G. YETHIRAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the III Additional Sessions Court, karimnagar dated 04-02-2002 in S. C. No. 14 of 2002. ( 2 ) THE appellant is the sole accused in s. C. No. 14 of 2002. He was charged for the offence under Section 302 I. P. C. for killing his father Kokku Bheemalingam and mother kokku Sugunamma at 00. 15 hours (midnight) on 25-07-2000 at his house situated at vidyanagar, Jagtial by stabbing them with knife. He was also charged for the offence under Section 309 I. P. C. for stabbing himself with knife on his stomach with an intention to commit suicide immediately after killing his parents. The appellant denied the charges and claimed for trial. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the appellant examined P. W. 1 to P. W. 18, marked exs. P-1 to P-27 and M. Os. 1 to 10. No oral evidence was adduced on defence side, but exs. D-1 and D-2 were marked. Ex. C-1 was marked by the Court. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties found the appellant guilty for the offence under sections 302 and 309 I. P. C. He was accordingly convicted for the offence under section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of rs. 10,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year. He was also convicted for the offence under Section 309 i. P. C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. The learned sessions Judge directed both the sentences to run concurrently. The appellant being aggrieved by the convictions and sentences imposed by the Sessions Court preferred this appeal challenging its validity and legality. ( 3 ) THE factual matrix leading to the conviction of the appellant is briefly as follows: ( 4 ) THE deceased Nos. 1 and 2 are the parents of the accused. The first deceased constructed a house at Vidyanagar, Jagtial and the accused is living in that house. The deceased had another son by name Prasad (P. W. 4) living at Kannapur Village. A daughter by name Vijaya (P. W. 8) is living near kannapur along with her husband. Both the deceased were living at Kannapur village. The first deceased constructed a house at Vidyanagar, Jagtial and the accused is living in that house. The deceased had another son by name Prasad (P. W. 4) living at Kannapur Village. A daughter by name Vijaya (P. W. 8) is living near kannapur along with her husband. Both the deceased were living at Kannapur village. They were asking the accused to vacate the house at Vidyanagar to enable the deceased to live in that house, but the accused was opposing the first deceased by saying that he would not vacate the house under any circumstances. Deceased No. 1 filed a suit against the accused, therefore, the differences between the deceased and the accused continued and the accused was not allowing the deceased to enter into his house. On 22-07-2000 the deceased on noticing the accused going to Hyderabad came to vidyanagar, Jagtial and were staying in the front room of the house. During the night at 11 p. m. on 24-07-2000 the accused came back from Hyderabad and found both the deceased in the house and asked them as to why they came to Jagtial and staying in that house. There was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused. When the accused attempted to beat both the deceased, p. W. 1 and his mother went to their rescue, but the accused dragged P. W. 1 and his mother inside the room and bolted from outside. Later, the accused stabbed both the deceased with a knife and stabbed himself. P. W. 3, a tenant of the house on hearing the cries of P. W. 1 came to the scene and found both the deceased with bleeding injuries. He also found the accused lying with injuries on the stomach. Immediately the accused was admitted in the Government Hospital for treatment and P. W. 1 went to Jagtial Town police Station during the intervening night of 24/25-07-2000 at 2. 15 a. m. and lodgec ex. P-1 -complaint. The police registered the crime and investigated. ( 5 ) THE prosecution alleged that the accused bore grudge against both the deceased for asking him to vacate the house and stabbed them to death and later stabbed himself in the stomach to commit suicide, the accused pleaded that some unknown persons killed both the deceased and also stabbed him during the night, therefore, he did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution. ( 6 ) IN the light of the contentions of both parties, the point for consideration is: whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and whether the judgment of the lower Court is liable to be set aside? point: ( 7 ) THE deceased No. 1 is the father and deceased No. 2 is the mother of the accused. P. W. 4 is his brother. P. W. 5 is the wife of p. W. 4, P. W. 6 is the sister of the deceased, p. W. 8 is the sister of the accused, P. W. 9 is the husband of P. W. 8, P. Ws. 10 and 12 are the elders who mediated in the dispute between the deceased and the accused regarding the family properties. P. W. 1 is the son of the accused. P. Ws. 2 and 3 are the tenants of the house of the accused. P. Ws. 1 to 3 who alleged to have witnessed the occurrence turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. P. W. 1 though turned hostile gave some information regarding the presence of the accused in the company of both the deceased at the scene of offence immediately before and after the occurrence. ( 8 ) P. W. 1 is the son of the accused. He deposed that there were no differences between the first deceased and the accused, but there were differences between P. W. 4 and the accused with regard to the joint family properties. Since one week prior to the date of occurrence, both the deceased were in the house of the accused. On 24-07-2000 they watched T. V. film till 12 midnight and thereafter all went to sleep. The distance between the room where he slept and the main gate is 20 to 30 feet. After half an hour of going to sleep, he heard some noise of knocking the main gate. He woke up on hearing the noise and saw the accused and both the deceased going towards the gate near the room where both the deceased were sleeping. The room in which the accused and his wife sleeping was 25 feet away from the main gate. He woke up on hearing the noise and saw the accused and both the deceased going towards the gate near the room where both the deceased were sleeping. The room in which the accused and his wife sleeping was 25 feet away from the main gate. ( 9 ) P. W. 1 in his further evidence tried to support tne defence version by stating that three unknown male persons entered the house and on hearing hue and cry from the accused and both the deceased, he rushed to the gate and found D-1 and D-2 lying dead with bleeding injuries and the accused struggling for life with injury on the stomach due to the intestines coming out from the injury on the stomach. ( 10 ) P. W. 2 one of the tenants of the house of the accused deposed that one-day prior to the date of death, both the deceased came to the house of the accused in the morning. On the date of occurrence he saw both the deceased and the accused in the house. In the evening he went to the hospital and returned back at about 9. 