JUDGMENT 1. The appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') has preferred this appeal against the judgment, of conviction for offences punishable under sections 341, 323 & 302 IPC. 2. We have heard Sri H.P. Leeladhar, learned counsel for accused and Sri P.M. Nawaz, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for State and we have been taken through evidence and the impugned judgment. 3. The accused was tried for the following charges:- 1) You accused person above named in connection with longstanding enmity and rivalry, on 12.05.2006 at 8.30 A.M. at Chikkabairya Village while the complainant Tulsamma and her husband Krishnegowda were returning back home from the land, all of a sudden approached them near the Sugar Cane Garden Land of Govindanayaka and having raised a quarrel with them, wrongfully restrained them and thereby prevented them from proceeding further towards their house and thereby you accused has committed an offence punishable u/s 341 IPC, within my cognizance. 2) Secondly, on the same date, place and time and in connection with the same longstanding enmity and rivalry against Krishnegowda, you accused having wrongfully restrained the complainant and her husband openly expressed that you would finish off the said Krishnegowda and with an intention to cause the death of said Krishnegowda or with the knowledge that stabbing with knife on the vital part of the body would result into the death of the victim, stabbed him on the right chest at the rib portion and having dragged him to Sugar Cane garden, again repeatedly stabbed him and as a result of the multiple stab injuries Krishnegowda died on the spot itself and thereby you accused has committed the murder of Krishnegowda amounting to an offence punishable u/s 302 IPC, within my cognizance. 3) Lastly, on the same date, place and time you accused person above named on account of long standing enmity and rivalry against Krishnegowda stabbed him with a knife and the complainant came for the rescue of her husband and for which you accused fisted on her lip and pushed her to the ground, resulting into simple injuries and thereby you accused person has committed an offence punishable u/s 323 IPC, within my cognizance. 4. On behalf of prosecution, PW1 to PW24 were examined, documents as per Ex.P. 1 to Ex.P.29 were marked and material objects as per M.O.1 to M.O.25 were marked. 5. 4. On behalf of prosecution, PW1 to PW24 were examined, documents as per Ex.P. 1 to Ex.P.29 were marked and material objects as per M.O.1 to M.O.25 were marked. 5. The learned trial Judge on appreciation of evidence and on hearing learned counsel for parties, convicted accused for offences punishable under sections 341, 323 and 302 IPC. 6. The prosecution in order to bring home guilt of accused has relied on the following: - I. Homicidal death of Krishnegowda at about 8.30 a.m., on 12.05.2006 in the sugarcane field of one Govindanayaka, near Chikkabairya Village II. Motive III. Direct Evidence IV. Abscondance of accused V. Recovery of incriminating articles (weapon of offence and bloodstained clothes of accused) on the information volunteered by accused. VI. Injuries found on the accused I. Homicidal death of Krishnegowda: 7. At the outset, it is necessary to state that homicidal death of deceased Krishnegowda at about 8.30 a.m., on 12.05.2006 near the sugarcane field of one Govindanayaka has not beet? seriously controverted by the defence. The medical evidence given by PW14-Dr.Shivaprasad and the contents of post-mortem examination report would reveal that, deceased had suffered following injuries:- External Injuries:- 1) Forehead along midline measuring 1 cm x 1 cm 2) Left inframammary area along midclavicular line measuring 5 cms x 5 cms 3) Right subcostal area measuring 6 cms x 4 cms 4) Right knee measuring 7 eras x 4 cms 5) Just below left knee measuring 4 cms x 4 cms 6) On ventral aspect of right ankle measuring 4 cms x 4 cms 7) Linear incised wound on right arfital fossa measuring 4 cms x 3 cms 8) Linear incised wound on dorsum of wrist measuring 4 cms x 3 cms 9) Incised stab wound measuring 5 cms x 3 cms x 5 cms oval shaped on the anterior abdominal wall just above umbilicus in the midline, wound gaping present 10) Oval, incised stab wound in right 5th inter costal space in the infra-axillary area measuring 5 cms x 3 cms x 10 cms associated with fracture of 5th rib and tear a middle and lower lobes of right lung, wound tract directed downwards and forwards. Wound gaping present, pleura torn at wound site. Wound gaping present, pleura torn at wound site. 11) Oval shaped incised stab wound in right hypochondrium in the line with tip