JUDGMENT A.S. Pachhapure, J.— The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on a trial held by the Fast Track Court, Mysore. 2. Sans unnecessary details, the prosecution version unfolded during the trial is as under: The accused is the husband of the deceased Lakshmi. Their marriage took place about 18 years prior to the incident. Out of the wedlock, they have two sons and two daughters. About 1 1/2 years earlier to the incident, the accused started abusing and assaulting his wife suspecting her fidelity and chastity. Thereby, the deceased went to her parental home along with her son Nanjundanayaka (P.W. 5). The remaining children were residing with the accused. The deceased had informed her brothers Nanjundanayaka (P.W. 1), Mahadevanayaka (P.W. 2) and Chikkannayaka (P.W. 9) regarding the abuse and the assault by her husband and they had also advised the accused and asked him to lead a happy matrimonial life and had sent the deceased to the house of the accused. Thereafter, they pulled on well for a year or so, and on the date of the incident at 10.00 a.m. in the morning, Nanjundanayaka (P.W. 1) the brother of the deceased received a phone message from his sister's son Nanjundanayaka (P.W. 5), who informed that on the said day, the accused had sent him to the land, his another brother and sister to the school and when he returned home from the land, he found his mother deceased Lakshmi lying dead in a pool of blood and that the accused has committed the murder of his mother. Immediately, Nanjundanayaka (P.W. 1) came to Surally Village and found his sister, Lakshmi (the deceased) dead with injuries on the neck and later, approached Nanjangud Rural Police and submitted his compliant on the same day i.e., 13-3-2003 at 2.30 p.m. and the Police Sub-Inspector (P.W. 16) registered the complaint (Ex. P. 19) in Crime No. 55 of 2003 for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. He sent the complaint (Ex. P. 19) and the FIR (Ex. P. 14) to the Magistrate through P.W. 14 and went to the spot and held the spot mahazar (Ex. P. 1) and at that time, seized the chopper (M.O. 5), the bloodstained and unstained soil in the presence of the attesting witnesses. He sent the complaint (Ex. P. 19) and the FIR (Ex. P. 14) to the Magistrate through P.W. 14 and went to the spot and held the spot mahazar (Ex. P. 1) and at that time, seized the chopper (M.O. 5), the bloodstained and unstained soil in the presence of the attesting witnesses. Thereafter, the CPI (P.W. 17) continued the investigation and held the inquest (Ex. P. 2) in the presence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 (the attesting witnesses). He recorded the statement of the witnesses and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination through P.W. 13, who after the post-mortem examination, entrusted the dead body to the relatives and produced the clothes of the deceased (M.Os. 1 to 4), which were seized under the mahazar (Ex. P. 10). He prepared the sketch (Ex. P. 21) and also secured the photographs of the body of the deceased (Exs. P. 3 to P. 9). On 1-4-2003, the PSI (P.W. 16) apprehended and produced the accused and the CPI (P.W. 17) arrested him. He secured the post-mortem report (Ex. P. 11) and the opinion (Ex. P. 12) and sent the seized articles to the forensic laboratory. On completion of the investigation, he filed the charge-sheet against the accused. 3. During the course of the trial, the prosecution led the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 17 and got marked the documents Exs. P. 1 to P. 25 and M.Os. 1 to 5. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. He has taken the defence of total denial and has not led any evidence in his defence. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the material on record has convicted the accused/appellant and aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, he has approached this Court in appeal. 4. We have heard the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and also the State Public Prosecutor. The points that arise for our consideration are: (1) Whether the judgment and order of conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC is illegal and perverse? (2) What order? 5. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that there is no evidence for conviction and that the Trial Court, on the basis of the interested version of P.Ws. 5 and 7 has come to the wrong conclusion, though they are not the eye-witnesses. (2) What order? 5. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that there is no evidence for conviction and that the Trial Court, on the basis of the interested version of P.Ws. 5 and 7 has come to the wrong conclusion, though they are not the eye-witnesses. It is also his contention that there are no eye-witnesses to the incident and that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the appellant. He submits that the death was caused by an unknown person and that the relatives of the deceased have misused the occasion by falsely implicating the accused in the crime. The State Public Prosecutor submits that there are clinching circumstances of homicidal death, the motive, the strong circumstance of the accused seen last together in the company of the deceased, etc., and therefore, he submits that the Trial Court was justified in convicting the appellant. He submits that there are no grounds to warrant the interference. 