ORDER P. Durga Prasad, J. This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.40 of 2007 by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam on 01.02.2008. 2. The appellant herein is the sole accused and he was prosecuted for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 3. According to the prosecution the accused married the deceased No.1 Seshaveni @ Ammaji in the year 1997 and they were blessed with a daughter Gayathri, who is the deceased No.2. The earnings of the accused are too megre and hence he can not feed his family. Deceased No.1 is doing tailoring work and also Sari printing work at her house, assisting her husband through her earnings. Prior to the occurrence of the incident i.e. in the year 2005 the accused found one of the previous neighbour, who is an unmarried youngster used to visit his house frequently and moving with her in close manner. On one day his daughter, deceased No.2 also saw the above youngster while kissing her mother and she informed the same to the accused. The accused has a doubt in his mind about the character of the deceased. On one day, he left the house on a plea that he is going to witness Matinee picture, but returned at the middle and witnessed the illicit intimacy of his wife with the above neighbour. Since then the accused developed grudge against his wife. Due to the above incident he lost his concentration on his business, for which his business became dull. On the day of offence i.e. on 12.07.2006 as usual he returned home at 8.30 p.m. from his business, had bath and lunch and closed the doors after having some talk with his neighbour at 10.30 p.m. He had sexual intercourse with his wife and at that time some heated conversations were took place between them about the earnings of the accused since he is not showing much interest on the business and used to stay more days at the house. Their daughter slept on the cot and his wife slept on the floor. Suddenly the accused with an intention to kill his wife due to sexual jealousy he pressed the throat of his wife, and not allowed her to raise any cry. Their daughter slept on the cot and his wife slept on the floor. Suddenly the accused with an intention to kill his wife due to sexual jealousy he pressed the throat of his wife, and not allowed her to raise any cry. Later, he also wanted to commit suicide but had a second thought that their daughter Gayatri, deceased No.2 will become an orphan and so he killed her too by pressing her throat. Later, the accused thought that the both are still alive, took two shaving blades from the house and cut their throats from front side. He wrote a letter describing that no body is responsible for their deaths and his dead body will be available either near railway track or in Sea. He also furnished the telephone numbers of his brother-in-law Thota Trumurtulu and also the cell number of P.W.5, co-son,-in-law. Since his lunge, which was worn by him at the time of offence, was stained with blood, the same was packed by him in a poly thin cover and left the scene of offence by bolting the doors of his house from outside. 4. On 13.07.2006 at about 8.30 hours the ground floor neighbour, P.W.2 called the daughter of accused for school, but there was no response and the opposite neighbour called her, but no response. Then as the doors ' were bolted from outside they peeped through the window and found, the dead bodies of both the deceased in a pool of blood. P.W.1 gave a report to Gajuwaka police on 13.07.2006 at 10.00 hours and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.386 of 2006 under Section 302 IPC. P.W.12 took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, P.W.12 visited the scene of offence at 11.30 hours, got the scene of offence photographed and prepared observation report in the presence of P.W.7 and another and seized the material objects. He has also seized the death note as well as pocket book containing the writings purported to have been written by the accused and also seized the blood stained pillow, towel along with two shaving blades. P.W.12 held inquest over the dead bodies in the presence of P.W.7 and after completion of inquest sent the dead bodies for postmortem examination. He has also seized the death note as well as pocket book containing the writings purported to have been written by the accused and also seized the blood stained pillow, towel along with two shaving blades. P.W.12 held inquest over the dead bodies in the presence of P.W.7 and after completion of inquest sent the dead bodies for postmortem examination. P.W .11, doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination, opined that the death of the deceased due to Asphyxia and pressure on neck associated with cut throat injury on front part of neck. During the course of investigation on 18.07.2006 at 1.30 p.m. the accused was arrested at Satyanarayana Swamy temple situated on the hill of Kasimkota village and his confessional statement was recorded in the presence of P.W.8 and another and the police seized a letter, which was written and kept by the accused