of 11th rib measuring about 5 cms x 3 cms x 12 cms and wound track extending downwards and forwards has injured right lateral surface of liver and measures around 5 cms deep. This wound 11 also severed right kidney at its lower pole by creating a track extending 4 cm deep transversely wound gaping present. Peritoneum torn at wound site. Rigor mortis had set in. Internal Injuries: Fracture of right fifth rib in infraaxillary area; right lung was punctured at middle; oval incised wound measuring 5 cms x 3 cms x 5 cms just above umbilicus in midline with tearing of peritoneum; clotted blood present in peritoneal cavity, right kidney showed traversed wound measuring 4 cms depth. As per medical opinion, death was due to shock and haemorrhage and also due to injuries to vital organs like lungs and kidney. 8. Now adverting to the time and place of incident, PW1 has deposed; on the date of incident at about 8.30 a.m. or 9 a.m., PW1 and her husband (deceased Krishnegowda) were returning home from their field at that time, accused confronted them and repeatedly assaulted the deceased with a knife; after the deceased fell down, he was dragged into sugarcane field of one Govindanayaka and accused wielded knife on various parts of his body and caused injuries to deceased; when PW1 intervened, accused assaulted and caused injuries to her. 9. PW4-Javaregowda @ Puttaswamy. FW5-Suresh. FW6-Somashekar. PW7-Devarajegowda and PW8-Rajegowda, who had rushed to the place of incident were declared as hostile witnesses for resiling(sic) from their previous statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. PW4 to PW8 have deposed that Krishnegowda died homicidal death at about 8.30 a.m. or 9 a., on 12.05.2006 near the sugarcane field of one Govindanayaka, which is at a short distance from Chikkabairya Village. The spot, inspection report prepared by Investigating Officer would also establish the place of incident. The defence has not controverted evidence of PW1 and PW5 to PW8 regarding time, place and nature of death of deceased. Therefore, we hold that deceased Krishnegowda met with homicidal death at about 8.30 a.m. or 9 a.m. on 12.05.2006 near the sugarcane field of one Govindanayaka, which is at a short distance from Chikkabairya village. II. Motive: 10. The defence has not controverted evidence of PW1 and PW5 to PW8 regarding time, place and nature of death of deceased. Therefore, we hold that deceased Krishnegowda met with homicidal death at about 8.30 a.m. or 9 a.m. on 12.05.2006 near the sugarcane field of one Govindanayaka, which is at a short distance from Chikkabairya village. II. Motive: 10. PW1-Tulasamma is the wife of deceased Krishnegowda. PW1 has deposed; that their daughter Roopa (PW19) was given in marriage to Rajegowda (PW21) and accused is the younger brother of PW21-Rajegowda; at the time of marriage, FW21 was in Mumbai; after marriage, PW21 was in the village for a short time and he had gone to Mumbai after one month; after PW19 conceived, she was brought back to her parental house by PW1 and deceased Krishnegowda; PW21-Rajegowda was not caring for the welfare of his mother and he was spending much of income for the welfare of his wife: PW1 and the deceased, who are the parents of PW19 had not intervened to advice their daughter; therefore, the mother of PW21 and accused committed suicide by consuming poison; accused developed grudge against the deceased and felt that deceased was entirely responsible for the tragic episode. PW1 has deposed that there was no cordiality between accused and the deceased; there were quarrels between accused and the deceased on one or two occasions; at that time, accused had tried to assault the deceased; when deceased was about to lodge a police complaint, the villagers intervened and pacified him. 11. PW19-Roopa has deposed; that accused had a strong feeling that deceased was responsible for his mother to commit suicide; accused had attempted to assault the deceased on one or two occasions. 12. PW21-Rajegowda (elder brother of accused) has deposed; there used to be frequent quarrels between his wife and his mother; his mother committed suicide by consuming poison. 13. From the evidence of these witnesses, it is proved that accused had ill-will against the deceased. We have no reasons to suspect the evidence of above witnesses. 14. In a decision reported in 1976 Crl.L.J. 1895 (in the case of Molu Vs. State of Haryana), the Supreme Court has held:- It is well settled that where the direct evidence regarding" the assault is worthy of credence and can be believed, the question of motive becomes more or less academic. 