30 p. m. , and his room is 10 feet away from the main gate. At about 12 midnight he heard noise at the gate and 15 minutes later somebody knocked the door and on opening the door he saw the dead bodies of both the deceased lying dead with injuries near the gate. He also found the accused with injuries and later he was shifted to the hospital in an auto-rickshaw. ( 11 ) P. W. 3, a resident of Jagtial town, who was one of the tenants in the house of the accused, deposed that on the date of occurrence at about 7. 30 p. m. or 8. 00 p. m. while returning from camp he saw both the deceased and the accused at the house of the accused. At about 10. 00 p. m. he went to bed. Between 11. 00 p. m. and 12. 00 midnight he heard noises and galata. He came out of his room and found both the deceased and the accused lying in a pool of blood. The accused was groaning with pain. Immediately p. W. 1 and himself went to Jagtial Town police Station and reported the same to the inspector of Police. 00 p. m. and 12. 00 midnight he heard noises and galata. He came out of his room and found both the deceased and the accused lying in a pool of blood. The accused was groaning with pain. Immediately p. W. 1 and himself went to Jagtial Town police Station and reported the same to the inspector of Police. On the instructions of the inspector of Police, the accused was taken to the Government Hospital, Jagtial in an auto rickshaw. He noticed a stab wound on the stomach of the accused. He does not know who stabbed the deceased 1 and 2 and he does not know whether there were any differences between the accused and both the deceased. Though this witness, who alleged to have seen the accused stabbing the deceased, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution, his evidence discloses that by the time he came out after hearing the noises he found the accused and both the deceased lying in a pool of blood in the compound of the house of the accused. He did not mention about the presence of any outsiders within the compound of the gate etc. ( 12 ) P. W. 4, the elder brother of the accused, deposed that both the deceased were residing at Kannapur village in a separate house. In 1991 there was a partition of the family properties and in the said partition he got the property situated at Kannapur, whereas the accused got the house property situated at Jagtial. The first deceased got ac. 2. 50 cents of land along with a farmhouse situated at Kannapur village towards his share. Since 1991 they were living separately. In 1996 or 1997 deceased No. 1 intended to sell away his share of property on account of his ill health. The accused came to know about the proposal of the first deceased and raised an objection that he is having a share in the property intended to be sold by deceased No. 1. On account of that the deceased No. 1 agreed to give a share to the accused and himself from the property proposed to be sold and afterwards deceased no. 1 sold away eight guntas of land to a third party. At the time of registration a galata took place between the accused and deceased no. 1 with regard to the sale consideration. 1 sold away eight guntas of land to a third party. At the time of registration a galata took place between the accused and deceased no. 1 with regard to the sale consideration. The registration of the document could not be affected due to the objection raised by the accused. A Panchayat was held before the ex-Mandal President Yelfa Reddy of Jagtial and in that panchayat, it was resolved that three guntas of land has to be given to him as he was not given any share of sale consideration. P. W. 4 further deposed that in 1997 or 1998 deceased No. 1 filed a suit for recovery of the house in which the accused was residing at Jagtial. As per the order of the court, both the deceased went to the house of the accused and were staying in that house. The accused beat them and sent them away from that house. Then, both the deceased approached the Police and the police advised them to go and live in that house. Accordingly, on 24-07-2000 both the deceased went to the house of the accused. On 25-07-2000 at about 7. 00 a. m. he was informed that the accused stabbed both the deceased during that night. Immediately he went to the house of the accused and found both the deceased lying in a pool of blood. Nobody was present in that house at the time of his visit at about 7. 30 a. m. On seeing the dead bodies, he fell unconscious and later regained consciousness. He came to know that the accused stabbed himself on his stomach and he was shifted to the hospital. He suspected that the accused might have killed both the deceased on account of the property dispute of the joint family. He denied a suggestion that the accused reconstructed the house, in which he was living as on the date of occurrence. He further stated that deceased No. 1 constructed the said house in the year 1975 or 1976. He also denied a suggestion that there are differences between him and the accused in connection with the partition of the properties on account of his securing more land than the accused. He also denied a suggestion that he deposed falsehood on account of the grudge against the accused. He also denied a suggestion that there are differences between him and the accused in connection with the partition of the properties on account of his securing more land than the accused. He also denied a suggestion that he deposed falsehood on account of the grudge against the accused. ( 13 ) P. W. 5, the wife of P. W. 4, deposed that about ten years prior to 2002 the joint family properties were partitioned among the accused, deceased No. 1 and P. W. 4. The house at Kannapur fell to the share of P. W. 4. The lands fell to the share of deceased No. 1. The house at Jagtial fell to the share of accused. Four years prior to the date of occurrence, deceased No. 1 proclaimed in the village that he is intending to sell away ac. 2. 