JUDGMENT (Per K.C. Bhanu, J.) This appeal is filed by the appellant sole accused against the judgment dated 10-08-2006 passed in S.C. No. 20 of 2004 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Prakasam Division, Ongole, where under and whereby the accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused and Muthineni Chinna Kasaiah (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') are relatives. P.W.3 the daughter of the accused was given in marriage to P.W. 2 the son of the deceased. Both are residents of Nakkabokkalapadu Village. At the time of marriage, it was agreed by the accused to pay Rs. 40,000/- to P.W. 2, but he did not pay the same in spite of repeated demands made by the deceased. The deceased informed to the village elders about the non-compliance of promise by the accused. Then the elders advised the accused to fulfill the promise. With great persuasion, the accused gave his half-acre of land to P.W.2, who in turn gave the land on lease to the son of the accused. As maktha was not paid by the lessee, the deceased and P.W. 2 themselves cultivated the land and raised Jowar crop. Then the accused, with a false intention to grab the said land, caused mischief to the standing crop. While so, on 19-7-2003 the accused after witnessing programmes in the T.V. in the house of P.W. 6, proceeded towards the old house of P.W.4. The deceased went to sleep. At about 10.30 p.m. the accused with an intention to kill the deceased inflicted multiple injuries with axe on his body, as a result, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot. When the accused was proceeding towards scene of offence, P.W.5 whim and asked him the reason for going on that way at those odd hours, for which the accused gave a false reply. On the next day i.e., on 20-07-2003 P.W. 1 having learnt about the occurrence, visited the scene of offence, witnessed the dead body of the deceased in a pool of blood and sent a report to the police. On the next day i.e., on 20-07-2003 P.W. 1 having learnt about the occurrence, visited the scene of offence, witnessed the dead body of the deceased in a pool of blood and sent a report to the police. Basing on the said report of P.W. 1, P.W. 12 registered a case on the same day itself in crime NO.24 of 2003 for the offence under Section 302 IPC. P.W. 14 took up investigation, visited the scene of offence, drafted panchanama of the scene of offence and recorded the statements of the witnesses. After completion of the investigation and after receiving the required documents, L.W. 19 filed the charge sheet. 3. The learned Additional Munsif Magistrate, Addanki took cognizance of the case in P.R.C. No. 28 of 2003 and committed the same to the Court of Sessions. On committal the learned Special Judge frame a charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 4. The charge levelled against the accused was that on 19-7-2003, after witnessing the programmes in T.V. in the house of P.W.6, he proceeded towards the old house of P.W.4 at about 10.30 p.m. and inflicted multiple injuries with an axe on the head of the deceased with an intention to kill him, as a result, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot, and thereby he committed the offence punishable under Section 3021PC. When the charge was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. To substantiate its case the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 14 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-11 beside the case property M.Os. 1 to 7. On behalf the accused D.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined, but no documents were marked. 6. The trial Court accepting the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6, found the accused guilty of the charge framed against him and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as aforementioned. Hence the present Criminal Appeal. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge under Section 3021PC, and if so, the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 8. Hence the present Criminal Appeal. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge under Section 3021PC, and if so, the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper? 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that there is no direct evidence to show that the appellant was the assailant of the deceased; that the entire evidence of the prosecution rests upon the solitary circumstance as spoken to by P.W.5, but the same is not sufficient to infer that the appellant is the assailant of the deceased; that even assuming for a moment that the evidence of P.W.5 is true and correct, it would not incriminate anything against the accused b8callse at that time the accused was not armed with any weapon; that it is highly improbable to believe the evidence of P.W. 5 that he identified the accused in the darkness, as admittedly there was no power supply and also it was raining; that basing on the surmises and conjectures the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offence, and hence he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant/accused. 9. On the other hand, the counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that there was a clear motive for the accused to commit murder of the deceased as the accused high-handedly ploughed the Jowar crop raised by the son of the deceased; that at the time of marriage of P.W. 3with P.W. 2, the accused promised to pay Rs. 9. On the other hand, the counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that there was a clear motive for the accused to commit murder of the deceased as the accused high-handedly ploughed the Jowar crop raised by the son of the deceased; that at the time of marriage of P.W. 3with P.W. 2, the accused promised to pay Rs. 40,000/- but failed to pay the same and when the deceased reported the matter to the village elders, the accused accepted to give his half acre of land that the accused bore grudge against the deceased as the matter was reported to the village elders; that in view of the clear motive, the accused caused the death of the deceased and that the evidence of P.W. 5 that the accused was seen going towards the place of occurrence and within a short while he returned, would sufficiently go to show that the accused alone is the assailant of the deceased and none else, and therefore, the trial Court after considering the evidence on record, rightly found the accused guilty of the offence for which he was charged, and there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. 