14. In a decision reported in 1976 Crl.L.J. 1895 (in the case of Molu Vs. State of Haryana), the Supreme Court has held:- It is well settled that where the direct evidence regarding" the assault is worthy of credence and can be believed, the question of motive becomes more or less academic. Sometimes that motive is clear and can be proved and sometimes; however, the motive is shrouded in the mystery and it is very difficult to locate the same. If, however, the evidence of eye witnesses is creditworthy and is believed by the court, which has placed implicit reliance on them, the question whether there is any motive or not becomes wholly irrelevant. In the case on hand, the proof of guilt of accused rests upon direct evidence. The motive assumes importance only if direct evidence is found credible and consistent. III. Direct Evidence: 15. It is the case of prosecution that PW1 and PW3 are eye-witnesses and PW4 to PW7 are immediate post-occurrence witnesses. Out of these witnesses, except PW1, the other witnesses have deposed only about homicidal death of deceased that occurred at about 8:30 a.m. or 9 a.m. on 12.05.2006. Therefore, PW3 to PW7 were declared as hostile witnesses, their evidence is of no avail to the prosecution. In the discussion, made supra we have held that, homicidal death of deceased Krishnegowda took place at about 3.30 a.m. or 9 a.m., near the sugarcane field of one Govindanayaka, which is at a short distance from Chikkabairya Village. The crucial point for determination is whether evidence of PW1 is consistent and credible. 16. Sri H.P Leeladhar, learned counsel for accused referring to the contents of first information and evidence of PW1-Tulasamma, PW20-Chidambaranayaka, PW3-Shakeela, PW4-Javaregowda @ Puttaswamy, PW5 Suresh, PW6-Somashekar and PW7-Devarajegowda would submit that PW1 was not present when, the incident of murder took place, PW1 is a planted witness. As the other witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution, the accused cannot be convicted on the basis of testimony of PW1 (solitary eyewitness). 17. Sri H.P.Leeladhar learned counsel for accused has relied on several circumstances to prove that PW1 was not present near the place of incident when the incident took place and PW1 is a planted witness 18. 17. Sri H.P.Leeladhar learned counsel for accused has relied on several circumstances to prove that PW1 was not present near the place of incident when the incident took place and PW1 is a planted witness 18. The learned counsel for accused would submit that there was inordinate delay in lodging first, information and also in despatching the first information to the jurisdictional Magistrate. 19. As could be seen from the evidence given by PW1 and other prosecution witnesses, the incident of murder took place at about 8.30 a.m. or 9 a.m. on 12.05.2006 near the sugarcane field of one Govindanayaka, which is at a short distance from Chikkabairya Village. After the incident. PW20 informed the matter to jurisdictional police over phone. PW22-Thimmaraju, the then Police Sub-inspector of Saligrama Police Station (jurisdictional police station) reached the place of incident. PW22 enquired PWl and the information narrated by PW1 was reduced to writing by PW20-Chidambaranayaka. PW22 sent the first information to the jurisdictional police station (Saligrama Police Station), on the basis of which Crime No. 41/2006 was registered against the accused for offences punishable under sections 341, 323 and 302 IPC. The first information was registered at 11:20 a.m. on 12.05.2006 and the same was despatched to jurisdictional Magistrate at 1 p.m. The jurisdictional Magistrate received the first information report at 6 p.m. on 12.05.2006. 20. At this juncture, it is necessary to state that distance between place of incident and jurisdictional police station is about 15 kilometres and distance between jurisdictional police station and jurisdictional court is about 20 kilometers. PW1 is a rustic villager. After the incident of murder, she was shocked and stunned. PW1 had taken the help of PW20 to prepare first information. In fact, first information was prepared after arrival of PSI of jurisdictional police station to the place of incident, who had received the information, of incident over phone. Therefore, it: is not possible to hold that there were deliberations before lodging first information and presence of PW1 near the place of incident is doubtful. 21. As already stated, distance between jurisdictional police station and jurisdictional court is about 20 kilometers. The first information report was received by jurisdictional Magistrate at 6 p.m., on 12.05.2006. Therefore, it: is not possible to hold that there were deliberations before lodging first information and presence of PW1 near the place of incident is doubtful. 