50 cents of land from his share. The accused raised an objection. Deceased no. 1 filed a suit against the accused in respect of the house at Jagtial and obtained favourable order. Both the deceased were residing at Kannapur. Whenever both the deceased went to Jagtial to the house of the accused, the accused was beating both of them. After obtaining the Court order, one day prior to the occurrence, both the deceased went to the house at Jagtial. In the early morning of Tuesday, she came to know about the death of both the deceased. Immediately she went to Jagtial along with P. W. 4 and found the dead bodies of both the deceased lying in a pool of blood in the house of the accused. She came to know that the accused was hospitalized for his self-inflicted injuries. There were differences between deceased nos. 1 and 2 on one side and the accused on other side with regard to the joint family properties. She suspected that the accused killed deceased Nos. 1 and 2, due to differences with the deceased. She denied a suggestion that the accused did not raise any objection when deceased No. 1 tried to dispose off the land and that P. W. 4 raised the objection for the same. She also denied that deceased Nos. She suspected that the accused killed deceased Nos. 1 and 2, due to differences with the deceased. She denied a suggestion that the accused did not raise any objection when deceased No. 1 tried to dispose off the land and that P. W. 4 raised the objection for the same. She also denied that deceased Nos. 1 and 2 have many enemies in Kannapur village and the case was foisted against the accused, though they were killed by somebody and that the accused sustained injuries when he rescued both the deceased from the assailants at that time. ( 14 ) P. W. 6, the brother of deceased No. 1, deposed that deceased Nos. 1 and 2 were residing at Kannapur, whereas the accused was residing at Jagtial. About ten years prior to the incident the joint family properties of deceased No. 1 were partitioned among the accused, P. W. 4 and deceased No. 1. The house and some land situated in Kannapur fell to the share of P. W. 4. Another house and some other land in Kannapur fell to the share of deceased No. 1. The house situated at jagtial fell to the share of the accused. Two or three years prior to the death, deceased no. 1 tried to sell away the land and the accused raised an objection. On account of that, there were differences between the accused and deceased No. 1 and now and then the quarrels used to take place on this issue. Despite his advice to the accused and deceased No. 1 to live amicably, the accused threatened deceased No. 1. Deceased No. 1 filed a civil suit against the accused with regard to the house at Jagtial and obtained a favourable order from the Court. By virtue of the said Order, deceased Nos. 1 and 2 went to the house at Jagtial. On two or three occasions, the accused beat the deceased nos. 1 and 2 and sent away both of them from the house. About two years prior to his evidence, in the morning time he came to know that deceased Nos. 1 and 2 were killed by the accused at his house. Immediately, he rushed to the house of the accused and found the dead bodies of both the deceased lying in a pool of blood. He also came to know that the accused was hospitalized for his self-inflicted injuries. 1 and 2 were killed by the accused at his house. Immediately, he rushed to the house of the accused and found the dead bodies of both the deceased lying in a pool of blood. He also came to know that the accused was hospitalized for his self-inflicted injuries. He suspected that the accused might have killed both the deceased in connection with the property disputes between them. In the cross-examination, he stated that the accused was having life threat from Naxalites, hence, he was not visiting kannapur and was staying only at Jagtial town. He denied a suggestion that he was speaking falsehood due to enmity with the accused. ( 15 ) P. W. 7, the stepsister of deceased no. 2, deposed that on 25-07-2000 she received a telephone message that the accused killed deceased Nos. 1 and 2 and also inflicted injury on his person and he was hospitalized. She rushed to the scene and saw the dead bodies of deceased Nos. 1 and 2 lying in a pool of blood. This witness was declared hostile. In the cross-examination, she stated that the accused was in the hit list of Naxalites and he was having life threat. She expressed her ignorance about a suggestion that deceased No. 1 was having many enemies in the village-Kannapur on account of holding panchayats. ( 16 ) P. W. 8, the sister of the accused, deposed that the joint family properties of his father were partitioned among deceased no. 1, P. W. 4 and the accused about ten years prior to the occurrence. Her marriage took place in 1991. About five years prior to the death, deceased No. 1 tried to sell away the land situated in Kannapur. The Accused raised an objection for the sale, on that, quarrel took place between the accused and deceased No. 1. Deceased No. 1 filed a civil suit against the accused in Munsif Court at jagtial. After deceased No. 1 filing the civil suit, the accused called her and her husband to his house and requested them to convince deceased No. 1 to withdraw the civil suit. Accordingly, they tried to convince deceased no. 1, but he did not heed their suggestion. Subsequently, deceased No. 1 obtained favourable orders from the civil Court and by virtue of that order, deceased Nos. Accordingly, they tried to convince deceased no. 1, but he did not heed their suggestion. Subsequently, deceased No. 1 obtained favourable orders from the civil Court and by virtue of that order, deceased Nos. 1 and 2 went to the house of the accused at Jagtial and thereupon, the accused beat both the deceased and sent them away. On the next day of the date of occurrence, she came to know that the accused killed both the deceased at his house and also inflicted injury on himself. She went to the spot and came to know that the dead bodies of deceased Nos. 1 and 2 were taken for post mortem examination. She suspected that the accused might have killed deceased Nos. 1 and 2 due to property disputes. She denied a suggestion that the accused had a life threat from Naxalites. She denied a suggestion that at the instance of P. W. 4, who was having a mala fide intention to grab the properties of the accused, she is deposing falsehood. She also denied a suggestion that some unknown culprits stabbed both the deceased and the accused and the accused escaped from that assault and the deceased died. ( 17 ) P. W. 9, the husband of P. W. 8, deposed thatthereweredifferences between the accused and deceased No. 1 with regard to the landed properties, which were partitioned among deceased No. 1, accused and P. W. 4. One or two years prior to the death, deceased No. 1 expressed his intention to sell away his land and the accused raised an objection. In the presence of