in his pocket to post the same to his co-son-in-law. In pursuance of the confessional statement of the accused, his blood stained lunge was also seized from the bushes on the side of railway track at Srinagar before the mediators. The documents seized at the scene of offence and letter seized from the possession of the accused and admitted hand writings of the accused, were sent to FSL for comparison and the hand writing expert opined that the person who wrote the red enclosed writings marked as S-1 to S-13 also wrote the red enclosed writings marked as Q-1 to Q-4. Material objects were also sent for chemical analysis, P.W.10, who analyzed the material objects, opined that the material objects contain human blood and it is of O and B group. After completion of investigation, P.W.12 has filed the charge sheet. 5. The learned Sessions Judge has framed the charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused and he pleaded not guilty for the said charge. 6. In order to establish the said charge the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.23 and M.Os.1 to 5. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused, but ExD.1 was marked on his behalf. 7. The learned Sessions Judge by taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 7. The learned Sessions Judge by taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. 8. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed by the accused. 9. Now, the point that' arises for consideration is: Whether the prosecution could able to establish the charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt? POINT: 10. The appellant's counsel has pleaded that there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and the circumstantial evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 5 is not sufficient to establish the offence under Section 302 IPC. He further pleaded that the death notes Ex.P.4 and P.15 are weak type of evidence and they cannot be relied upon. He further pleaded that the said notes were got prepared by the investigating officer after arrest of the accused to implicate the accused in this case. 11. The Additional Public Prosecutor on the other hand has pleaded that P.Ws. 1 and 2 have last seen the accused in the company of the deceased prior to the occurrence of the incident and P.W.5, co-son-in-law of the accused has specifically stated about the accused complaining him about the character of his wife, as such the motive for the accused to commit the offence was established and from the death notes Exs.P.4 and P.15, it is established that the accused has committed the offence and thus the lower Court has rightly convicted the accused for the charge under Section.302 IPC. 12. According to the prosecution the motive for the commission of offence by the accused is that the deceased used to move closely with his previous neighbour and on one day when he returned from Matinee picture in the middle, he has seen the said neighbour in his house with his wife and his daughter also disclosed him about her seeing the said neighbour kissing his wife; as such he developed hatredness towards his wife and waiting for an opportunity. On 12.07.2006 in the night time, an altercation took place between the deceased No.1 and the accused with regard to his earnings as he is not showing any interest in the business and staying in the house most of the time, after both the deceased slept the accused pressed the neck of the deceased No, 1, who is his wife and thereafter pressed the neck of the deceased No.2, who is his daughter and having suspicion that they are still alive, he took two shaving blades and cut their throats. Thereafter, he escaped from the house. 13. Admittedly, there are no eyewitnesses to the incident as the incident has taken place in side the house of the accused on the night of 12.07.2006. The circumstantial evidence available on record has to be scrutinized to ascertain whether the said evidence is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. 14. To establish the motive the prosecution has examined P.W.5, who is co-son-in-law of the accused. P.W.5 has stated that the accused used to move close with him. Two days prior to the death of his wife, he telephoned him and informed that the character of his wife is not good and he wanted to discuss with him about her issue. He noticed a message in his cell phone at about 8.30 a.m. on 13.07.2006 issued from the phone number of the accused at about 12.00 midnight asked him to contact immediately. He called him, but the phone of the accused was switched off. Then he telephoned to Thrimurthulu cell phone and he informed him that he also received the message that Gayatri is unwell and going to Vizag and the accused also asked him to come over there. Immediately himself and his wife reached the house of the accused and noticed the dead bodies of his wife and daughter in a pool of blood. Since he was informed by the accused that he was suspecting the character of his wife, he suspected that the accused might have did these murders. 