10. It is not in dispute that the scene of occurrence is front veranda of the old house of Muthineni china Kasayya situated in Nakkabokkalapadu village. The police observed the scene of occurrence under Ex. P-3panchanama and Ex.P-10-rough sketch. P.W. 1 is the one of the mediators for the scene of observation report. Even the accused is not denying or disputing about the scene of occurrence. 11. P.W. 14 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased on 20-7-2003 from 1.00 p.m. to 3 p.m., in the presence of P.W. 1 and others under Ex. P-2-inquest report. The inquest mediators found certain injuries on the head and body of the deceased and opined that the deceased died as a result of bleeding injuries. 12. P.W.13 is the Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 20-7-2003, at 3.30 p.m. found the following ante-mortem external injuries. 1. Oblique (I) cut injury over right side of neck anteriorly measuring 4 x 1 x 1/2 cms in size. 2. Transverse out injury over face from right ear tragns to eye measuring 5 x 1/2 x 1/2 cms. 3. Transverse cut injury 1 cm. 1. Oblique (I) cut injury over right side of neck anteriorly measuring 4 x 1 x 1/2 cms in size. 2. Transverse out injury over face from right ear tragns to eye measuring 5 x 1/2 x 1/2 cms. 3. Transverse cut injury 1 cm. below to No. 2 injury from external ear to mouth measuring 8 x 2 x 1/2 cms. Size. 4. Cut injury over face right ear lobule to upper lip measuring 8 x 2 x 1/2 cms fractures maxilla right side loss upper incisor teeth. 5. Cut injury from right lobule to lower lip measuring 6 x 2 x 1/2 cms. In size, Loss of lower incisor teeth. 6. Oblique (I) cut injury over mandibler joint to chin, measuring 2 x 4 x 1/2 cms. In size cut section shows fracture mandible. He opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries and those injuries would have been caused with a blunt object like an axe. The approximate time of death was about 24 hours prior to P.M. examination. The cause of death of the deceased as spoken to by P.W.13 and the recitals in Ex. P-9 remained unchallenged. Therefore, the homicidal nature of death of the deceased is established beyond all reasonable doubt. 13. Now it has to be seen whether the accused is the assailant of the deceased or not? 14. The deceased is a resident of Nakkabokkalapadu village. P.W.3 is the daughter of the accused. She was given in marriage to P.W.2, who is none other than the son of the deceased, about nine years back. She begot two sons through P. W. 2. According to the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, it is clear that at the time of marriage, the accused promised to give cash of Rs. 40,000/- to the deceased but failed to pay the same. The deceased used to insist the accused to pay the said amount. As the accused has not paid the amount, the matter was referred to the village elders. In spite of a direction given by the village elders, the accused did not pay that said amount, but later, the accused agreed to give half acre of land and asked P.W. 2 to cultivate the same. As the accused has not paid the amount, the matter was referred to the village elders. In spite of a direction given by the village elders, the accused did not pay that said amount, but later, the accused agreed to give half acre of land and asked P.W. 2 to cultivate the same. As P.W. 2 was a physically handicapped person and could not cultivate the land, he gave the same on lease to the son of the accused for two years. But later, the son of the accused did not pay the lease amount. Therefore, in the year 2003, P.W. 2 started cultivating the land by raising Jowar crop. When the crop was about 5 or 6 inches, the accused came and ploughed the land. The deceased again reported the matter to the village elders. The village elders shouted at the accused. Therefore, the case of the prosecution is that the accused bore grudge against the deceased and that on one occasion, he proclaimed to kill the deceased. 15. Admittedly, the marriage of P .W. 3 with P.W. 2 took place nine years prior to the incident. The evidence is silent as to at what point of time the deceased was demanding the accused to pay the agreed amount of Rs. 40,000/-. When the accused agreed to give his half-acre of land to P.W.2 for cultivation, he could not cultivate the same. Though the accused ploughed the crop of Jowar raised by P.W. 2, no report has been given by the deceased and P.W. 2 to the police. P.W. 2 stated that the deceased complained to the village elders, but none of the village elders was examined. Even assuming for a moment that the accused entertained grouse or enmity against the deceased, as he was persistently demanding the accused to pay the amount of Rs. 40,0001-, which can be a motive for the accused, but motive is not an integral part of the crime. It is only presumption of criminal law. It is not an ingredient for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Therefore, the absence of motive or non-proof of motive cannot be a relevant fact when there is clear evidence either direct or circumstantial to prove the guilt of the accused. For a moment, if the evidence of P.Ws. It is only presumption of criminal law. It is not an ingredient for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Therefore, the absence of motive or non-proof of motive cannot be a relevant fact when there is clear evidence either direct or circumstantial to prove the guilt of the accused. For a moment, if the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 that the accused has entertained motive to eliminate the deceased is accepted, the same has to be taken into consideration along with the other evidence on record, if any. There is no direct evidence to show that the accused was the assailant of the deceased. 16. The entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. When a case rests upon the circumstantial evidence, the following circumstances have to be proved by the prosecution in view of the decision reported in Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. (1)- (1) The circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) Those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) The circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all