his wife and himself, the accused proclaimed that he would kill both the deceased, if deceased No. 1 is not inclined to give his land to the accused. On one occasion, deceased No. 1 asked them to come to their place with a view to compromise the matter between the accused and deceased No. 1. Accordingly, he went to kannapur and sat for talks, but in vain. He received a telephone message form a friend of his wife that the accused stabbed both the deceased and stabbed himself and hospitalized. He went to the hospital, where the dead bodies of deceased Nos. 1 and 2 were lying. He suspected that the accused might have killed both the deceased on account of property disputes. He received a telephone message form a friend of his wife that the accused stabbed both the deceased and stabbed himself and hospitalized. He went to the hospital, where the dead bodies of deceased Nos. 1 and 2 were lying. He suspected that the accused might have killed both the deceased on account of property disputes. In the crossexamination, he denied a suggestion that he is deposing falsehood againstthe accused in collusion with P. W. 4 with a view to send the accused to jail and to grab his properties. ( 18 ) P. W. 10, a resident of Porandla village, which is at a distance of eight kilometers from kannapur, and a village elder, deposed that he used to hold panchayats at the request of the parties in the surrounding villages. Accordingly, at the request of deceased no. 1, he went to Jagtial to hold panchayat between the accused and deceased No. 1 with regard to the property. The other panchayatdars were ajso present in the said mediation. The accused, deceased No. 1, p. W. 4 and some others on their behalf also attended the panchayat. Five years prior to the death of deceased No. 1, they settled the dispute between the accused, deceased no. 1 and P. W. 4 with regard to the property and shares were allotted to the respective sharers, by putting the said arrangement into writing. They also resolved that the loans of deceased No. 1 to a tune of rupees one lakh to be repaid by P. W. 4 and to a tune of rupees twenty thousand to be repaid by the accused and the accused agreed for the same. He denied a suggestion that P. W. 4 beat the deceased No. 1 on some occasions with regard to the properties. ( 19 ) P. W. 11, a resident of Kannapur village and an agriculturist, deposed that about six months prior to the death of deceased No. 1, a panchayat was held at Kannapur between the accused, P. W. 4 and deceased No. 1 with regard to their properties. He was one of the elders of the said panchayat. In that panchayat, nothing was settled between the deceased No. 1 and his sons. He was one of the elders of the said panchayat. In that panchayat, nothing was settled between the deceased No. 1 and his sons. He denied a suggestion that on one occasion in the panchayat, a galata took place between p. W. 4 and deceased No. 1 and in that galata p. W. 4 beat deceased No. 1 and admitted his guilt before elders. ( 20 ) P. W. 12, a resident of Jagtial and an adjacent owner of the house of the accused, deposed that at about ten or twelve years prior to his evidence, he went to Kannapur and participated as an elder in a panchayat that took place between the accused, deceased No. 1 and P. W. 4 with regard to their properties. In the said panchayat, the property was divided into shares and the shares were allotted to the respective sharers by reducing the settlement into writing. He denied a suggestion that he was giving false evidence at the instance of P. W. 4. ( 21 ) THE evidence of P. W. 4 to P. W. 12 is consistent regarding the partition of the joint family properties, the allotment of shares between the accused, P. W. 4 and deceased no. 1, the house at Jagtial falling to the share of the accused, the proposal of deceased no. 1 to sell his share of lands and the objection of the accused, the deceased no. 1 filing a civil suit in Munsif Court, Jagtial and obtaining favourable orders, deceased nos. 1 and 2 visiting the house at Jagtial, the accused beating both of them etc. The evidence of all these witnesses is corroborative and consistent on all the above aspects and through the above evidence, the prosecution established that there was strong motive for the accused to attack the deceased. ( 22 ) REGARDING the offence proper, the prosecution alleged that since both the deceased came to his house against his will, the accused stabbed both of them and inflicted the injury on himself. The accused took a defence of denial of the commission of the offence, and he has taken a defence that some outsiders were responsible forthe death of both the deceased and the injury received by him. P. W. 1, who is the son of the accused, turned hostile and stated in his evidence that at about 12. The accused took a defence of denial of the commission of the offence, and he has taken a defence that some outsiders were responsible forthe death of both the deceased and the injury received by him. P. W. 1, who is the son of the accused, turned hostile and stated in his evidence that at about 12. 00 midnight, he went to sleep in a room, which is 20 to 30 feet away from the main gate. After half an hour, he heard the noises of knocking the main gate. He woke up on hearing the noise of the gate and saw the accused and deceased Nos. 1 and 2 going towards the gate of the room, where deceased Nos. 1 and 2 were sleeping, for two or three minutes deceased Nos. 1 and 2 and the accused talked to three unknown male persons, who came to the house in the midnight. On hearing hue and cry from the accused and deceased Nos. 1 and 2, he rushed to the gate, where he found deceased nos. 1 and 2 and the accused lying on the ground with bleeding injuries. This witness did not state that the three unknown persons caused the injuries to both the deceased and the accused. He stated that he saw the accused and both the deceased talking to three unknown persons, and he further stated that on hearing hue and cry from all the injured, he rushed to the gate and found deceased Nos. 1 and 2 and the accused lying on the ground with bleeding injuries. P. W. 1 cleverly omitted the stabbing incident and he did not explain as to what he was doing from the time of the accused and the deceased talking to unknown persons to the time of hearing hue and cry by all the injured. He did not describe them as extremists. He expressed his inability to identify those three persons. The evidence given by P. W. 1 is different from the contents of Ex. P-1- complaint given by him to the Police. He admitted his signature on Ex. P-1 -complaint, but he pleaded ignorance about the contents by saying that the Inspectorof