JUDGMENT : B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.:— This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12-09-2003 passed in S.C. No. 179 of 2001 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Vijaywada whereby and where under the learned Sessions Judge found accused-Kanulla Venkateswara Rao guilty under three counts (charge No. 1 for the offence under Section 302 IPC for intentionally causing the death of Kanulla Nagendramma, charge No. 2 for the offence under Section 302 IPC for intentionally causing the death of Torlikonda Seetharavamma and charge No. 3 for the offence under Section 307 IPC for attempting to commit murder of Basidi Yelamanda @ Bullemma) and convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer S.I. for six months for committing murder of Nagendramma; imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer S.I. for six months for committing the murder of Seetharamma and R.I. for seven years and fine Rs. 500/- in default to suffer S.I. for six months for attempting to commit murder of Yelamanda @ Bullemma. 2. The appellant/accused was put on trial for the following charges. 3. Charge No. 1 for the offence under Section 302 IPC for intentionally causing the death of Kanulla Nagendramma punishable under Section 302 IPC. Charge No. 2 for the offence under Section 302 IPC for intentionally causing the death of Torlikonda Seetharavamma. 4. Charge No. 3 for the offence under Section 307 IPC for attempting to commit the murder of Badisa Yelamanda @ Bullemma. 5. To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence with which he stood charged, prosecution examined 14 witnesses and marked 30 documents and exhibited 19 material objects. 6. The accusation against the accused is that on 18-4-2000 at about 10.00 a.m. in his rented house did commit murder by intentionally causing the death of his wife Kanulla Nagendramma (hereinafter referred to as D-1) and his mother-in-law Torlikonda Seetharavamma (hereinafter referred to as D-2) and attempted to commit murder of Badisa Yelamanda @ Bullemma. 7. The case of the prosecution in brief is:— Accused married D-1 in the year 1983 and they lead marital life at Koppuravuru village. 7. The case of the prosecution in brief is:— Accused married D-1 in the year 1983 and they lead marital life at Koppuravuru village. D-1 was doing milk business and she used to go to Guntur for vending milk, where she developed intimacy with a person who had a Killy bunk and she eloped with him. At the intervention of D-2 and one Sambaiah, D-1 joined the conjugal association with the accused. Thereafter, the accused and D-1 started living at Ambapuram near the house of D-1. The accused used to comment D-1 on her chastity and used to leave home very frequently to Koppuravuru by taking the earnings of D-1. On 4-4-2000 the accused left for Koppuravuru by taking Rs. 600/- from D-1 and returned to Ambapuram on 16-4-2000. On the morning of 18-4-2000 at about 10.00 a.m. a quarrel ensued between D-1 and the accused. On hearing their altercations, D-2 and L.W. 17-Yelamanda @ Bullemma, who are mother and senior maternal aunt respectively of D-1, went to the house of the accused. Accused picked up an axe and dealt blow on the right temporal region of D-1 and thereby D-1 met with instantaneous death. When D-2 intervened, the accused hacked her with the same axe on her head and thereby caused bleeding injuries to her. Yelamanda @ Bullemma-L.W. 17 came in rescue of D-2 and thereupon the accused dealt a blow on her and thereby she too received injuries. P.W. 5 who came along with D-2 and L.W. 17-Yellamanda @ Bullemma witnessed the incident. P.W. 1 who is the brother of P.W. 5 rushed to the scene and noticed the accused fleeing away from the scene and D-1 lying dead on a cot and D-2 and L.W. 17-Yelamanda @ Bullemma lying with injuries. P.Ws. 2 to 4 reached the scene and shifted D-2 and L.W. 17-Yelamanda @ Bullemma to hospital where the doctor examined D-2 and declared her dead. P.W. 5 presented Ex. P-1 report before the S.H.O. Law and Order II Town P.S. Vijayawada. P.W. 13-Sub-lnspector of Police, Law and Order, II Town P.S. received Ex. P-1 report and registered a case in Crime No. 112/2000 under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and issued Ex. P-24 FIR. He inspected the scene of effence and prepared Ex. P-4-observation report and Ex. P-25-rough sketch in the presence of P.W. 9 and another. P.W. 13-Sub-lnspector of Police, Law and Order, II Town P.S. received Ex. P-1 report and registered a case in Crime No. 112/2000 under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and issued Ex. P-24 FIR. He inspected the scene of effence and prepared Ex. P-4-observation report and Ex. P-25-rough sketch in the presence of P.W. 9 and another. While observing the scene, he effected seizure of M.Os. 1 to 7. He examined P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 5 and recorded their statements. He held inquest on the dead body of D-1 and effected seizure of M.O. 9-Blouse, M.O. 10-Saree, M.O. 11-Petty coat, M.O. 12-Toe rings four in number, M.O. 13-Black bangles numbering 5, M.O. 14-Yellow thread with rold gold sutram, M.O. 15-Ear studs and M.O. 16-Gold nose stud under the cover of Ex. P-5 inquest report. After the inquest, he sent the dead body of D-1 to the Government Hospital for post mortem examination. Thereafter he proceeded to the Government