P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri T. Nagarjuna Reddy, Counsel representing the appellant-accused and sri Mohd. Osman Shaheed, Additional Public prosecutor. ( 2 ) THE appeal is filed by the appellant- accused aggrieved by the judgment, dated 31-8-1998 in Sessions Case No. 97 of 1995 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam. On appreciation of the evidence, the accused was acquitted for the offences under sections 302, 307, 324 and 506 IPC, but however, he was convicted for the offences under Sections 304-II and 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of five years each, and to pay a fine of rs. 2,000/- in default, to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 304-II IPC and both the sentences to run concurrently. ( 3 ) THE Sub-Inspector of Police, Gajuwaka l and O Circle, filed the charge-sheet against the accused for the offences under sections 302, 307, 324 and 506 (2) IPC. ( 4 ) THE case of the prosecution is that the deceased and the accused fell in love with each other and their marriage was performed in Simhachalam Devasthanam on 12-5-1994. The deceased joined her husband after the marriage. Subsequently, the deceased came away to her parent s house for delivery, and gave birth to a female child on 01-02-1995. The deceased remained with her parents for about five months after delivery, and the accused was also not looking after her properly. It is also the version of the prosecution that the accused has taken up an accommodation on rent at V. T. College road in Sriharipuram and the deceased joined him only a few weeks before the offence. It is also the version of the prosecution that in the month of June, 1995, the accused took one of the shop rooms of P. W. 12 in Jawaharngar, and opened a bakery shop. Even on that day, there were squabbles between the accused, deceased and P. W. 2 (mother of the deceased ). P. W. 12 rebuked them it was not proper for them to engage themselves in quarrels at the newly established shop. Without bringing the sale proceeds to his house or spending it on his wife or child, the accused was taking the said amounts to his sister s house. P. W. 12 rebuked them it was not proper for them to engage themselves in quarrels at the newly established shop. Without bringing the sale proceeds to his house or spending it on his wife or child, the accused was taking the said amounts to his sister s house. A few days before the offence, the deceased gave a report at Malkapuram police Station against the accused. The same was effected compromise after the accused gave undertaking that he will look after his wife in a proper manner. On the evening of 5-7-1995 at about 6. 00 p. m. , the deceased handed over the keys to the accused and went to her parents. Again, on 6-7-1995 at about 10. 00 a. m. , the deceased went to sriharipuram, met her husband and came to her parent s house at about 4. 30 p. m. The deceased informed her mother that the shop owner is pressing them to vacate the premises on that day itself and asked her mother and also P. W. 1 who was present there to come and speak with the owner. By the time, p. Ws. 1 and 2 and the deceased went to the bakery shop, the accused was sitting in front of the shop and was telling that he will dispose off the show case for half of its price. P. W. 2 chided the accused that the deceased and the accused spoiled the business. Suddenly, the accused picked up a knife from underneath the show case and dealt heavy blows shiftly on the neck and head of the deceased, who fell down. When P. W. 2 intervened, the accused hacked her thrice and the injuries fell on her left arm, and she also lost the little finger of her left hand. P. W, 2 rushed to P. W. 12 crying for help. Then, P. W. 12 shouted against the accused and questioned his behaviour. The accused was wild with rage and raised the knife against him also. Then, the accused again directed his ire against P. W. 2 and inflicted injuries on her right arm when she tried to guard herself. While the accused was aiming another blow with the knife on the neck of P. W. 2, P. W. 1 raised an iron chair and during that attempt he sustained a knife injury on his left hand. While the accused was aiming another blow with the knife on the neck of P. W. 2, P. W. 1 raised an iron chair and during that attempt he sustained a knife injury on his left hand. Several people gathered there but everybody was frightened as the accused showed the knife and threatened to kill them. The matter was committed to the Court of Sessions. P. Ws. 1 to 16 were examined. Exs. P-1 to p-21, Exs. D-1 and D-2 and M. Os. 1 to 7 were marked. ( 5 ) P. W. 1 deposed that the deceased is the daughter of his colleague and he got acquaintance with the family affairs of the deceased. This witness also deposed that on 6-7-1995 at about 2. 30 p. m. , he went to the house of M. V. S. Narayana, his collegue and he found that Narayana left for duty and he asked inmates of the house as to what happened. They informed him that the police effected compromise between the deceased and the accused and sent them away. This witness sat at the house of Narayana, witnessing the Television. At about 4. 30 p. m. , kanakamahalakshmi came to her mother and informed that the owner is asking them to vacate bakery. She also further informed to her mother, that the accused asked her to come along with her mother. Kanakamahalakshmi requested them to follow to the bakery, they went to the bakery at about 4. 