Police obtained his signature on a blank paper stating that it is required for this case and he was not examined by the Police in this case. He is no other than the son of the accused. He admitted his signature on Ex. P-1 -complaint, but he pleaded ignorance about the contents by saying that the Inspectorof Police obtained his signature on a blank paper stating that it is required for this case and he was not examined by the Police in this case. He is no other than the son of the accused. He wanted to help his father by resiling from Ex. P-1- complaint. Ex. P-1-complaint is in the handwriting of P. W. 1 and at the end of the matter, he signed on it. In Ex. P-1-complaint he mentioned that all his family members are residing in the house at Jagtial since several years. It was constructed by deceased No. 1. Since two years prior to the date of occurrence, deceased No. 1 was not liking the accused to vacate the house. The accused used to rebel against deceased No. 1 by stating that he will not vacate the house. Deceased No. 1 filed a civil suit against the accused regarding the house property, since then, there used to be quarrels between deceased No. 1 and the accused. The accused was not allowing deceased No. 1 to visit the house at Jagtial. About three or four days prior to the date of occurrence, the accused went to Hyderabad. On 22-07-2000 deceased Nos. 1 and 2 came to the house and were staying in the first room by doing self-cooking. On 24-07-2000 at about 11. 00 p. m. the accused returned from hyderabad and on seeing both the deceased, he asked them as to why they came to the house and there was a quarrel between them. Deceased No. 1 was asserting that he came to the house, which was acquired by him and the accused cannot question the same and when the accused tried to beat deceased No. 1, deceased No. 2 and himself prevented him and kept him in a room by locking the door. Later, the accused quarreled with both the deceased and stabbed both of them with a knife and stabbed himself in the stomach. The offence took place at about 12. 15 midnight. The accused stabbed both the deceased with a grouse that both the deceased visiting the house against his wish. The evidence of P. W. 1 is not helpful to the prosecution regarding the stabbing of both the deceased by the accused and stabbing himself. The offence took place at about 12. 15 midnight. The accused stabbed both the deceased with a grouse that both the deceased visiting the house against his wish. The evidence of P. W. 1 is not helpful to the prosecution regarding the stabbing of both the deceased by the accused and stabbing himself. ( 23 ) THE following is the defence taken by the accused during the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses: (1) Suggestion to P. W. 5: "deceased nos. 1 and 2 were having many enemies in Kannapur village and they were killed by somebody else, when the accused tried to rescue deceased Nos. 1 and 2 from the assailants, he also sustained injuries. " (2) Suggestion to P. W. 6: "the accused was having life threat from Naxalites, hence, he was not visiting Kannapur village and was staying at Jagtial town. " (3) Suggestion to P. W. 7: "the accused is in the hit list of Naxalites and he has life threat. He received a telephone message that some unknown Naxalites stabbed both the deceased and when the accused tried to intervene, he was also inflicted injury. " (4) Suggestion to P. W. 8: "the accused has the life threat from the Naxalites. " (5) P. W. 4 to P. W. 12 categorically denied a suggestion that both the deceased were killed by somebody else. On the other hand, they asserted that the accused killed both the deceased and also received self-inflicted injury. ( 24 ) THE prosecution in order to substantiate its contention relied on the evidence of P. W. 14 and P. W. 15, the doctors, who conducted post-mortem examination over dead bodies of both the deceased. ( 25 ) P. W. 14, a Medical Officer of government Hospital, Jagtial, deposed that he held autopsy over the dead body of deceased No. 2 on 25-07-2000 and during the autopsy he found the following eight injuries on the body of deceased No. 2: "injury No. 1 i. e. incised wound 5" x 1" x 1" at the occipital area (scalp) and injury no. 6 incised wound over the lower lip with mandible fracture chin (depressed) 6" x 3" x 1" these two injuries would have been caused with one weapon i. e. heavy sharp weapon like axe. Injury no. 6 incised wound over the lower lip with mandible fracture chin (depressed) 6" x 3" x 1" these two injuries would have been caused with one weapon i. e. heavy sharp weapon like axe. Injury no. 3 incised wound below the left eye over the left cheek 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" and also injury No. 1-incised wound on the left nose 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" would have been caused by sharp weapon like knife. Injury No. 2, i. e. incised wound left side of the fore head including left eye 3" x 2" x 2"; Injury No. 5, two incised wounds on the upper lip 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" and injury no. 7-lncised wound on the right cheek 2" x 1" x 1" and injury No. 8-lncised wound right infra clavicular area 2" x 2" x 1" might have been caused with big knife". He opined that deceased No. 2 died due to shock and haemorrhage due to multiple incised injuries. He issued Ex. P-12-post-mortem certificate of deceased No. 2 and the approximate time of death was six to twelve hours prior to autopsy. ( 26 ) P. W. 15, the Medical Officer, government Hospital, at Jagtial, deposed that he held autopsy over the dead body of deceased No. 1 on 25-07-2000 and found the following injuries:" (1) Abrasions (8) various sizes varies from 1 inch to 1 1/2" inch in length with width of 1/8" on back of neck. (2) Incised injury 3" x 1/4" x 1/4" left arm. (3) Abrasions (2) 1/2" x 1/8" and 1 1/2" x 1/8" on pinne of left ear. (4) Incised injury 3" x 1/2" x 1/2" left side occipital (part of scalp ). (5) Incised injury 4" x 1" x 1/2" across right ear cutting ear into two pieces extending into mastoid. (6) Incised injury 1" x 1/4" x 1/4" on right mastoid bone 1/4" to 5th injury. (7) Incised injury 2" x 1/4" x 1/4" on right mastoid bone 1/4" to 6th injury. He further stated that except injuries 4 and 5, the other injuries are simple in nature and the injuries might have been caused with sharp and blunt objects. The cause of death of deceased No. 1 was due to internal haemorrhage and shock due to head injury. He issued Ex. He further stated that except injuries 4 and 5, the other injuries are simple in nature and the injuries might have been caused with sharp and blunt objects. The cause