21. As already stated, distance between jurisdictional police station and jurisdictional court is about 20 kilometers. The first information report was received by jurisdictional Magistrate at 6 p.m., on 12.05.2006. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that first information report had been withheld in jurisdictional police station to give an improvised version to the first information lodged by PW1 near the place of incident. 22. The learned counsel for accused has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in 2008(2) KCCR 993 (in the case of Gowrishankara Swamigalu Vs. State of Karnataka and (mother), wherein the Supreme Court has held that all facts should be considered. If surrounding facts would point out suspicion for delay in lodging first information, it would be fatal to the case of prosecution. 23. In the aforestated decision, first information related to the incident of sodomy, which took place at 8.30 a.m. on 18.07.1986 was lodged at G.30 p.m., on 29.08.1986. Therefore, the Supreme Court has held that delay in lodging first, information is a suspicious circumstance. 24. In the discussion made supra, we have referred the distance between jurisdictional police station and the place of incident and time of murder and surrounding circumstances. Therefore, what has been held in the above decision is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. 25. Now we will advert to the evidence of PW1, who is the wife of deceased. PW1 has deposed about relationship of accused and the deceased and reasons for the accused to develop grudge against the deceased. 26. PW1 has deposed; on the date of incident., during morning, her son Balaram had gone to plough the land; PW1 and her husband (deceased) had carried seeds to their land and gave the seeds to their son. PW1 has deposed about relationship of accused and the deceased and reasons for the accused to develop grudge against the deceased. 26. PW1 has deposed; on the date of incident., during morning, her son Balaram had gone to plough the land; PW1 and her husband (deceased) had carried seeds to their land and gave the seeds to their son. They were returning home; when they were near paddy field of one Karinayaka, accused came with a knife and proclaimed that he would kill the deceased; accused repeatedly dealt blows on right side of chest of deceased with a knife; when PW1 intervened, accused assaulted her; PW1 suffered injuries; accused dragged the deceased to a sugarcane field and inflicted injuries on other parts of body of deceased with a knife; on hearing hue and cry raised by the deceased, PW4-Javaregowda, PW5-Suresh and PW6-Somashekar came there; accused ran away from the place with the knife; the above witnesses and others thinking that deceased was still alive, lifted him and laid him to a pathway, by then deceased had succumbed to injuries. PW20 contacted police outpost at Balrya over phone and informed the police about incident of murder; on that day at about 10.30 a.m., police came to place of incident; PW20 prepared first information as narrated by PW1 and handed over first information to police. PW1 has identified first information as Ex.P.1 PW.1 has identified bloodstained clothes of deceased. PW1 has deposed; that deceased succumbed to injuries and the accused had assaulted PW1 when she had intervened to save the deceased. 27. The medical evidence in proof of injuries suffered by PW1 is given by PW14-Dr.Shivaprasad. The wound certificate of PW1 was marked as Ex.P. 18. From the contents of Ex.P.18, we find that at 5 p.m. on 12.05.2006, PW1 was examined by the Medical Officer in Primary Health Centre at Bairya. PW1 had suffered following injuries: - I. Swelling on upper lip II. Lacerated injuries on the middle portion of chest PW14 has deposed that injuries suffered by PW1 were simple in nature. It was suggested to PW1 & PW14 that the aforestated injuries might have been caused due to a fall. It looks improbable that injuries found on PW1 were caused due to a fall. From the description of injuries, we find such injuries cannot be caused due to fall. It was suggested to PW1 & PW14 that the aforestated injuries might have been caused due to a fall. It looks improbable that injuries found on PW1 were caused due to a fall. From the description of injuries, we find such injuries cannot be caused due to fall. Therefore, we hold that prosecution has proved that PW1 had suffered injuries at the time of incident. 