6. So far as the homicidal death is concerned, the prosecution relies upon the evidence of the doctor (P.W. 10), the attesting witnesses for the inquest (P.Ws. 3 and 4), the Investigating Officer (P.W. 17) and the documents Ex. P. 11-the post-mortem report, Ex. P. 12-the opinion and Ex. P. 2 the inquest. It is relevant to note that the dead body was found in the house of the accused and the inquest was held in the presence of P.Ws. 3 and 4. The photographs of the dead body were taken which have been produced at Exs. P. 3 to P. 9. It is relevant to note that the deceased had sustained as many as four injuries. A lacerated wound measuring 7.5 cm x 2 cm x 1.5 cm on the upper part of the right side of the neck, another lacerated wound on the front and right side of the neck measuring 14 x 4 x 2.5 cms. on the lower half of the front and right side of the neck. The muscles and soft tissues on the front and right side of the neck were crushed, contused and irregularly lacerated. The trachea and oesophagus were cut and so also by the carotid vessel was cut transversely and crushed on the right side. on the lower half of the front and right side of the neck. The muscles and soft tissues on the front and right side of the neck were crushed, contused and irregularly lacerated. The trachea and oesophagus were cut and so also by the carotid vessel was cut transversely and crushed on the right side. C6 vertebra was cut extending along the body into the spinal canal and the spinal cord was cut horizontally. There was a lacerated wound on the left side of the neck measuring 8 x 3 x 1.5 cms, and another lacerated wound on the upper part of the back of the neck on the left side measuring 4 × 1.5 × 1 cm. The underlying muscles were cut and crushed and the Doctor opined that injuries were antemortem. On dissection of the dead body, he found C6 vertebra and trachea having been cut. The death was about 12 to 24 hours prior to post-mortem examination and the Doctor opines that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of injury to the trachea with the consequent obstruction to the lumen due to injury to the neck as a result of hard and blunt force impact. A sickle, the hand of which was made of wood and the blade made of iron was sent. The one edge of the weapon was blunt and the other edge was sharp at irregular intervals and the handle of the blade was attached with an iron ring. It also contained bloodstains on the blade. It was examined by the Doctor and he is of the opinion that the injuries found on the dead body could be caused with the said weapon. Ex. P. 11 is the post-mortem report and Ex. P. 12 is the opinion furnished by the doctor. So, taking into consideration the nature of the injuries on the vital organs and the opinion of the Doctor, in the context of the other evidence led by the prosecution, there is nothing to disbelieve the homicidal death. Even in the cross-examination of P.W. 10, there is nothing suggested to dispute the homicidal death. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the death of Lakshmi was homicidal. 7. The prosecution to prove the motive relies upon the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 9 (the brothers of the deceased), P.Ws. Even in the cross-examination of P.W. 10, there is nothing suggested to dispute the homicidal death. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the death of Lakshmi was homicidal. 7. The prosecution to prove the motive relies upon the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 9 (the brothers of the deceased), P.Ws. 6 and 8 (the elders in the parental village of the deceased) and the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 7 (the son and daughter of the deceased). Though the prosecution examined P.W. 11-Ramachandranayaka the elder brother of the accused, he has turned hostile and his statement has been contradicted at Ex. P. 13 by the prosecution. If we look into the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and 5 to 9, it is crystal clear that the accused was suspecting the chastity of the deceased and used to assault her every now and then, after the birth of four children, i.e., after about 12 years of their married life. In this regard, it is the consistent version of all these witnesses that the deceased having been subjected to cruelty and harassment by abuse and assault, went to her parental home along with her son (P.W. 5) and stayed there for a long time. It is ultimately at the instance of the brothers of the deceased that P.Ws. 6 and 8 made efforts for settlement and a panchayat was held and the deceased was sent along with her son (P.W. 5) to the house of the accused. Though the relationship was cordial for two years, thereafter again the accused started abusing and assaulting the deceased and the deceased had no other way except to stay with her brothers and accordingly, on the second occasion, the deceased went along with her son (P.W. 5) and stayed with her brothers. As the accused did not come to take back the deceased, P.W. 1-the brother and P.Ws. 6 and 8-the elders in the village of the deceased, went to the Police Station and the accused was secured by the police and a compromise was made. As the accused did not come to take back the deceased, P.W. 1-the brother and P.Ws. 6 and 8-the elders in the village of the deceased, went to the Police Station and the accused was secured by the police and a compromise was made. The accused was asked to take back the deceased from the house of P.W. 1 and as per the compromise, the accused came to the house of P.W. 1 and though stayed for few hours, did not take the meals and took back the deceased and her son (P.W. 5) accompanied by (P.W. 2) Mahadev, the another brother of the deceased to his village. It was a day earlier to the incident that the deceased had gone to the house of the accused and on the next day i.e., on the date of the incident, Nanjundanayaka, the son of the deceased (P.W. 5) informed his uncle (the brother of the deceased) (P.W. 1) about the death of his mother by an assault by the accused. So as regards the accused suspecting the fidelity and chastity of the deceased, all the witnesses have consistently stated about the efforts made by P.Ws. 6 and 8 and the Police to effect the compromise and the accused even thereafter, was abusing and assaulting the deceased and creating the terror in the minds of the children by stating that the biscuits brought were mixed with poison at the instance of the deceased. P.Ws. 5 and 7 are none else than the son and daughter of the deceased and the accused. They consistently state the attitude and conduct of the accused in abusing and assaulting the deceased all the times and there is nothing to disbelieve their evidence and though they are the children, their evidence stands corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 6, 8 and 9. Ex. D. 1 is the contradiction got marked in the evidence of P.W. 9 pertaining to the illicit relationship of the deceased with others. The theory put forth by the accused in the cross-examination of this witness reveal that they are not disputing seriously the suspicion of the accused as regards the character of the deceased. So taking into consideration the consistent, cogent version of all these witnesses, as regards the motive put forth, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution is able to establish this circumstance clinchingly. 