JUDGMENT AJIT J. GUNJAL, J.—The appellant accused was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code in Crime No. 173/02. The learned Sessions Judge on trial has convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but, however, in so far as offences punishable under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code he has been acquitted. The accused is in appeal questioning the conviction. 2. The date of incident is 4.11.2002 at about 7.15 p.m. Complainant is P.W. 1, father of the deceased. The complaint was lodged on 4.11.2002 at 9.00 p.m. The accused is one Siddaraju, deceased is one Swamy. The Injured is P.W. 6. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Swamy, P.W. 6 Siddaraju and one Hemavathy are the children of P.W. 1 and they are residing at Shankarapura. One Chikkaiingaiah is the younger brother of P.W. 1 and Gowramma is his wife. The house of Chikkaiingaiah is adjacent to the house of P.W. 1 Kalingaiah. Case of the prosecution is that the accused had illicit intimacy with Gowramma. P.W. 1 was advising accused not to come to the house of Gowramma and not to continue the relationship, but accused had a quarrel with P.W. 1 for his advice. Hence P.W. 1 lodges a complaint as against accused. After about a weeks’ time accused had come to the house of P.W. 1 in his absence and threatened his wife, i.e., P.W. 4 that he would do away with the lives of all in the family. P.W. 4 informed her children and her husband on their return about the threat meted out by the accused. On the same day in the evening at about 7.15 p.m., The accused came near the house of P.W. 1 and the deceased Swamy asked as to why he had threatened his mother. Immediately accused took out a long knife and assaulted over the neck of deceased Swamy. He sustained bleeding injuries and fell down. He was taken to the hospital at Nanjangud, but, however, on the way to the hospital he succumbed to the injury. Immediately after assaulting the deceased accused went to the house of Gowramma and tried to escape. P.W. 1 went to the police station and lodges the complaint against the accused and a case is registered In Crime No. 173/02. He was taken to the hospital at Nanjangud, but, however, on the way to the hospital he succumbed to the injury. Immediately after assaulting the deceased accused went to the house of Gowramma and tried to escape. P.W. 1 went to the police station and lodges the complaint against the accused and a case is registered In Crime No. 173/02. Accused was arrested at 11.15 p.m. on the same day by the Investigating Officer, P.W. 10. The body was sent to the post mortem and P.W. 9 conducted autopsy and the report is at Ex. P10. He also certifies M.O. 1 the long knife. The complaint also further discloses that P.W. 6, i.e., the brother of the deceased tried to intervene and he also sustained certain injuries. P.W. 6 was taken to the hospital and was treated by P.W. 8, the doctor. After the lodging of the complaint P.W. 10 PSI took up the investigation and sent the FIR, which is marked as EX. P12. The spot mahazar was done and P.W. 3 is the inquest witness for the said spot mahazar, P.W. 4 is the mother of deceased and wife of P.W. 1 and she speaks about the M.O. 1, i.e., the machu and narrates the incident. She is also an eve witness. P.W. 5 is a witness to the panchanama and seizure of M.O. 1 and M.O. 1 was recovered from house of Gowraninia. The panchanama and seizures are marked at EX. P4, P.W. 8 is the injured witness and the brother of deceased and narrates the incident and identifies M.O. 1. P.W. 7 has turned hostile who deposes that he has not seen the incident. P.W. 11 is the police constable who carried the seized articles to FSL. P.W. 12 is the head constable who has carried the accused to the hospital inasmuch as he has suffered certain injuries on the forehead while entering the house of Gowramma. P.W. 13 is the head constable as on 4.11.2002. P.W. 14 is an independent eye witness. He speaks about the incident and also about accused rushing to the house of Gowramma and he having hit the door and sustaining injuries. He also identifies M.O. 1, i.e., the machu. P.W. 16 is the police constable who carried the body to the post mortem and alongwith M.Os. P.W. 14 is an independent eye witness. He speaks about the incident and also about accused rushing to the house of Gowramma and he having hit the door and sustaining injuries. He also identifies M.O. 1, i.e., the machu. P.W. 16 is the police constable who carried the body to the post mortem and alongwith M.Os. 4 to 8 which are the clothes worn by the deceased, P.W. 17 is witness to the Ex. P4. P.W. 18 is the CPI who took up the further investigation of the case and thereafter filed charge-sheet. 3. All these witnesses were examined before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge having regard to the evidence on record was of the view that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that accused had committed the murder of deceased Swamy, but, however, in so far as offences punishable under Section 307 is concerned the learned Sessions Judge has found that the material is wanting inasmuch as the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offences. Hence acquitted him for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. 4. We have heard Mr. Vishwanatha Poojary K, learned counsel appearing for the accused and Mr. N S Sampangi Ramaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State. 5. Indeed having regard to the evidence which is let in by the prosecution during the course of trial Mr. Vishwanatha Poojary was not in a position to submit; anything much except submitting that all the witnesses are close relations of deceased and no independent witnesses are examined. 