15. Apart from the evidence of P.W.5, there is no other evidence to establish the illicit intimacy between the deceased No.1 and her previous neighbour. P.W.3, who is the father of deceased No.1, has not spoken anything about the accused suspecting the character of his wife. 15. Apart from the evidence of P.W.5, there is no other evidence to establish the illicit intimacy between the deceased No.1 and her previous neighbour. P.W.3, who is the father of deceased No.1, has not spoken anything about the accused suspecting the character of his wife. P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the neighbours and P.W.3, who is the father of deceased No.1, in their cross-examination stated that there are no disputes between the accused and deceased Ned and also stated that the accused is not having any bad habits. 16. Since the allegation made against the deceased No.1 is that she is having illicit intimacy with her previous neighbour, the accused might not have disclosed the same to any of his neighbours and they might not have aware of the same. But the defence tried to establish through the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 that number of persons used to visit the house of the deceased, but they only stated that she is doing tailoring work. They denied that number of people used to visit the house of the deceased during night time also. Thus, the accused suspecting the character of the deceased can be inferred from the evidence of P.W.5. 17. The circumstantial witness, P.W.1, who is the landlord of the accused and the deceased, has seen the dead bodies of the deceased Nos.1 and 2 on the next day morning in a pool of blood, has stated that the deceased daughter of the accused and the daughter of his elder brother were studying in the same school. Either his brother or the accused used to drop them at their school daily. On 13.07.2006 at about 8.30 or 8.40 a.m. he called the daughter of the accused to come down so as to drop her along with the daughter of his elder brother at their school. But there was no response from their house. In the mean time, P.W.2, who is the neighbour residing opposite to the house of the accused, also called the deceased No.2 by name, but there was no response. After some time, he went upstairs along with neighbours and found the deceased persons in a pool of blood. Immediately, he went to the police station and gave EX.P.1 report. According to him he was present at the time of inquest over the dead bodies of the deceased. After some time, he went upstairs along with neighbours and found the deceased persons in a pool of blood. Immediately, he went to the police station and gave EX.P.1 report. According to him he was present at the time of inquest over the dead bodies of the deceased. All the inquestdars opined that the accused might have killed the deceased persons since he was present on the previous night in the house and by the time they went there, he was absent. But in the cross-examination, he denied that he did not see the accused on the night of 12th and he has seen him going upstairs at about 9.30 p.m. on that day. 18. P.W.2, another neighbour, who is residing opposite to the portion of the accused, also supported the version of P.W.1. According to her, she noticed the accused and his wife and daughter on the previous night. Therefore, P.W.1 has seen the accused going upstairs at 9.30 p.m. on that day and P.W.2 has seen the accused and both the deceased in the house on the previous night. 19. P.WA, who is the sister of the accused, has also stated that on 12.07.2006 the accused telephoned her and informed that he and his wife will come to their house. On the next day morning she received phone call that the wife of the accused was unwell. Immediately, they went to Gajuwaka and found the deceased and her daughter in a pool of blood. Thus, from the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 it is established that both the deceased were in the company of accused on the night of 12.07.2006 and the dead bodies of both the deceased were found in their house in the morningof13.07.2006. Thus, the prosecution could able to establish that the deceased Nos. 1 and 2 were last seen in the company of the accused. 20. The appellant's counsel has pleaded that the theory of last seen the deceased in the company of the accused cannot be a circumstance to establish that the accused has caused the death of the deceased. In support of his contention he relied upon a decision rendered in "Sk. Yusuf v. State of West Bengal (1) 2011 (3) ALT (Crl.) 16 (SC) = 2011 (5) SCJ 798 = (2011) 11 SCC 754 ". In support of his contention he relied upon a decision rendered in "Sk. Yusuf v. State of West Bengal (1) 2011 (3) ALT (Crl.) 16 (SC) = 2011 (5) SCJ 798 = (2011) 11 SCC 754 ". In the above said decision the Apex Court has observed that the last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. 