8. So taking into consideration the consistent, cogent version of all these witnesses, as regards the motive put forth, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution is able to establish this circumstance clinchingly. 8. Though the prosecution examined a neighbour of the accused (P.W. 15), who stated before the police there after the incident, when the accused was proceeding, he told that he had committed the murder of his wife, has turned hostile to the prosecution and his statement before the police has been got marked as Ex. P. 16 in the cross-examination. Therefore, as far as this incident is concerned, it is the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 7 (the son and daughter), which has to be considered to find out as to whether the strongest circumstance of the accused seen last together in the company of the deceased has been established. It is relevant to note that on the date of the incident, the accused tried his best to send all the children out of the house in the morning hours. Except Nanjundanayaka (P.W. 5), the rest were sent to the school and P.W. 5 was asked to go to the land with the ox. He was aged about 14 years at the time of the incident and 16 years at the time of the evidence. He states the circumstances as to what happened on that day in the morning, after their arrival to the village from the parental house of the deceased and even in the night of the incident, they found the accused taking a round in the night without sleeping. On the next day, he did not allow the deceased to give biscuits to the children and also did not allow P.W. 7 to take the bath and after sometime, the children went to the school and P.W. 5 was sent to the land along with the ox and while P.W. 5 was grazing the cattle, Tagadurunayaka (P.W. 15) came and informed about the deceased having been murdered by the accused in their house. Immediately, P.W. 5 went to the house and saw the dead body of his mother and the cut bleeding injuries on the neck. Immediately, P.W. 5 went to the house and saw the dead body of his mother and the cut bleeding injuries on the neck. This evidence of P.W. 5 is consistent with the evidence of P.W. 7, who had gone to the school on that day and after hearing the murder of her mother came and saw her dead body in the pool of blood. It is P.W. 5, who informed his uncle (P.W. 1), who came and thereafter went to the police station to lodge the complaint. As could be seen from the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 7, except the accused and the deceased, there were no other persons in the house and by the time, P.Ws. 5 and 7 returned to the house, the accused was not found and the deceased was found lying dead in the pool of blood. The circumstances which occurred much earlier to the incident while P.Ws. 5 and 7 were in the house and they having seen last the accused in the company of the deceased saw the dead body of their mother, when they returned home. The presence of P.Ws. 5 and 7 in the morning is not in dispute. The fact that the dead body was found lying with injuries is also not disputed. In the circumstances, when there is ample evidence to prove that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused, a duty is cast upon the accused to explain the circumstances as provided under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The perusal of his statement under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. does not reveal any such material and therefore, an adverse inference could be drawn, which further strengthens the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution as regards the homicidal death, the motive and the deceased last seen together in the company of the accused. If we consider each of these circumstances, they form a strong chain which is consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. We do not find anything to disbelieve the circumstances brought in the evidence of the witnesses referred to supra. 9. The prosecution examined (P.W. 12)-the author of Ex. If we consider each of these circumstances, they form a strong chain which is consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. We do not find anything to disbelieve the circumstances brought in the evidence of the witnesses referred to supra. 9. The prosecution examined (P.W. 12)-the author of Ex. P. 1 (the mahazar), the carrier of first information report (P.W. 14) and a neighbour (P.W. 15), who turned hostile as regards the extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the accused and P.Ws. 16 and 17 and the Investigating Officer. So far as the first information is concerned, it is only after P.W. 1 came to know about the incident through P.W. 5, went to the village saw the dead body and then went to the Police Station and lodged his complaint Ex. P. 19 which was register by P.W. 16 and the FIR (Ex. P. 14) was sent to the Magistrate through P.W. 14. Though there is a delay, it has been properly explained and as except the children, there were no other near relatives of the deceased, it was only after the arrival of P.W. 1 to the village that he went to the Police Station and lodged the complaint. There is a satisfactory explanation for the delay and we do not find that there are any mala fides on the part of the prosecution witnesses to implicate the accused. Taking into consideration, the appreciation of the evidence by the Trial Court and its reappreciation by us, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. 10. In that view of the matter, we answer Point No. 1 in the negative and proceed to pass the following.: ORDER The appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant awarded by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. Sri Somashekar Angadi, learned Amicus Curiae, assisted the Court for the appellant. His fee is fixed at Rs. 5,000/-. The fee of the Amicus Curiae shall be paid by the State.