6. Mr. Sampangi Ramaiah, learned High. Court Government Pleader submits that evidence let in by the prosecution is consistent. He submits that the parents of the deceased as well as brother of the deceased has spoken to about the incident and are the eyewitnesses. He also submits that P.W. 14 is an independent witness and who speaks about the incident. Hence in the circumstance the conviction is just and proper. 7. We have perused the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge convicting the accused, for the offences punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Indeed we notice that there is absolutely no delay in lodging of the complaint inasmuch as incident has taken place on 4.11.2002 at 9.15 p.m. The complainant is none other than the father of the deceased. Indeed we notice that there is absolutely no delay in lodging of the complaint inasmuch as incident has taken place on 4.11.2002 at 9.15 p.m. The complainant is none other than the father of the deceased. He speaks about the family relations as well as the accused interfering with the family affairs. P.W. 1 also speaks about the accused coming home and having spoken to P.W. 4, the mother of the deceased inasmuch as family should not interfere with the affairs of the accused. Indeed we notice that the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 4 as well as 6 is consistent inasmuch as in one voice they would say that accused did have illicit relationship with P.W. 1’s brother’s wife and they had advised him not to continue the said relationship. It is no doubt true that the incident has taken place at 7.15 p.m., but, however, that is nothing suggestive of the fact that the assailant was not seen by the eyewitnesses and P.W. 14. We also notice that immediately after the incident complaint is lodged at. 9.00 p.m. Hence we are of the view that having regard to the consistent stand of the eyewitnesses and also independent witness the complaint having been lodged immediately after the incident the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt. We also notice that; immediately after the lodging of the complaint the accused was taken into custody. P.W. 12 is the head constable who carried the injured to the hospital for the injuries sustained by him while he was trying to enter the house of Gowramma. P.W. 13 is the constable who arrested the accused at 11 p.m.. on the same day. We also notice that P.W. 2 is a witness to the spot mahazar where the incident had taken place. P.W. 5 is a witness to the panchanama and seizure of M.O.1, i.e., the machu. We also notice that the M.O. 1 was seized at the instance of accused and it was recovered from the house of Gowramma. This certainly stands to reason inasmuch as the consistent stand of the prosecution is that immediately after assaulting the deceased the accused ran towards the house of Gowramma, Hence the recovery of the machu from the house of Gowramma pursuant to Ex. P4 certainly cannot be doubted, P.W. 6 is the injured witness and brother of the deceased. This certainly stands to reason inasmuch as the consistent stand of the prosecution is that immediately after assaulting the deceased the accused ran towards the house of Gowramma, Hence the recovery of the machu from the house of Gowramma pursuant to Ex. P4 certainly cannot be doubted, P.W. 6 is the injured witness and brother of the deceased. He also narrates the incident and identifies M.O. 1. Thus the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 4 and 6 is consistent. 8. P.W. 9 is the doctor who has conducted the post mortem and the post mortem report is at Ex. P10. The post mortem report discloses the following external injuries found on the dead body. (1) Lacerated wound measuring 1½ inch x 3/4 inch x 3/4 inch on the outer aspect of left elbow joint. Blood clots were found on the wound with blood stained everted margins. (2) An obliquely situated lacerated wound measuring 2½ inch x 1½ x 1 inch on the lower 1/3rd of the left side of the neck, 1½ inch above the medial end of the left collar bone, the underlying muscles were cut irregularly and contused, the lower part of the carotid sheath with the contained blood vessels transected blood clots in the wound with Blood stained everted margins. The opinion of the doctor is that the cause of death according to the doctor is hemorrhage as a result of injury to the major blood vessels on the left side of the neck. 9. The stomach contained semi-digested food material and the doctor has also opined that the incident must have occurred 12 to 24 hours prior to the post mortem examination. We notice that, the post mortem examination was done between 11 a.m. am to 1 p.m. on 5.11.2002, i.e., on the next day. Indeed if one were to take into consideration the post mortem report as well as the evidence of the doctor and coupled with the evidence of the eye witness we are of the view that the conviction cannot be faulted. 10. It is no doubt true a contention is sought to be urged by the learned counsel appearing for the accused that there are no independent eye witnesses, but, however, we notice that apart from parents, brother of the deceased P.W. 14 is also examined who is a neighbour. This would answer the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the accused. This would answer the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the accused. Indeed having regard to the evidence of the prosecution we are of the view that the conviction cannot be faulted inasmuch as the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the offence is committed by the accused. Having said so, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Appeal stands dismissed.