Judgment :- 1. The appellant filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentences passed in Special Case no. 63/2002 in the file of the Additional Sessions and Special Judge at Mandya, wherein the appellant was found guilty of the offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocties) Act, 1989 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Six months. 2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: On 01/01/2002, the deceased Puttathyamma instructed PW-19 – Srinivasa to plough her land. Accordingly, on 02/02/2002 at about 6.30. A.M. he went to the land of the deceased and was ploughing the land. At about 9.30.A.M. the deceased Puttathayamma brought meals for him. After finishing the meals the deceased Puttathayamma was returning to her house the accused came and instructed the deceased Puttathayamma tostop at the spot itself and when she was proceeding further stating that there is nothing else left, to talk to him, then the accused cam and got her fell down and assaulted with machu on her back and neck and run away from place. He immediately went near the deceased Puttathayamma who was lying in a pool of blood. He informed the same to Pw-10 – Chaluvaiah M.S who belongs to same village. Thereafter, the incident was informed to the Police, the Police rushed to the scene of occurrence and recorded the statement of PW-19, PW-22 registered a case in Crime No. 1/2002 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2) (v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Pw-28 – Dy S.P. took the investigation and inspected the scene of offence, draw the sport mahazar, conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased. After that, he arrested the accused on 05/01/2002. Based on the confession statement he seized the bold stained clothes and sickle used for commission of the offence. The dead body of the deceased was sent to the post mortem examination, PW29 – CW-31 – Dr. After that, he arrested the accused on 05/01/2002. Based on the confession statement he seized the bold stained clothes and sickle used for commission of the offence. The dead body of the deceased was sent to the post mortem examination, PW29 – CW-31 – Dr. K.C. Sanjeeva Reddy conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased at Government Hospital, Pandavapura as per Ex.P.28 – Post-Mortem report he opined that the death of the deceased was due to Neurogenic shock as result of injury to the spinal chord and hammarohagic shock as a result of injury to both vertebral oratories. After completion of the investigation, PW-27 filed charge sheet. 3. The trail Court framed the charge against the accused under Section 302 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC and SCT (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. The plea of the accused is one of the total denial. 4. In order to bring home the guilty of the accused for the aforesaid offences,. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 29 and relied on Exs. P1 to P30 and MOs 1 to 10. 5. During the course of cross- examination of PW-3, the defence got marked Ex.D1 the statement of PW-3 at inquest Report. 6. Considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the evidence of PW-9, who was eye witness to the incident the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandya, found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and passed the order of conviction and sentence. 7. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence against him, the accused has filed this appeal. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional SPP and we have been taken through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the impugned judgment. 9. In order to prove the fact that the deceased Puttathayamma died on homicidal the prosecution examined PWs 9,14,28 and 29. PW-9 – S.B. Swamy has stated in his evidence that he was present during the inquest done over the dead body of the deceased. He noticed the injury on the neck of the deceased and also above neck. Left hand found at the palce of incident and clothes of the deceased were bold stained and the effect of Ex.P4 – Inquest Report prepared by the police. 10. He noticed the injury on the neck of the deceased and also above neck. Left hand found at the palce of incident and clothes of the deceased were bold stained and the effect of Ex.P4 – Inquest Report prepared by the police. 10. PW-14 – Paipaiah also stated in his evidence that he was present during the inquest over the dead body of the deceased by the Police. He also stated that he noticed the injuries on the neck and on the head of the deceased. He further stated that effect of Ex.P4 – Inquest Report prepared by the Police. PW-28 – Jeroge Fernandis – investigating officer has stated in his evidence that on 02/01/2002 he received the information about the death of deceased. He therefore, took up the panch witness PWs 1, 9.14 and others. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared Ex.P4 – Inquest report. During inquest, he seized blood stained clothes, mud and control mud (MOs 1 and 2). He also recorded the statements of witnesses – PW 10- Chaluvaiah M.S and others. 