21. In the present case P.Ws.1 and 2 have seen the accused on the night of 12.07.2006 in his house along with both the deceased and P.W.4 stated that the accused has telephoned to her and informed that he and his wife will come to their house, but he did not turn up. It is shows that the deceased were in the company of accused on the night of 12.07.2006 and the dead bodies were found on the next day morning. 22. The accused in his 313 examination has pleaded that on the previous night he went to Chodavaram and came back in the afternoon of 13.07.2006, then police arrested him and that he did not commit any offence. To establish the said defence taken by the accused, he has not produced any evidence. The evidence of P. W .4, who is the sister of the accused, itself shows that the accused informed her on phone on 12.07.2006 that himself and his wife would come to their house and that on the next day morning she received phone call that the wife of the accused was unwell and that immediately she went to Gajuwaka and found the deceased and her daughter in a pool of blood and noticed the absence of the accused at that time. P.W. 5, co-son-in-law of the- accused also stated that two days prior to the death of the deceased, the accused telephoned him and informed him that the character of his wife is not good and he wanted to discuss with him and on the midnight of 12.07.2006. he received a message from the accused to contact him immediately, but he has seen the 'same at 8.30 a.m. on 13.07.2002 and immediately called the accused, but his phone was switched off. he received a message from the accused to contact him immediately, but he has seen the 'same at 8.30 a.m. on 13.07.2002 and immediately called the accused, but his phone was switched off. Thus, the above circumstances lead to the conclusion that the deceased Nos. 1 and 2 were in the company of the accused on the nigh of 12.07.2006. 23. The other circumstances, which lead to the conclusion that the accused is responsible for the death of both the deceased are the death notes prepared by him. 24. According to the investigating officer, P.W.12, on receipt of the report, he registered the case in Crime No.386 of 2006 under Section 302 IPC and issued the FIR and recorded the statement of P.W.1. He proceeded to the scene of offence and verified the same in the presence of mediators P.W.7 and another and got drafted the scene of offence Panchanama, Ex.P.7 and rough sketch, EX.P.23 and seized M.Os.1 to 4. There is nothing in the cross-examination of investigation officer to disbelieve the conducting of scene of offence Panchanama and seizure of M.Os.1 to 4 by him. 25. P.W.7, who is the mediator for the scene of offence Panchanama also supported the version of investigating officer, P.W.12. He has specifically stated that in his presence police verified the scene of offence and seized one towel stained with blood, two blades stained with blood, one Album found on sewing machine, on the cover of it a death note was found and he affixed his signature on the said album. One pillow stained with blood was also seized by the police under a cover of mediators report. He identified M.O.1, blood stained towel, M.O.2, blood stained pillow, M.O.3 Two blades stained with blood and M.O.4, one photo album. In the cross-examination he denied the suggestion that the police did not seize M.O.4, photo album in his presence. Therefore, from the evidence of P.Ws.12 and 7, it is evident that the M.O.4, photo album was seized from the scene of offence and it contains death note Written by the accused. 26. P.W.12 further stated that he arrested the accused on 18.07.2006 near Satyanarayana temple in Kasimkota village and seized the death note and got drafted the mediators reports Exs.P.12 and P.14. He (recovered the death note from his pocket and M.O.5 at the instance of the accused. 26. P.W.12 further stated that he arrested the accused on 18.07.2006 near Satyanarayana temple in Kasimkota village and seized the death note and got drafted the mediators reports Exs.P.12 and P.14. He (recovered the death note from his pocket and M.O.5 at the instance of the accused. In the cross-examination he has stated that he did not send M.O.5 to R.F.S.L for chemical examination. He denied that as M.O.5 is not related to his case, he did not send the same to the R.F.S.L. He admitted that the place, where the accused was arrested, is within the limits of Town police station, Anakapalle. 27. P.W.8 is the mediator for the arrest and seizure of death note and M.O.5 at the instance of the accused. P.W.8 also supported the version of P.W.12. He has specifically stated that police took him and Atbilli Pentayya to the Satyanarayana swamy temple, Kasimkota, where the Inspector identified the accused and apprehended him in connection with the murder of his wife and daughter. At that time the accused confessed about the offence and also picked out a letter and handed over to the police. Upon which the police obtained his signature and the said letter is Ex.P .4. The accused also informed that Lungi, which worn by him at the time of killing of his wife and daughter, stained with blood and he concealed the same near the railway track Srinagar and at his instance, the said Lungi was seized. There is nothing in the cross-examination of P.W.8 with regard to seizure of Ex.P. A from the possession of accused. 