of death of deceased No. 1 was due to internal haemorrhage and shock due to head injury. He issued Ex. P-13-Post-mortem certificate and the time of death was assessed at 8 to 12 hours prior to the autopsy. ( 27 ) THE injuries found on both the deceased and the opinion given by P. W. 14 and P. W. 15 are indicating that both the deceased met with homicidal death. In ex. P-8 and Ex. P-10-lnquest Reports of deceased Nos. 1 and 2, the Inquest panchayatdars opined that the deceased met with a homicidal death. ( 28 ) THE accused was admitted in the government Hospital, Jagtial. He was also examined by the doctor on 25-07-2000 and found the following injury: A large opening of lower part of abdomen, found ruptured and intestines opened out. On the same day, the accused was referred to the Government hospital, Karimnagar and he issued ex. P-14-wound certificate in respect of the accused. P. W. 15 further opined that the injury found on the accused would have been caused by sharp edged weapon. In the cross- examination, he stated that the injury of the accused might be caused with a knife. The injury of the accused was on the abdomen caused with a knife. From the location of the injury, anybody would say that it is possible by self-infliction. The evidence placed by the prosecution established the presence of the accused in the company of both the deceased at the time of the incident. The prosecution alleged that the accused killed both the deceased and inflicted the injury by himself, but the accused, attributed the injuries on both the deceased and himself on third parties. In the light of the above contentions, it would be appropriate to refer to the features of the scene of offence. ( 29 ) EX. P-21 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence. The house of the accused is surrounded by a compound wall on southern side and on the western side. There are rooms abetting the compound wall. The main gate of the compound wall is situated at the northeastern comer of the premises. ( 29 ) EX. P-21 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence. The house of the accused is surrounded by a compound wall on southern side and on the western side. There are rooms abetting the compound wall. The main gate of the compound wall is situated at the northeastern comer of the premises. The dead bodies of both the deceased were lying at a distance of thirteen feet from the main gate and seven feet four inches from the northern compound wall. In Column No. 8 of ex. P-8-lnquest report, it was mentioned that the house is having six rooms and the remaining is the empty place. In the open place of the house, some rose plants and other plants were there and the remaining place was covered by flooring with stone slabs. There were traces of bloodstains in the premises, in addition to the pool of blood at the place of the dead bodies. ( 30 ) ACCORDING to prosecution witnesses, the accused was present in the house during that night. He was also with the deceased at the time of the incident. He received the injury during the incident. He attributed it to third parties, but while he was undergoing treatment in the hospital, his statement covered by Ex. P-19 was recorded by the judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial. The said statement was recorded by the judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jagtial from 3. 05 a. m. , to 3. 20 a. m. on 25-07-2000. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the accused after obtaining an endorsement from the duty doctor that the accused was conscious, coherent and was in a fit state of mind to give a statement, which reads as follows:"i stabbed my parents, therefore, I decided to commit suicide. My parents provoked me. I am an honest man. My parents sent me out from the house. They took away my entire property. They filed a case claiming the house as theirs. My brother-Prasad and my parents are responsible for my suicide. " ( 31 ) SRI C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that though a statement covered by Ex. P-19 was recorded from the accused, the magistrate, who recorded the said statement was not examined, since the accused survived, it cannot be treated as a dying declaration. My brother-Prasad and my parents are responsible for my suicide. " ( 31 ) SRI C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that though a statement covered by Ex. P-19 was recorded from the accused, the magistrate, who recorded the said statement was not examined, since the accused survived, it cannot be treated as a dying declaration. It cannot be treated as a statement under Section 164 Cr. P. C. , since the accused did not make the said statement on oath. It cannot be treated as a statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. , since it was not recorded by the Police Officers during the course of investigation. Ex. P-19 was marked through P. W. 18, the Investigating Officer, who was not present at the time of recording the said statement by the Magistrate. It cannot be treated as a confessional statement leading to recovery of any property since no recovery was made in pursuance of the said statement. Ex. P-19 is not a statement recorded under any of the provisions of the cr. P. C. , or the Evidence Act, therefore, the contents of Ex. P-19 have to be ignored and the Court has to fall back on the other material available on record. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that though p. W. 4to P. W. 12 suspected thatthe accused was responsible for killing both the deceased and for inflicting injury on himself, the mere suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the shape of proof, therefore, it has to be held hat there was no sufficient evidence placed by the prosecution to find the accused guilty of the charge. He further submitted that as none of the prosecution witnesses claimed to have witnessed the occurrence, there is no material placed by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused and the judgment of the Court below has to be set aside by recording the acquittal of the accused. ( 32 ) IN the light of the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, it has to be examined whether the statement made by the accused can be treated as an extra-judicial confession and whether the conviction can be based on it or on the other circumstances placed by the prosecution. ( 32 ) IN the light of the contentions of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, it has to be examined whether the statement made by the accused can be treated as an extra-judicial confession and whether the conviction can be based on it or on the other circumstances placed by