11. PW-29 _Dr. T.R. Jayaram Administrative Officer, Pandavapura General Hospital has stated in his evidence that on 02/02/2002 Dr. K. C. Sanjeev Reddy conducted Post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased Puttathayamma and issued Post Mortem Certificate. PW-29 has further stated in his evidence that the Medical Officer Dr. K.C. Sanjeev Reddy who conducted Post-mortem examination had been to abroad for his further studies and he is acquainted with the handwriting of Dr. Sanjeev Reddy. He also stated as per the post-mortem report issued by Dr. Sanjeev Reddy, the deceased Puttathayamma sustained incised wound on the scalp in temporal area on the left side measuring 5 cms., length in parito occipital direction and two incised would over the back of the neck. According to post-mortem report the death of the deceased Puttathayamma was due to Neurogenic shock as result of injury to spinal chord and hammarohagic shock as a result of injury to both vertebral oratories. Thus, by the evidence of PWs 9, 14,28 and PW-29 and Ex.P4 –Inquest Report and Ex.P28 –Post Mortem Examination Report, the prosecution could above to prove that the death of deceased Puttathayamma was homicidal. 12. the next point for consideration is whether the appellant was responsible for causing the death of the deceased Puttathayamma? Thus, by the evidence of PWs 9, 14,28 and PW-29 and Ex.P4 –Inquest Report and Ex.P28 –Post Mortem Examination Report, the prosecution could above to prove that the death of deceased Puttathayamma was homicidal. 12. the next point for consideration is whether the appellant was responsible for causing the death of the deceased Puttathayamma? According to the prosecution, the accused was assisting the deceased in her agricultural work and also on financial matters. On the date of incident she engaged PW-19 Srinivasa for ploughing the land and when PW-19 was ploughing the land the deceased Puttathayamma brought meals for him and after taking meals, PW-19 again stared ploughing the land. The deceased Puttathayamma was returning to her house. Meanwhile, the accused came and asked the deceased Puttathayamma to stop and when the deceased was proceeding further stating that there is nothing else to take to him, the accused got her fell donw and assaulted her with machu. 13. According to prosecution, PW-19 is only eye witness t o the incident who informed the incident to PW-10 – Cheluvaiah. The information was sent to the Police and the police came and recorded the statement of PW-19 at the place of incident. It is also the case of prosecution that the deceased Puttathayamma was elected as Member of Mahila Sangha, the accused started harassing the deceased and threatened her in that connection at the instigation of other members of the Mahila Sangha. PWs 3, 4 and others have lodged complaint before the Police alleging that the accused was threatening her. Therefore the accused developed grudge against her and waiting for an opportunity to do away her life. 14. Out of the prosecution witnesses examined, PwW-1 –Sakamma, mother –in-law of the deceased and PW-2 Kalyanamma --mother of deceased, both of them have stated in their evidence that after coming to know about the incident after the death of deceased Puttathayamma, the visited to scene of offence and found the injuries on head and neck. Their evidence indicates that the accused was assisting the deceased in her agricultural work and also in the financial matters and the deceased became the Member of Mahila Sangha organisation, the accused started her harassing and threatening her. Therefore, the deceased lodged complaint against the accused. 15. PW-3 is also the President of Mahila Sangha. Their evidence indicates that the accused was assisting the deceased in her agricultural work and also in the financial matters and the deceased became the Member of Mahila Sangha organisation, the accused started her harassing and threatening her. Therefore, the deceased lodged complaint against the accused. 15. PW-3 is also the President of Mahila Sangha. She also stated that when the deceased was elected as member of the Mahila Sangha, the accused started harassing her. Therefore, the deceased informed her about the conduct of the accused and other members advised to deceased to lodge complaint. Accordingly, the deceased lodged complaint. Accordingly, the deceased lodged complaint against the accused. PWs 4 and 5 have also stated in their evidence that the deceased became Member of the Mahila Sangha, PW-4 approached the deceased for financial assistance and when she accepted her inability, he approached PW-5 a sum of Rs,5,000/- for performing the marriage of PW-4. PW-6 – son of the deceased, also stated in his evidence that the accused was assisting the deceased in agricultural operations and his evidence further indicates that the accused made galata against his mother about 3 or 4 months prior to her death. Therefore, he advised the accused not to make any galata then the accused threatened him stating that he will teach a lesson to him and his mother. He also stated that after the deceased became Member of the Mahila Sangha she lodged complaint against the accused alleging that he is threatening her. 16. PW-7 –Javara, brother of the deceased also stated in his evidence that the accused was helping the deceased in ploughing the land. Their relationship was cordial for six months prior to the death of Puttathayamma. His evidence shows that six months prior to the death of Puttathayamma when he was sleeping in the house of Puttathayamma, the accused came to talk to her. PW-8 – Swamy Gowda is related to the accused. In the evidence he has stated that on the date of death of the deceased Puttathayamma, he went to Mysore. At about 4.00P.M. he came to Village and learnt about the death of the deceased. 