28. PW1 has deposed the manner in which injuries were inflicted on the deceased by the accused with a knife. PW1 has deposed that deceased had offered resistance, however he could not save himself. PW1 has deposed that at the time of incident, shirt worn by accused was stained with blood. During cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused. PW1 has reiterated the evidence given by her in examination-in-chief. PW1 has deposed; that deceased was cordial with all villagers during his lifetime; after the death of her husband, villagers were supporting accused. During cross-examination of PW1, it is elicited that accused had killed her husband at the instigation of Beeraballi Suresh. Beeraballi Gowdaiah. Rajegowda and Ramegowda of Chikkabairya village 29. The learned counsel for accused referring to this part of evidence of PW1 would submit that PW1 had made a false statement on oath and PW1 is an untrustworthy witness. In support of this contention, learned counsel for accused has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court, reported in V.C. Shukla and Others Vs. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1980 SC 1382 . 30. In the aforestated judgment, the Supreme Court has held that evidence of one of the eye-witnesses, who had gone to the extent of making intentional false statement, cannot be relied upon for the purpose of convicting accused, on his own showing, he was fully collaborating with accused in a criminal design and was therefore, no better than an accomplice whose testimony cannot be accepted in any material particular in the absence of corroboration from reliable sources. In the case on hand. PW1 is the wife of deceased; she had witnessed the incident; being the wife of deceased, she would be least disposed to falsely implicate the accused, leaving aside the real culprit. Therefore, submission of learned counsel for accused cannot be accepted. Above all, PW1 had not lodged first information against the above said Beeraballi Suresh, Beeraballi Gowdaiah, Rajegowda and Ramegowda of Chikkabairya village. Therefore, submission of learned counsel for accused cannot be accepted. Above all, PW1 had not lodged first information against the above said Beeraballi Suresh, Beeraballi Gowdaiah, Rajegowda and Ramegowda of Chikkabairya village. PW1 has not deposed that the above said persons had instigated accused to kill her husband and they were not even arrayed as accused. For the reasons best known to the learned counsel for accused, this answer was elicited during cross-examination of PW1 though there was no reference to these persons in examination-in-chief of PW1 In all fairness, learned counsel for accused should have confined cross-examination of PW1 to the version of PW1 in her examination-in-chief or should have elicited evidence to discredit her version in examination-in-chief. The learned counsel for accused without confining to her evidence in examination-in-chief was not justified in suggesting to PW1 that accused had murdered the deceased at the instigation of above persons. PW1, who is a rustic villager has believed suggestion of learned counsel for accused and accepted the same. Therefore, this part of evidence brought on record is the version of defence and not the version given by PW1. On the basis of this part of evidence, evidence of PW1 cannot be discredited. 31. The learned counsel for accused relying on the evidence of PW1 & PW20 would submit that presence of PW1 near the place of incident, at the time of incident is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The learned counsel for accused would submit that as per the evidence of PW20, when he was going near the place of incident, he met PW1 on the way and he accompanied PW1 to the place of incident. 32. After going through the evidence of PW1, we find, there is no clarity as to where and when PW1 had met: PW20. After going through evidence of PW20, we find that PW20 had reached the place of incident after learning about the death of deceased Krishnegowda. 33. PW20 has deposed; after learning about the incident, when he was going to the place of incident, on the way, he met PW1. PW20 prepared first information as narrated by PW1. During re-examination, PW20 has deposed; that Sub-Inspector of Saligrama Police Station (jurisdictional police station) came to the place of incident at 10.15 a.m.; at that time, PW1 met him and informed him about the murder; PW20 accompanied her to the place of incident. 34. PW20 prepared first information as narrated by PW1. During re-examination, PW20 has deposed; that Sub-Inspector of Saligrama Police Station (jurisdictional police station) came to the place of incident at 10.15 a.m.; at that time, PW1 met him and informed him about the murder; PW20 accompanied her to the place of incident. 