Hospital, Vijayawada and conducted inquest on the dead body of D-2 at mortuary in the presence of P.W. 9 and two others. He effected seizure of M.O. 17-Blouse, M.O. 18-Saree, M.O. 19-Bangles numbering six under the cover of Ex. P-6 inquest report. After the inquest, the dead body was subjected to post mortem examination. Dr. B. Raju, Medical Officer Forensic Medicines, University General Hospital, Vijayawada conducted post mortem examination on the dead bodies of D-1 and D-2 and submitted Ex. P-27 and P-29 post mortem reports. P.W. 14-P. Rama Rao, Inspector of Police, Law and Order II Town P.S. Vijayawada, effected arrest of the accused on 20-4-2000 at Model Guests House, Vijayawada City in the presence of P.W. 10 and another M.O. 8-Shirt came to be seized in pursuance of the disclosure statement of the accused under cover of Ex. P-8 panchanama. He sent material objects to Regional Forensic Science laboratory, Vijayawada. Ex. P-29 is the letter of advice and Ex. P-30 is the RFSL Report. After completing investigation L.W. 29 submitted charge sheet in the Court of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. 8. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as P.R.C. 26 of 2001 and committed the case to the Metropolitan Sessions Division, Vijayawada as the offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC are exclusively triable by the Court of Session. 9. After completing investigation L.W. 29 submitted charge sheet in the Court of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada. 8. The learned Magistrate took the charge sheet on file as P.R.C. 26 of 2001 and committed the case to the Metropolitan Sessions Division, Vijayawada as the offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC are exclusively triable by the Court of Session. 9. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge took the case on file as S.C. No. 179 of 2001 and made over the same to the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, for disposal according to law. 10. On hearing the prosecution and the accused, the learned Sessions Judge framed three charges:— Firstly: for the offence under Section 302 IPC for committing the murder of D-1. Secondly: for the offence under Section 302 IPC for committing the murder of D-2. Thirdly: for the offence under Section 307 IPC for attempting to commit the murder of Badisa Yelamanda @ Bullemma. 11. To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and marked 30 documents and exhibited 19 material objects. 12. The injured-Badisa Yelamanda @ Bullemma could not be examined, as she was no more by the time the case came up for trial. The doctor who conducted post mortem examination on the dead bodies of D-1 and D-2 is also not examined and the post mortem reports issued by him came to be marked through the Investigating Officer, who has been examined as P.W. 14. On appreciation of the evidence brought on record and on hearing the prosecution and the accused, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty for committing the murder of D-1 and D-2 as well as attempting to commit murder of Yelamanda @ Bullemma-LW. 17 and convicted him accordingly and sentenced him as stated supra. Hence this criminal appeal by the accused through a legal aid counsel. 13. Heard Smt. Amaji Nettem, learned legal aid counsel appearing for the appellant, and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 14. Learned Legal Aid counsel submits that Exs. P-27 and 28 post mortem reports are not properly proved by the prosecution and therefore, the conviction of the accused for the two charges i.e. charge No. 1 and charge No. 2 cannot be sustained. She would further contend that the accused had no intention to do away the life of Yellamanda Bollanna-LW. Learned Legal Aid counsel submits that Exs. P-27 and 28 post mortem reports are not properly proved by the prosecution and therefore, the conviction of the accused for the two charges i.e. charge No. 1 and charge No. 2 cannot be sustained. She would further contend that the accused had no intention to do away the life of Yellamanda Bollanna-LW. 17 and therefore, the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant for the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. is not legal and proper and the same is liable to be set aside. It is also contended by the learned Legal Aid Counsel that P.W. 5 is an interested witness and therefore, no implicit reliance can be placed on her testimony. In support of her submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Kota Peda Nagesh v. State of A.P., 1999 (1) ALT (Crl.) 364 : 1999 (2) ALD 383 (D.B.) (A.P.).. 15. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor would contend that the evidence of P.W. 5 is fully corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 and 6 and therefore, the conviction of the appellant-accused on three counts is legal and proper and the same is not required to be interfered in this appeal. He would further contend that the death of D-1 is instantaneous and therefore, non-examination of the post mortem doctor does not in any way affect the prosecution case. 16. It has come on record that L.W. 17-Badisa Yelamanda @ Bullemma, who is the injured in the occurrence, could not be examined as she was no more by the time the case came up for trial. P.Ws. 1 and 5 are brother and sister and they are the children of the sister of D-2. P.Ws. 1 and 5, D.