28. P.W.12, investigating officer, has sent the material objects for chemical examination and Exs.P.15 to P.17 to the hand writing expert for examination. 29. P.W.9, is the Scientific officer and handwriting expert in FSL. According to him on 25.07.2007, their department has received a requisition from A.C.P., South Sub-Division, Visakhapatnam along with letter of advice and certain documents for examination and opinion. The said documents are (1) Photo Album containing disputed writings marked as Q.1, it is on the cover page it is EX.P.15. (2) The letter containing disputed writings marked as Q.2 to Q.4 in Ex.P.4. (3) One small pocket diary containing standard writings of D. Suryanarayana Murthy marked as S.1 to S.7. EX.P.16 is the pocket diary. The said documents are (1) Photo Album containing disputed writings marked as Q.1, it is on the cover page it is EX.P.15. (2) The letter containing disputed writings marked as Q.2 to Q.4 in Ex.P.4. (3) One small pocket diary containing standard writings of D. Suryanarayana Murthy marked as S.1 to S.7. EX.P.16 is the pocket diary. (4) Six sheets of standard writing of D. Suryanarayana Murhty, marked as S.8 to S.13 i.e. EX.P.4 and P.5. 30. According to him, after careful examination of the above questioned and standard documents, he gave his opinion as the person who wrote the red enclosed writings marked S.1 to S.13 also wrote the red enclosed writings marked Q.1 to Q.4. Ex.P.17 is the opinion dated 31.07.2006 along with reasons given by him. In the cross-examination he has stated that there is no possibility of identical signatures of two different persons. He denied that his opinion is not correct. Therefore, according to P.W.9 the hand writing found on Exs.P.4 and P.15 is the hand writing of the accused. EX.P.15 is the hand writing in M.O.4, photo album. The said photo album was seized at the scene of offence, wherein the accused has written that nobody is responsible for their death and his dead body will be found in sea or railway track and the said writings containing two telephone numbers (1) 089165392816 and (2) 9848744666 and it is also mentioned to telephone to these numbers. 31. P.W.5, who is the co-son-in-law of the accused, has admitted in the cross-examination that the 2nd telephone number 9848744666 is belongs to him. Another death note, EX.P.4 was handover by the accused when he was arrested by the police. In EX.P.4 the accused has specifically stated about the entire incident, which lead to suspect his wife and on the night of Wednesday after taking meals at about 10.30 p.m. galata took place and exchanging of words taken place on that he told that because of her he has no mental peace, if he murdered her, he has no trouble saying that he pressed her neck. Thereafter the daughter is helpless without a master, he also killed his daughter. After he killed his wife, he wanted to die took a dal Atta which was at the window and wrote that nobody is responsible for their death. His dead boy is in sea or railway track. Thereafter the daughter is helpless without a master, he also killed his daughter. After he killed his wife, he wanted to die took a dal Atta which was at the window and wrote that nobody is responsible for their death. His dead boy is in sea or railway track. Being suspicion that they both did not die, he cut their necks with blades. After that he wanted to die and he went to Srinagar bridge railway line and being afraid came back and wanted to surrender before the police. But due to fear, he went to Anakapalle, from there to Rajahmundry and from there to Vijayawada by boarding lorry, from there he went to Guntur, from there to Chilakaluripeta and from there to Eluru, Machilipatnam and returned to Eluru. In all these places he wanted to die. He wants to bring all these facts to the notice of his in-laws and asked them to pardon him. 32. The said letter EX.P.4 was addressed to Venkateswararao Garu. According to the prosecution, the said Venkateswarrao is P.W.5, who is c-o-son-in-law of the accused. From the evidence of P.W.5 that the accused has informed him about his suspecting the character of the deceased No.1 and asking his help clearly shows that the accused has an intention to inform about the cause of death of deceased by writing this letter. Ex.P.4 is the letter and the writings on M.O.4 is marked as EX.P.15. P.W.12, investigating officer, also seized a handbook from the pocket of the accused when he was arrested by him and the disputed documents Exs.P.4 and P.15 along with Ex.P.5, standard writings of the accused and the handbook, EX.P.16 were sent to handwriting expert for comparison and the said expert, P.W.9 has opined that the• both the writings are of the same person. Thus, the prosecution could able to establish that the accused has written the letters, EX.P.4 and EX.P.15 on M.O.4, which were seized at the scene of offence. Thus, from the above said documents the prosecution could able to establish that the accused is responsible for the death of both the deceased. 