34. We find from the evidence of PW20 and other post-occurrence witnesses that several witnesses had gathered near the place of incident. Therefore, contention of defence that PW20 had reached the place of incident after several persons gathered near the place of incident looks improbable. PW20 has clearly deposed that land of Govindanayaka is abutting the village boundary of byara village. Therefore, the place of incident is not far away from the village. After reading the evidence of PW20 in its entirety injuxta position with evidence of PW1, we find that PW1 was present near the place of incident and she had taken the help of PW20 lor preparation of first information. The fact that PW20 wrote first information as narrated by PW1 has not been controverted. Therefore, the submission of learned counsel for accused that presence of PW1 near the place of incident, at the time of incident is not proved beyond reasonable doubt cannot be accepted. 35. We have narrated supra that PW1 had suffered injuries when she intervened to save her husband the contents of first information, narrated by PW1 and written by PW20 would lend substantial corroboration to the evidence of PW1. During cross-examination of PW1, it is elicited that PW1 and her husband were proceeding towards their land, PW17-Shivappanayaka (who has been declared as a hostile witness) has deposed; that on the date of incident at: about 8.30 a.m., when he was in his land, deceased was returning from his land; deceased spoke to PW17 and deceased told PW1.7 that he would go to Saligrama village; thereafter. PW17 heard cry raised from the sugarcane field of one Govindanayaka; one Pradeep told PW17 that deceased was murdered. Thus, we find evidence of PW17, who was declared as a hostile witness also lends substantial corroboration to the evidence of PW1 and ensures her presence immediately before the incident and at the time of incident. 36. On careful scrutiny of evidence of PW1, we find that PW1 is a rustic villager; she has withstood searching cross-examination. Thus, we find evidence of PW17, who was declared as a hostile witness also lends substantial corroboration to the evidence of PW1 and ensures her presence immediately before the incident and at the time of incident. 36. On careful scrutiny of evidence of PW1, we find that PW1 is a rustic villager; she has withstood searching cross-examination. If PW1 had been a planted witness, she could not have withstood lengthy and searching cross-examination. The evidence of PW1 does not suffer from discrepancies on material aspects. 37. The learned counsel for accused referring to the evidence of PW1 & PW20 would submit that there is discrepancy in the evidence of PW1 & PW20 as to whether accused was present near the place of incident after the incident or accused ran away from the place of incident. 38. PW1 has categorically deposed that accused with a knife ran away from the place of incident after committing murder of her husband. 39. PW20 has deposed; that he had seen the accused after reaching the place of incident; accused was hiding in sugarcane field; therefore. PW20 went inside sugarcane field; accused was sitting, however PW20 did not enquire accused. 40. As already stated, PWl is the wife of deceased and she had witnessed the incident. PW20 is a post-occurance witness. PW20 has deposed; alter learning about the incident, he had gone to Bairya Police Outpost and informed the matter to police; by the time he reached the place of incident, several people had gathered there. In the circumstances, the evidence of PW20 that he had seen the accused appears to be an embellishment. Therefore, on the basis of such embellishment found in the evidence of PW20, credible and consistent evidence of PW1 cannot be discredited. 41. Thus, we find notwithstanding the hostility shown by some of the eye-witnesses and post-occurrence witnesses, the prosecution from the credible and consistent evidence of PW1 has proved that at about 8.30 am., or 9 a.m., on 12.05.2006 near the sugarcane field of one Govindanayaka, accused assaulted deceased with a knife and caused his death. IV. Abscondance of accused and V. Recovery of incriminating articles (weapon of offence and bloodstained clothes of accused) on the information volunteered by accused at the instance of accused: 42. It is the case of prosecution that accused was arrested on 21.05.2006. IV. Abscondance of accused and V. Recovery of incriminating articles (weapon of offence and bloodstained clothes of accused) on the information volunteered by accused at the instance of accused: 42. It is the case of prosecution that accused was arrested on 21.05.2006. The accused volunteered information, which led to recovery of weapon of offence (knife) and bloodstained shirt, banian, nicker and a lungi of accused. 