-2 and LW. 17-B. Yelamanda @ Bullemma were residing together. D-1 and the appellant-accused were residing in a rented house, which is adjacent to the house of D-2. It is to be noted that D-1 is no other than the daughter of D-2. Undisputedly, the marital relationship between D-1 and the appellant-accused ran in rough weather. 17. Ex. P-4 is the scene of offence panchanama and Ex. P-25 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence and they have been proved through P.W. 9 and P.W. 12. Nothing is suggested to P.Ws. 9 and 13 disputing the correctness of contents therein. Undisputedly, the marital relationship between D-1 and the appellant-accused ran in rough weather. 17. Ex. P-4 is the scene of offence panchanama and Ex. P-25 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence and they have been proved through P.W. 9 and P.W. 12. Nothing is suggested to P.Ws. 9 and 13 disputing the correctness of contents therein. More particularly to P.W. 13 who is the author of Ex. P-25 rough sketch. As can be seen from the rough sketch, the houses of D-1 and D-2 are adjacent to each other. The relationship between D-1 and D-2 has already come on record and they are daughter and mother. The appellant and D-1 had come to Ambapuram from Koppuravuru six months prior to the occurrence and started residing in the rented room which is adjacent to the house of D-2. The purpose of referring the tough sketch is to make it clear that the house of D-2 is adjacent to the house of D-1. That is the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 5 that they were residing with their senior aunt-D-2. Coming to the incident proper, D-2 and L.W. 17-Badisa Yelamanda @ Bullemma heard the altercations between D-1 and the appellant/accused and thereupon, they rushed to the house of D-1. P.W. 5 who was also residing along with D-2 and L.W. 17 followed them. P.W. 5 testifies that the appellant/accused hacked D-1 with an axe on her head and right side of ear and thereby resulting her instantaneous death. She further testifies that when D-2 interfered, the appellant/accused beat her with an axe. She would further testify that when L.W. 17 raised cries, the appellant/accused beat her on head with an axe resulting bleeding injury. For better appreciation, we may refer the evidence of P.W. 5 in her own words and it is thus: “Presently I am living with my husband at Khammam. The deceased Setharamamma and Bullemma are my senior aunts. The 1st deceased Nagendramma is the daughter of Setharammamma (2nd deceased). Myself, P.W. 1 live with the deceased Setharamamma. The accused is the husband of the 1st deceased Nagendramma. The accused and his wife Nagendramma shifted to Ambapuram from Koppuravuru village six months prior to the alleged incident. They both used to quarrel frequently. The 1st deceased Nagendramma is the daughter of Setharammamma (2nd deceased). Myself, P.W. 1 live with the deceased Setharamamma. The accused is the husband of the 1st deceased Nagendramma. The accused and his wife Nagendramma shifted to Ambapuram from Koppuravuru village six months prior to the alleged incident. They both used to quarrel frequently. On the day of occurrence in the morning hours at 10 a.m. the accused and 1st deceased Nagendramma were quarrelling with each other in their house. On hearing the same Seetharamma and Bullemma went there. I also went there and found the accused hacking my sister Nagendramma with axe on her neck. The accused hacked her with the axe on her right side of the head. When my senior aunt Seetharamamma interfered, the accused attacked her with the same axe on her right side of the face. But when she placed her right hand preventing the said blow her right little finger was cut. When Bullemma raised cries the accused again axed Bullemma on her head and with that blow Bullemma fell on the door. Seetharamamma fell by the side of the cot. The accused left the place by throwing the axe. The, P.W. 1 coming hurriedly into the house on knowing the incident when questioned the accused he advised him to see what had happened inside the house and went away. P.Ws. 2 to 4 came to scene thereafter. P.W. 4 and L.W. 7 took Seetharamamma and Bullemma to the hospital. I then gave a statement to the police which is Ex. P-1. Police examined me. Cross examination: It is not true to suggest that I did not witness the occurrence as I stated and that I am deposing falsely. It is not true to suggest that the deceased Nagendramma and the accused were amicable and they lived happily and they were no differences between them. It is not true to suggest that I am deposing falsely at the instance of our relatives and that the accused did not commit any offence. I stated to the police what was happened. It is not true to suggest that I am deposing falsely due to enmity with the accused. Since my childhood I am living with Seetharamamma. My marriage was settled by the date of offence itself.” 18. I stated to the police what was happened. It is not true to suggest that I am deposing falsely due to enmity with the accused. Since my childhood I am living with Seetharamamma. My marriage was settled by the date of offence itself.” 