the prosecution. ( 33 ) EX. P-19-statement was made to the magistrate voluntarily, therefore, it can be treated as an extra-judicial confession. But, since the Magistrate was not examined to prove the contents of Ex. P-19, it cannot be treated as a corroborative piece of evidence. We shall examine the relevant provisions to test whether it comes in any one of those categories of statements. ( 34 ) SECTION 161 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 reads as follows: 161. Examination of witnesses by police: (1) Any police officer making an investigation under this Chapter, or any police officer not below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, acting on the requisition of such officer, may examine orally any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. (2) Such person shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to such case put to him by such officer, other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or forfeiture. (3) The police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of any examination under this section; and if he does so, he shall make a separate and true record of the statement of each such person whose statement he records. ( 35 ) UNDER this provision, a police officer making investigation can examine witnesses acquainted with the facts of the case and reduce them into writing if he so wishes, but without oath or affirmation. Section 161 cr. P. C. statement shall not be used for any purpose except to contradict the witnesses. 35 (a ). Ex. P-19-statement was not recorded by the police during the course of investigation and the maker is not a witness in the case, therefore, it cannot be treated as a statement under Section 161 Cr. Section 161 cr. P. C. statement shall not be used for any purpose except to contradict the witnesses. 35 (a ). Ex. P-19-statement was not recorded by the police during the course of investigation and the maker is not a witness in the case, therefore, it cannot be treated as a statement under Section 161 Cr. P. C. ( 36 ) THE statement that was made by the accused cannot be used against the same person without giving a caution that it will be used against him. Section 164 Cr. P. C. reads as follows: 164. Recording of confessions and statements: (1) Any Metropolitan Magistrate or judicial Magistrate may, whether or not he has jurisdiction in the case, record any confession or statement made to him in the course of an investigation under this Chapter or under any other law for the time being in force, or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry ortrial: provided that no confession shall be recorded by a police off icer on whom any power of a Magistrate has been conferred under any law for the time being in force. (2) The Magistrate, shall before recording any such confession, explain to the person making it that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, it may be used as evidence against him; and the Magistrate shall not record any such confession unless, upon questioning the person making it, he has reason to believe that it is being made voluntarily. (3) If at any time before the confession is recorded, the person appearing before the Magistrate states that he is not willing to make the confession, the Magistrate shall not authorize the detention of such person in police custody. (4) Any such confession shall be recorded in the manner provided in section 281 for recording the examination of an accused person and shall be signed by the person making the confession; and the magistrate shall make a memorandum at the foot of such record to the following effect:- "i have explained to (name) that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, any confession he may make may be used as evidence against him and I believe that this confession was voluntarily made. It was taken in my presence and hearing, and was read over to the person making it and admitted by him to be correct, and it contains a full and true account of the statement made by him. (Signed) A. B. Magistrate (5) Any statement (other than a confession) made under sub-sec. (1) shall be recorded in such manner hereinafter provided for the recording of evidence as is, in the opinion of the Magistrate, best fitted to the circumstances of the case; and the magistrate shall have power to administer oath to the person whose statement is so recorded. (6) The Magistrate recording a confession or statement under this section shall forward it to the magistrate by whom the case is to be inquired into or tried. ( 37 ) THE procedure for examination of the accused by the Magistrate under this Section is first to ask whether he is willing to give statement or a confession. If he answers in the negative, the Magistrate should not proceed to interrogate the accused. If he answers in the affirmative, his statement or confession can be recorded and the magistrate should ask such questions as may be necessary to show clearly orascertain clearly his meaning. The absence of the warning under sub-section (3) of Section 164 would not by itself make the confession inadmissible, provided that the accused knows that what he stated shall be recorded and it would be used in evidence against him. ( 38 ) IN the case on hand, At the time of recording Ex. P-19-statement the learned magistrate did not anticipate that the accused would survive, therefore, he recorded as if it is a dying declaration. Since the accused survived after giving Ex. P-19, it can be treated only as a statement and cannot be treated as a dying declaration. When once it is a statement made to a Magistrate, it should be in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 164 Cr. P. C. Since the procedure prescribed under Section 164 was not followed at the time of recording ex. P-19-statement given by the accused, it cannot be treated as a judicial confession made under Section 164 Cr. P. C. ( 39 ) SECTION 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence act, 1872 reads as follows: 32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found etc. P-19-statement given by the accused, it cannot be treated as a judicial confession made under Section 164 Cr. P. C. ( 39 ) SECTION 32 (1) of the Indian Evidence act, 1872 reads as follows: 32. Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found etc. , is relevant: (1) When it relates to cause of death: when the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases which the cause of that person s death comes into question. Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question. ( 40 ) SINCE the accused survived, ex. P-19-statement cannot be made admissible under Section 32 of the Evidence act. ( 41 ) SECTIONS 26 and 27 of the Evidence act reads as follows: 26. Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him: no confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police- officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. Explanation: In this section "magistrate" does not include the head of a village discharging magisterial functions in the presidency of Fort St. George or elsewhere, unless such headman is a magistrate exercising the powers of a magistrate under the Code of Criminal procedure, 1882. 27. How much of information received from accused may be proved: provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. ( 42 ) UNDER Section 27, a statement cannot be made admissible, unless that part of the statement recorded from the accused leading to discovery of any incriminating material. ( 43 ) AFTER going through the above provisions, it is seen that Ex. ( 42 ) UNDER Section 27, a statement cannot be made admissible, unless that part of the statement recorded from the accused leading to discovery of any incriminating material. ( 43 ) AFTER going through the above provisions, it is seen that Ex. P-19-statement made by the accused to the Judicial magistrate of First Class will not come within any one of the categories mentioned above. Therefore, it is not an admissible piece of evidence and it cannot be used against the accused. ( 44 ) THE following are the circumstances placed by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused: (1) There were differences between the deceased and the accused regarding the family properties, including the house in which the accused was residing. (2) A civil suit was filed by deceased No. 1 against the accused in connection with the property disputes and orders were obtained against the accused. (3) The deceased No. 1 insisted on the accused to vacate the house at jagtial. (4) Deceased Nos. 1 and 2 visited the house of the accused against his will and remained in that house. (5) There was sufficient motive for the accused to attack both the deceased. (6) The deceased was last seen by p. Ws. 1 to 3 during the night of the date of offence within few seconds before the occurrence. (7) Both the deceased were also seen lying in a pool of blood within the compound of the house within few seconds after the incident. (8) The accused also found lying with injury on the stomach along with the deceased. (9) The offence took place in the house surrounded by a compound wall and a gate. (10) The accused received the injury on the stomach, which is possible by self-infliction. (11) The house of the accused was in his exclusive possession and the stabbing was not attributed to any one of the inmates of the house. (12) No material was elicited or placed to probabilise the defence version that unknown persons entered the premises by opening the main gate or by jumping from the compound wall. (13) No traces of third parties entering the premises to attack the deceased and the accused. ( 45 ) THE following are the circumstances to hold that the accused failed to probabilise the defence version: (1) Recovery of M. 0. (13) No traces of third parties entering the premises to attack the deceased and the accused. ( 45 ) THE following are the circumstances to hold that the accused failed to probabilise the defence version: (1) Recovery of M. 0. 10 at the instance of the accused, which was proved by P. W. 18, the Investigating Officer. (2) The defence version regarding the cause of death is not consistent. (3) Though the accused pleaded that some outsiders killed the deceased and when he intervened he was also stabbed, he did not describe the features or ages of those persons and their traces. (4) The plea of the accused that there were differences between P. W. 4 and D-1 or between him and P. W. 4 was not probabilised either eliciting such information from the prosecution witnesses or through defence evidence. (5) Except P. Ws. 6 and 7 nobody admitted the piea of defence that the accused was having threat from naxalites. If it was true, they would have attacked him only. (6) If the version of the accused that he received injury when he tried to rescue the deceased is true, he would have come with the details of the assailants and the weapons used by them. (7) The accused did not explain either at the time of framing the charge or in the 313 Cr. P. C. examination as to what were the circumstances to probabilise the version of the defence. (8) Had the prosecution version is not true, all the prosecution witnesses who are closely related to the accused would not have attributed the offence to him. (9) None of the prosecution witnesses supported the defence version that d-1 was having many enemies. (10) Though P. W. 1 stated that he saw the accused and the deceased moving in the compound and saw them with injuries in a pool of blood, he did not describe the features or ages of the outsiders who attacked the deceased and their traces. (11) It is not the case of P. W. 1 that immediately after seeing the accused and the deceased, he went inside the house and closed the doors. P. W. 1 failed to mention as to where from the strangers emerged, whether they were armed with weapons or weather he tried to caution the accused and escaped after seeing the outsiders. P. W. 1 failed to mention as to where from the strangers emerged, whether they were armed with weapons or weather he tried to caution the accused and escaped after seeing the outsiders. (12) P. W. 1 did not state whether the main gate of the house was kept opened. ( 46 ) THE above circumstances placed are amply establishing that the accused was solely responsible for the death of both the deceased and he was also responsible for inflicting injury on himself. Since there is no consistency in the defence version, and as the accused failed to elicit any favourable information from any of the prosecution witnesses to improbabilise the prosecution version, we have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused under Sections 302 and 309 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. After going through the material available on record and after going through the judgment of the learned Sessions judge we are convinced that the learned sessions Judge has rightly held that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and we do not find any grounds to interfere with the judgment of the Sessions Court. ( 47 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed. The convictions and the sentences imposed against the appellant by the Sessions Court through its judgment dated 4-2-2002 in S. C. No. 14 of 2002 are confirmed in all respects.

Kokku Sudhakar v. State Of A. P.