17. PW-10 – Cheluvaiah has stated in his evidence that the accused and the deceased were not in good terms since two months prior to the death of the deceased. At about 4.00P.M. he came to Village and learnt about the death of the deceased. 17. PW-10 – Cheluvaiah has stated in his evidence that the accused and the deceased were not in good terms since two months prior to the death of the deceased. He also stated in her evidence that the Police came to the Village and called him and on the basis of the confession statement of the accused the Police seized the machu and clothes of the deceased in his presence. He also stated that the accused took them and the Police to a land belongs to Rame Gowda and produced sickle and police seized the same. The prosecution has examined PWs 11 to 13 to prove the accused made extra judicial confession about the commission of the offence but they have not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the extra judicial confession of the accused. 18. PW-17 – S.N. Gaonkar, the Scientific Officer, forensic Science Laboratory who has issued Ex.P10 – FLS report and Ex.P11 – Serological Report stating that the blood stains analyzed by him and the blood stains are human blood. Ex.P11 — Serological Report further indicated that item Nos. 1 to 4,6,7 and 8 are stained with human blood i.e. ‘O’ Group blood. His evidence shows that the articles received from the Police were tallied with the same sent by the Investigating Officer. The origin of blood stains on the item No.1 to 4, 6 to 8 are stained with human blood and they are stained with ‘O’ Group blood. Thus, by the evidence of PW-17, it is clear that the blood stained clothes seized by the Police in the presence of PWs 10and 6 sent for chemical analysis and they contain human blood particularly ‘O’ blood group. The prosecution has proved that the blood stained clothes of the accused seized by the Police immediately after the incident clearly indicates the participation of the accused in the crime. 19. it is needless to mention that the relying on the evidence of PW-19 who has an eye witness to the incident , who was ploughing the land of the deceased at the time fo incident. 20. in the evidence of PW-19, has clearly stated that the land of PW-1 and the deceased are adjacent to each other. The husband of the deceased passed away previously. 20. in the evidence of PW-19, has clearly stated that the land of PW-1 and the deceased are adjacent to each other. The husband of the deceased passed away previously. The accused and the deceased were not cordial since two months prior to the death of the deceased, the deceased lodged complaint against the accused on account of galata. After that, the deceased and the accused were not in good terms. There is women orgainsation and deceased is also one of the member alongwith PW-3,8 and other. On 01/01/2002 evening the deceased Puttathayamma came and requested him to plough her land. Therefore, on 02/01/2002 at about 6.45 hours he went to the land of the deceased and was ploughing the land. At about 9.00 A.M. the deceased bought meals to him and after taking meals he continued to plough the land. Meanwhile, the accused came and instructed the deceased to stop there, but the deceased was proceeding by walk towards her village saying that “what else is there to talk with you”, then the accused felled her down and gave a blow with machu on the back side of her neck and committed the murder. On seeing the same he went near the accused and accused ran away from the spot and he noticed the oozing of blood and also noticed the she was struggling he immediately rushed towards the village and he met one Cheluvaiah and both of them informed the villagers about the incident. The villagers came to the spot, by then the deceased lost her breath. He noticed the injuries on her neck and also on her head. The clothes of the deceased also blood stained and she was wearing purple and noticed that there was blood stains at the spot. 21. He further deposed that near the spot steel carrier and steel plate were also there in which she brought the meals to him. The Police recorded his statement and obtained the signature. He also identified the clothes of the deceased shown to him as MOs 7 to 9 which were worn by the deceased at the time of the incident. 22. The Police recorded his statement and obtained the signature. He also identified the clothes of the deceased shown to him as MOs 7 to 9 which were worn by the deceased at the time of the incident. 22. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that PW-19 is not an eye witness to the incident and it is not possible for him to witness the incident as the land of Puttathayamma was the down gradation from the place where he was ploughing the land. 23. In the evidence of PW-19, he has categorically stated that he has witnessed the incident from a distance of two pieces of wet land. From the evidence of PW-19,it is clear that the deceased was cultivating the land of her mother-in-law(PW-1). Though witness PW-19 was subjected to cross-examination at length, nothing material is elicited to discard his evidence. His evidence clearly indicates that one day prior to the incident in question, deceased Puttathayamma requested him to plough her land on the next day i.e., on 02/02/2002. 