 was discovered and also recovery of the same. ( 19 ) IN view of these facts, we are of the view that there is neither missing link nor loose link. All the circumstances put forth by the prosecution have been sufficiently and substantially establish and the evidence on record is capable of eliminating all doubts. It is also noteworthy that the accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of criminal Procedure also admitted that he was the person responsible for the death of both the deceased and sought excuses for different reasons. ( 20 ) FOR the foregoing reasons and also the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the prosecution could successfully bring home the guilt of the accused and the accused alone is responsible for the death of both the deceased and none else. Accordingly, we do not find any reason warranting interference with the convictions and sentences recorded by the Sessions Court against the accused. ( 21 ) ACCORDINGLY, confirming the judgment of the Sessions Court, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.