30 p. m. They made them to sit at bakery owner. Accused told them that another mediator is there, that after arrival of mediator the matter can be discussed. Mother of the deceased asked the accused and the deceased to live with good sense and properly. The accused told the mother of the deceased, that the deceased is not behaving properly. This witness also deposed about the other details. This witness furtherdeposed that immediately the accused picked up a sickle, which is available under the show case and hacked the deceased on her head and neck and also on the body. The mother of the deceased intervened. Then the accused hacked the mother of the deceased also on the head, neck and on the back portion. Then he prevented the said hacking with the help of a chair-M. O. 1 (folding chair ). The mother of the deceased intervened. Then the accused hacked the mother of the deceased also on the head, neck and on the back portion. Then he prevented the said hacking with the help of a chair-M. O. 1 (folding chair ). Then, he threatened P. W. 1 also to go away from the scene, and when he tried to prevent A-1 from hacking the deceased and her mother, he received injury on the left hand with sickle caused by the accused. This witness also deposed that he gave statement-Ex. P-1 and he can identify the sickle and M. O. 2-knife used by the accused to hack the deceased and also the mother of the deceased. This witness was cross-examined at length and nothing serious had been elicited. ( 6 ) P. W. 2 is the crucial witness and mother- in-law of the accused and the mother of the deceased, who had deposed in detail as to what happened on the fateful day. The version of this witness is well corroborating with the evidence of P. W. 1. ( 7 ) P. W. 3 deposed that the shop of the accused is at a distance of more than one furlong and that the accused purchased electrical articles. On that day evening, he went to the shop of the accused for electrical goods, at that time at about 4. 30 or 5. 00 p. m. , there was a galata between the accused, p. W. 2 and the wife of the accused and at the time of the galata, he was in the neighbouring shop. This witness also deposed that the galata was going on, in the meanwhile, the accused picked up a knife and hacked the neck of his wife. P. W. 2 tried to intervene and separate them. P. W. 2 received injuries on her left hand also. In the meanwhile, the shop owner Gopichand tried to intervene, but the accused did not stop. M. O. 2-knife was used by the accused for hacking his wife. ( 8 ) P. W. 4 simply deposed that he stopped his scooter and noticed one lady found in a pool of blood and another lady raising cries to save her. The second lady is aged about 50 or 55 years. M. O. 2-knife was used by the accused for hacking his wife. ( 8 ) P. W. 4 simply deposed that he stopped his scooter and noticed one lady found in a pool of blood and another lady raising cries to save her. The second lady is aged about 50 or 55 years. ( 9 ) P. W. 5 deposed about one lady lying on the road with bleeding injuries and another lady crying for help. The evidence of P. W. 6 is also to the same effect. P. W. 7 is the brother of the deceased- kanakamahaiakshmi, who deposed about the reason forthe quarrel and the compromise on the other aspects relating to the same. ( 10 ) P. W. 8 deposed about Ex. P-3 and seizure of M. Os 2 to 4. P. W. 9 deposed about ex. P-4 and seizure of M. O. 1-chair. P. W. 10 had conducted the post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. ( 11 ) P. W. 11-Doctor gave first aid to the deceased Kanakamahalakshmi. This witness also deposed that with M. O. 2-knife, the injury of the deceased-Kanakamahalakshmi is possible. P. W. 12 simply deposed that his wife raised cries and he came out and found that one lady on the road and another lady lying at a distance on the road and both of them are with injuries. ( 12 ) P. W. 13 is the photographer who deposed about Exs. P-6 to P-12. P. W. 14 is the Assistant Professor of Orthopaedics, who deposed about Ex. P-13-wound certificate. P. W. 15 is the Sub-Inspector of Police. P. W. 16 is the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, who had deposed about all the details of the investigation. ( 13 ) ON the strength of this evidence, findings in detail had been recorded. Apart from the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 16, Exs. P-1 to P-21 and M. Os. 1 to 7 had been discussed at length and Ex. D-1-the portion in Ex. P-1- statement and Ex. D-2-portion in the 161 cr. P. C. statement of P. W. 3 also had been taken into consideration, and ultimately, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the offence would fall under Section 304-II and 326 IPC, and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of five years each and to pay a fine of rs. D-2-portion in the 161 cr. P. C. statement of P. W. 3 also had been taken into consideration, and ultimately, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the offence would fall under Section 304-II and 326 IPC, and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of five years each and to pay a fine of rs. 2,000/- in default, to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 304-II IPC. In the light of the findings, which had been recorded by the learned Judge, this Court does not see any legal infirmity in the said findings, and accordingly, the said findings are hereby confirmed. However, taking overall facts and circumstances into consideration, the conviction is hereby confirmed. ( 14 ) IN the result, the conviction imposed by the learned I Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, in S. C. No. 97 of 1995 against the appellant-accused on 31 -8-1998 for the offences under Sections 304-II and 326 IPC is confirmed. But however, the sentence awarded against him is modified as follows:- so far as the sentence of imprisonment for a period of five years forthe offence under section 304-II IPC is concerned, the same is reduced to four years, and however, the imposition of fine an amount of Rs. 2,000/- in default, to undergo imprisonment for three months is hereby confirmed. So far as the sentence of imprisonment for a period of five years for the offence under section 326 IPC is concerned, the same is reduced to two and half years. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The bail bonds of the appellant-accused shall stand cancelled. It is needless to say that the appellant-accused shall serve the rest of the sentence and he is entitled to set off in accordance with law. Subject to the above modification in all other particulars, the findings are hereby confirmed and the Criminal Appeal shall stand dismissed.