JUDGMENT : A. GOPAL REDDY, J.:— The sole accused in S.C. No. 180 of 2005 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar preferred this appeal. He was tried and convicted of an offence under Section 302 IPC for allegedly committing patricide with adaze. 2. The prosecution story in brief is as follows: The deceased-Narsaiah having five sons, three sons got married and living separately. The younger son-P.W. 1 is staying with the deceased in the tiled house covered by 20 gts. of agricultural land. The 4th son-accused after his marriage living with his in laws and due to quarrel with his wife and in laws came back and living in front of the house of the deceased and used to quarrel with the deceased with regard to his share in the property which the deceased denied. Keeping, the enmity in his mind, on 18-08-2004 the accused beat the deceased indiscriminately with adaze resulting instantaneous death of the deceased. Meanwhile the younger son-P.W. 1 returned to his house from his tailor shop and noticed the accused running way from the house. Accordingly, he lodged a complaint with the police. P.W. 8 - the Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr. No. 90 of 2004 under Section 302 IPC and issued FIR and thereafter examined P.W. 1 and recorded his statement. P.W. 9, the Circle Inspector of Police, who took up investigation, visited the scene of offence on the next morning i.e. 19-08-2004, prepared panchanama and examined P.W. 2; conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W. 5 and another under Ex. P-4 and seized M.Os. 1 to 4 during the inquest. After completion of inquest he sent the dead body to postmortem examination. P.W. 7, the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased found lacerated wound on right occipital region 1? × 3? and opined that the cause of death is due to head injury. P.W. 9, the investigating officer arrested the accused on 20-8-2004, and on his confessional statement - Ex. P-5 made in the presence of P.W. 6 and another recovered M.Os. 1 and 2 hiden in the haystack by the side of his house under the cover of Panchanama - Ex. P-6. M.Os. 1 to 4 were deposited in the court for sending them to chemical examination. P-5 made in the presence of P.W. 6 and another recovered M.Os. 1 and 2 hiden in the haystack by the side of his house under the cover of Panchanama - Ex. P-6. M.Os. 1 to 4 were deposited in the court for sending them to chemical examination. After completion of investigation police laid the charge sheet for the above offence. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 9 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-16 and M.Os. 1 to 4. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on defence side. 4. On evaluating the oral and documentary evidence the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Challenging the legality and validity of the same the appellant preferred the present appeal. 5. We have heard the Amicus Curiae for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 6. In view of the above circumstances, the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court are liable to be set aside or modified.” 7. P.W. 1 who is the younger brother of the accused stated that about one year back there is a quarrel between the accused and his wife and he joined him and his father at Allipur village. As the deceased has not conceded to effect partition as demanded by the accused, he beat the deceased one or two occasions. On 18-08-2004 at about 3 p.m. when he came from his tailoring shop he found the accused in the threshold of the house armed with adaze, and on seeing him the accused fled away; when he went inside the house he found his father in a pool of blood. He immediately informed P.Ws. 2 and 3-brothers and other neighbours. Thereafter, he gave a complaint to the police. He immediately informed P.Ws. 2 and 3-brothers and other neighbours. Thereafter, he gave a complaint to the police. He admitted that he will go to the shop at 9.00 a.m. in the morning and come back at about 12.30 p.m., stay in the house for nearly two hours and later go to the shop at 2.30 p.m. He denied the suggestion that he had extra marital relationship with the wife of the accused and stated in the cross-examination that except the accused there was none in the house, when he reached in the house. He also denied that since the accused chastised him for having illegal contact with his wife, he foisted the case against the accused. P.W. 2, the other son of the deceased turned hostile. P.W. 3 stated that P.W. 1 informed him that when he reached home he saw the accused going outside the house and when he entered into the house he found the deceased died due to injuries. On such information he went to the house of his father and saw him with injuries. He also stated that about one year back accused quarreled with his wife and in laws and joined his father and demanded partition. P.W. 4 who is an independent witness turned hostile. P.W. 5 who signed the inquest panchanama speaks about seizure of M.Os. 3 and 4 - blood stained dhoti and shirt. P.W. 6 is a resident of Allipur, in whose presence the accused made confessional statement under Ex. P-5 and took the investigating officer-P.W. 9 to the haystack where M.Os. 1 and 2 were recovered under a cover of Panchanama - Ex. P-6 in his presence. P.W. 7, the doctor who conducted postmortem examination stated that cause of the death is due to head injury; which according to him might have been inflicted 24 hours prior to postmortem examination. P.W. 8 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who registered the crime and handed over the investigation to P.W. 9. P.W. 9 is the investigating officer who conducted inquest over the dead body and sent to postmortem examination and recovered M.Os. 1 to 4. 8. It is also brought to the light that police station is 10 K. Ms. Away from the place where the offence has taken place. P.W. 9 is the investigating officer who conducted inquest over the dead body and sent to postmortem examination and recovered M.Os. 1 to 4. 8. It is also brought to the light that police station is 10 K. Ms. Away from the place where the offence has taken place. Except a suggestion to P.W. 1 that he had illegal relationship with the wife of the accused, no other suggestion was put to him that the accused was not residing at the house, where the incident has taken place. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 is consistent and corroborated. The lower Court mainly based on two circumstances viz., when the dead body of the deceased was found in the house, the accused and the deceased alone are there, on seeing P.W. 1 accused ran away from the house with adage in his hands and this probablises the commission of the offence by the accused and except the accused no person will have access to commit the said offence. The 2nd circumstance on which lower court found the accused guilty is that on his confessional statement M.Os. 1, 2 and 3 were recovered from the haystack situated by the side of his house under a cover of panchanama and F.S.L. report Ex. P-16 also states that the blood stains are found on M.Os. 3 and 4. 9. We have gone through the entire evidence and the reasoning adopted by the lower court for convicting the accused. We are satisfied that the view taken by the lower court is a possible view to connect the accused with the commission of offence and there is no possibility of others committing the offence. In the result, appeal is dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court in all respects. 10. The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs. 1,000/-.