33. The appellant's counsel has pleaded that all the documents produced by the prosecution only create a suspicion about the involvement of the accused and do not establish the guilt of the accused. Thus, from the above said documents the prosecution could able to establish that the accused is responsible for the death of both the deceased. 33. The appellant's counsel has pleaded that all the documents produced by the prosecution only create a suspicion about the involvement of the accused and do not establish the guilt of the accused. In support of his contention he relied upon a decision rendered in "Narendra Singh and another. v. State of M.P.: 2004(2) ALT (Crl.) 23 (SC) = (2004) 10 SCC 699 ". In the above said decision based on circumstantial evidence, four accused, viz. husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased were tried for committing the murder of the deceased by throttling and thereafter causing disappearance of evidence by setting her on fire. The dead body of the deceased was found lying in the kitchen. The trial Court disbelieved the prosecution case. It observed that the door of the kitchen had to be broken open. As the incident presumably took place in between 4.15 p.m. and 5.30 p.m., it was impossible for the assassin to escape out of the window in the kitchen. Assuming that it was a case of murder, the trial Court wondered, keeping in view the place of occurrence vis-a-vis the points of possible entries thereto, as to how the assassin made his exodus. The trial Court did not fully rely upon the postmortem report having regard to certain cuttings and over writings therein. It was further held that the plea of alibi of the accused persons could neither be ignored nor said to be unreliable. In the appeal, the High Court held that accused No.1, husband, was guilty for the offence under Section 302 read with 201 IPC. The mother-in-law was convicted under Section 201 IPC. The High Court has observed that (1) since there was a demand of dowry which was not fulfilled, there was motive for murder, (2) had the murderer been anybody else, the deceased and persons in the family including the accused could have also raised alarm and caused resistance to such murder, and (3) the fact that no alarm was raised by the deceased showed that the murderer must have been a close relation of the deceased and in all probability, the husband because a Hindu wife while being assaulted by her husband would not cause resistance. In the appeal, Apex Court has allowed the appeal of accused Nos.1 and 2 holding that pieces of circumstances, however strong may be, it is well known that all links in the chain must be proved. In this case a vital link in the chain viz. possibility of appellant No.1 committing the offence, closing the door and then sneaking out of the room from one of the two places had not been proved by the prosecution and having regard to the postmortem report, the cause of death of deceased is shrouded in mystery but benefit thereof must go to the appellants as in the event of there being two possible views, the one supporting the accused should be upheld. The Apex Court has further held that when the accused has pleaded alibi, the burden is on him to prove his alibi". 34. In the present case as already discussed above the accused has pleaded alibi in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., stating that he has gone to Chodavaram on the evening of 12.07.2006 and return back on 13.07.2006, but he could not establish the same by adducing any evidence and the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution establishes the guilt of the accused. As already discussed above, the motive for the accused to commit the offence was established by the prosecution and the deceased Nos.1 and 2 were last seen in the company of the accused on the night of 12.07.2006 and on the next day morning both the deceased were found dead in the house. Thus the prosecution could able to establish that the accused has caused the death of the deceased Nos.1 and 2 from Exs.P.4 and P.1S, which were written by him. Ex.P.1S was seized from the scene of offence and Ex.P.4 was seized from the possession of the accused. The circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution clearly establishes that the accused is responsible for the death of the deceased Nos.1 and 2 i.e. his wife and •daughter. Thus, the lower Court has rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and the said finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge does not warrant any interference by this Court in the appeal. 35. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Thus, the lower Court has rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and the said finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge does not warrant any interference by this Court in the appeal. 35. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.40 of 2007 on 01.02.2008 by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam against the accused is hereby confirmed.