6.45 a.m., he started to plough the land of the deceased i.e., the land of PW-1, which was in occupation of the deceased. His evidence clearly shows that at about 9.00 a.m. deceased came to her land alongwith meals for him and after having the meals, he started ploughing the land and when deceased was returning to the village, at that time, accused came and asked deceased to stop there and when deceased proceeded further stating that there is nothing to talk to him, accused felled the deceased and assaulted here with a machu on her back side neck and other vital parts of the body resulting in her instantaneous death. The evidence of PW-19 clearly indicates that after the incident, due to fear, he rushed to the village and informed PW10 and other villagers and he came back to the scene of offence alongwith villagers and found the deceased lost her breath due to the injuries on the vital parts of the body. 24. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accused dealt the blow on the spur of the moment and therefore, he is liable to punishment either under Section 304 –I or 304 –II, but not under Section 302 of IPC. 24. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accused dealt the blow on the spur of the moment and therefore, he is liable to punishment either under Section 304 –I or 304 –II, but not under Section 302 of IPC. It is further submitted that there was no intention on the part of the accused to commit the offence and the incident has taken place at the spur of the moment, when the deceased allowed PW-129 to plough her land, as the accused was looking after the land of the deceased prior to the incident in question. 25. On the other land, learned HCGP Sri. Sampangi Ramaiah appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the accused had intention to kill the deceased as the deceased had lodged a complaint against the accused two or three months prior to the incident for threatening her and the deceased dis-continued the accused from doping her agricultural work and other financial matters, therefore, accused bore grudge against the deceased, as she lodged the complaint against him alongwith other members of Mahila Sangha. On the date of incident, with an intention to kill the deceased, the accused dealt a blow on vital parts of the deceased, which resulted in her instantaneous death, therefore accused is liable to be punished for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and there are no good grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence passed by the Trail Court. 26. IN Vahula Bhushan alias Vehuna Krishnan VsState of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 1989 SC 236 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held when the evidence of sole witness found to be cogent and trustworthy, medical evidence is corroborating his testimony, conviction based on such evidence is proper. 27. In the instant case, the evidence of sole eye witness PW-19 clearly shown s that the accused asked the deceased to stop when she was proceeding towards here village and when she did not heed to his request and proceeded further, he felled her and assaulted her with machu on her head and neck resulting in her instantaneous death. The evidence of PW-19 was fully corroborated by the medical evidence Ex.P28–post mortem report produced by the prosecution, Nothing is elicited from the evidence of PW-19 to speak false against the accused that there was no ill-will or enemity against the accused to implicate him in grave offence of murder. The evidence of PW-19 was fully corroborated by the medical evidence Ex.P28–post mortem report produced by the prosecution, Nothing is elicited from the evidence of PW-19 to speak false against the accused that there was no ill-will or enemity against the accused to implicate him in grave offence of murder. The evidence of prosecution witnesses clearly shows motive on the part of the accused to commit the offence and the evidence of PW-19 clearly indicates that accused came to place –scene of offence i.e., the land of the deceased armed with deadly weapon only with an intention to assault the deceased, when she came to the land to serve food to PW-19 who was ploughing her land in place of the accused. The evidence of other witnesses was not challenged during the course of examination with regard to motive and ill-will on the part of the accused to commit the offence. The evidence of prosecution witnesses clearly indicates that deceased had lodged a complaint against the accused two or three months prior to the incident alleging that he was threatening her on the date of she being elected as member of Mahila Sangha in the village, for which, PW-6-son of the deceased and other relatives in the village adviced the accused not to threaten the deceased and to behave properly. 28. The entire evidence on record clearly indicates motive on the part of the accused to commit grave offence of murder. The Trail Court on proper appreciation of entire evidence on record has rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (POA) Act. We are of the considered view that there are no grounds to defer with the findings of the Trial Court. Therefore the judgment and conviction of sentence passed by the Trail Court is hereby confirmed. Consequently, appeal fails and the same stands dismissed.