43. The learned counsel for accused would submit that independent witnesses examined to prove recovery have not supported the case of prosecution. The knife stated to have been recovered on the information volunteered by accused did not bear human bloodstains. Therefore, on the basis of evidence of the Investigating Officer, the evidence of recovery cannot be accepted. 44. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in Karamjit Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 2003 SC 1311 would submit, that there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses the testimony of Investigating Officer cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies, as much in favour of police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds. 45. Bearing in mind the above principle of law, we will refer to evidence of PW22-Thimmaraju, the then Police Inspector of jurisdictional police station in proof of abscondance and arrest of accused and we will refer to evidence of PW24-Kantharaju, the then Police Inspector regarding recovery of incriminating articles in pursuance of voluntary statement given by the accused. 46. PW-22, Thimmaraju, Police Sub Inspector, Saligrama Police Station has deposed that he was deputed, to trace and arrest the accused. On 21.5.2006, he received a credible information and visited Kodihally village of Holenarasipura Taluk, Hassan District and traced the accused in the farm house of one Shankare Gowda and learnt that accused had been harboured by PW-12. During cross-examination, it has been suggested to PW-22 that accused was arrested from his house. The accused when examined under 313 Cr.P.C has stated that he was arrested from his house. 47. PW-21, Rajegowda is the elder brother of accused. PW-21 has not deposed that his younger brother (accused) was in his house on 21.5.2006 and he was arrested from his house. The accused when examined under 313 Cr.P.C has stated that he was arrested from his house. 47. PW-21, Rajegowda is the elder brother of accused. PW-21 has not deposed that his younger brother (accused) was in his house on 21.5.2006 and he was arrested from his house. We do not find that PW-22 had any motive to falsely depose that accused was arrested on 21.5.2006 from the farm house of one Shankaregowda in Kodihally of Holenarasipura Taluk. The accused was a native of Chikkabairya village. It is the defence of accused that he was working as a Computer Operator at Mysore. In the normal course, accused should have been either in Mysore or in his native place. However, the accused was found in the farm house of one Shnkaregowda of Kodihally village of Holenarasipura Taluk. When the accused was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate, he has not stated that he was arrested from, his house. Therefore, we accept the evidence of PW-22 that accused was arrested from the farm, house of one Shankaregowda of Kodihally village and he had been provided shelter by PW-12. 48. PW-24, Kantharaju, the Investigating Officer has deposed that on 21.6.2006, accused was produced by PW-22 and other staff. PW-24 arrested the accused and recorded the voluntary statement of accused as per Ex.P-12. PW-24 secured punch witnesses. The accused led PW-24 and panch witnesses to survey No. 22 of Machaholalu village and produced a shirt, baniyan and a knife. They were seized and sealed under a mahazar as per Ex.P-13. Later, accused led the Investigating Officer and panch witnesses to the land bearing survey No. 2 of Kodihally village. The accused removed a nikkar, pieces of lungi and a shirt from the roof of a farmhouse. These incriminating articles were seized under mahazar marked as Ex.P-14. During cross-examination, it has been suggested to PW-24 that accused had not made any voluntary statement and the above incriminating articles were not recovered on the information volunteered by accused. Apart from this, nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-24 to disbelieve his evidence. Therefore, we have no reasons to discard the evidence of PW-24. 49. The F.S.L. Report marked as Ex.P-24 would reveal that the clothes of deceased and pieces of lungi recovered on the information volunteered by accused were stained with 'AB' blood group. Apart from this, nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of PW-24 to disbelieve his evidence. Therefore, we have no reasons to discard the evidence of PW-24. 