18. Nothing is suggested to her in the cross-examination by the appellant/accused disputing her stay with D-2 at the relevant period. Since she had been staying with D-2 at the relevant period, it was quite natural to accompany D-2 who rushed to the house of D-1 on hearing the altercations. The evidence of P.W. 5 is cogent and convincing and nothing is made out in the cross examination to discredit her testimony. P.W. 1 is brother of P.W. 5. He testifies that by the time he entered the house, he saw the appellant/accused hacking L.W. 17 with an axe. According to him, by the time he entered the house D-1 was lying dead and whereas D-2 lying with injuries. The accused did not choose to cross-examine him. So his evidence remains uncontroverted. P.Ws. 2 to 4 are the circumstantial witnesses who reached the scene and found D-1 lying dead, whereas D-2 and L.W. 17 lying with injuries. They also stated that they saw the accused fleeing away from the scene leaving the weapon of offence (M.O. 1). The circumstantial evidence of P.Ws. 2 to 4 corroborates the testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 5 and thus the prosecution is able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused hacked D-1, D-2 and L.W. 17 and caused bleeding injuries to them. P.Ws. 1 to 5 consistently stated that D-1 met with instantaneous death. In fact, the accused did not chose to cross-examine P.Ws. 1 to 5 disputing the fact of instantaneous death of D-1. We are emphasizing this particular aspect since much argument has been advanced by the learned Legal Aid Counsel that the charge under Section 302 IPC cannot be held to be proved since post mortem Doctor has not been examined to speak of the contents of Exs. P-27 and P-28 post mortem reports. 19. At this juncture, we deem it appropriate to refer the charges. The first charge is for the offence under Section 302 IPC for causing the death of D-1. The second charge is for the offence under Section 302 IPC for causing the death of D-2. P-27 and P-28 post mortem reports. 19. At this juncture, we deem it appropriate to refer the charges. The first charge is for the offence under Section 302 IPC for causing the death of D-1. The second charge is for the offence under Section 302 IPC for causing the death of D-2. The third charge is under Section 307 IPC for attempting to do away the life of L.W. 17. 20. Ex. P-27 is the post mortem certificate relating to D-1. Ex. P-28 is the post mortem certificate relating to D-2. With regard to the death of D-1, the evidence brought on record is consistent that it is an instantaneous one. Indeed the accused did not chose to contradict the testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 5 when they stated on oath that D-1 met with instantaneous death. In these circumstances, non-examination of author of Ex. P-27 post mortem, report in our considered view, cannot be a ground to acquit the accused for the charge under Section 302 IPC (Charge No. 1). 21. With regard to the second charge, for causing the death of D-2, the evidence on record is that the accused dealt a blow with an axe on the right side of the face above ear and right little finger. The death of D-2 was not instantaneous. According to the prosecution, she was shifted to hospital for treatment and it is reported to be a hospital death. The nexus between the death and the injury has to be established by the prosecution. Ex. P-28 is the post mortem report. The author or Ex. P-28 has not been examined. Indeed Ex. P-28 came to be marked through the Investigating Officer-P.W. 14. In similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this court in Kota Peda Nagesh v. State of A.P. (1 supra) held that the accused cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Since the prosecution has failed to establish the nexus between the death and the injuries, we are of the considered view that the offence made out against the appellant/accused with regard to assault on D-2 would be one under Section 324 IPC and not under Section 302 IPC. With regard to the charge under Section 307 IPC, the injured could not be examined since she was reported to be dead by the time the case came up for trial. P.Ws. With regard to the charge under Section 307 IPC, the injured could not be examined since she was reported to be dead by the time the case came up for trial. P.Ws. 1 and 5 are the witnesses to speak of the assault on L.W. 17. They categorically stated that the appellant/accused dealt a blow with an axe and thereby caused injuries to her. The appellant/accused resorted to give blows on L.W. 17 when she came and interfered. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be inferred that the appellant/accused had any intention to do away the life of L.W. 17. Ex. P-9 is the wound certificate relating to L.W. 17. P.W. 11 who treated the injured has classified injuries as simple in nature. Therefore, the offence made out against the appellant/accused with regard to causing injuries to L.W. 17 would come within the ambit of Section 324. 22. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed setting aside the convictions and sentences of the appellant/accused for the offences under Section 302 IPC (charge No. 2) and Section 307 IPC (charge No. 3) and he is acquitted of the same and instead he is found guilty under Section 324 IPC for causing injuries to D-2 and L.W. 17 and he is sentenced to undergo Rl for two years under each count. The conviction of the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC (Charge No. 1) for causing the death of D-1 is confirmed. All the sentences shall run concurrently.