49. The F.S.L. Report marked as Ex.P-24 would reveal that the clothes of deceased and pieces of lungi recovered on the information volunteered by accused were stained with 'AB' blood group. The contents of F.S.L. Report marked as Ex.P-26 would reveal that the clothes of deceased and the pieces of lungi recovered on the information volunteered by accused (article No.-15(sic) and the blood stained clothes of accused (articles 4 to 8) were stained with 'AB' blood group. This Scientific evidence would lend corroboration to the evidence of PW-24. The accused has not explained as to how his lungi was stained with 'AB' blood group which was the blood group of deceased. Therefore, the evidence of PW-24 regarding abscondance of accused and the evidence of PW-22 regarding recovery of incriminating articles on the information volunteered by accused do not suffer from any discrepancy. Injuries found on accused: 50. The evidence of PW-24 would reveal that on 21.5.2006 accused had been examined by CW-24 Dr.Seema Revankar. As the said Doctor was not available for examination before the trial court, PW-14 who was working with CW-34 was examined to prove the contents of wound certificate issued by CW-34. As per the contents of Ex.P-19, accused was examined by CW-34, Dr.Seema Revankar at 5.00 p.m. on 21.5.2006 in Primary Health Centre at Bairya. The accused had suffered following injuries: 1) An oval, incised stab wound measuring 2.5 cm. x 1 cm. on dorsum of right: wrist 2) An oval, incised stab wound measuring 4 cm. x 2 cms. on medial aspect of right forearm 3) Wounds have both granulation tissue and pus 4) Linear healed wound measuring 3 cm on right palm on thenar(sic) aspect 51. After going through the contents of Ex.P-19, PW-14, Dr.Shivaprasad has deposed that accused had suffered injuries, one week prior to examination by CW-24 and has also opined that injuries found on accused could have been sustained when resistance was offered by victim of assault. The accused has offered false explanation regarding injuries suffered by him. The accused when examined under 313 Cr.P.C. has deposed that he had not been sent to hospital and he had not suffered any injuries. The accused was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 21.5.2006. The accused has offered false explanation regarding injuries suffered by him. The accused when examined under 313 Cr.P.C. has deposed that he had not been sent to hospital and he had not suffered any injuries. The accused was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 21.5.2006. Before the jurisdictional Magistrate, accused has stated that he had suffered two injuries on his right palm. 52. At this juncture, it is necessary to recall the evidence of PW-1, who has deposed that in spite of resistance by deceased, he could not save himself from the injuries inflicted by accused. He could not prevent accused from assaulting him. The accused has offered false explanation of injuries, which he had suffered about a week prior to 21.5.2006. The injuries found on accused would lend credence to the eye witness account of PW-1. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution has proved that accused had suffered injuries when deceased offered resistance at the time of incident. 53. The learned Counsel appearing for accused relying on the judgment of Supreme Court reported in 2008 (2) Cri 314 (SC) (in the case of Krishnan Vs. State) would submit that when on the basis of evidence appearing on record, two views are possible, accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. In the case on hand, we have accepted the direct evidence of PW-1 to hold that accused had assaulted deceased with knife and caused his death. Therefore, two views are not possible on the evidence appearing on record. 54. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the prosecution has proved that accused had motive to commit the murder of deceased. The incident of murder was witnessed by PW-1. The evidence of PW-1 is credible and consistent. The accused was absconding after the incident of murder. The accused after his arrest gave voluntary information, which led to the incriminating articles such as bloodstained clothes and weapon of offence. The bloodstains found on clothes of deceased and bloodstains found on pieces of lungi recovered on the information volunteered by accused were of 'AB' group. The prosecution by adducing cogent, and credible evidence has proved that accused had committed the murder of deceased had also assaulted PW-1 who had tried to rescue deceased. 55. On re-appreciation of evidence, we do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, we pass the following: ORDER 56. The appeal is dismissed.