Judgment : 1. The judgment and order of conviction of passed by the Fast Track Court and Addl. Sessions Judge, Hukkeri sitting at Gokak in S.C. No. 39/10, is called in question by the convicted accused no.1. The accused no.1/appellant herein is tried and convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 341 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that about one year prior to the incident in question, there was Hanamant Devara Jatra in the village Mannapur; the accused and the deceased are from the same village; the deceased was taking active part in the village activities; on the date of jatra also the deceased took active role in arranging the festival in the village; accused no.1 however on certain matters started quarrelling with Mr.Ramappa (P.W.8) and he even assaulted Ramappa with chappal; in that regard a complaint came to be lodged by Ramappa on the advise of the elders of the village against accused no.1; the deceased had accompanied Ramappa at the time of lodging the complaint; in that regard A1 was grinding axe against the deceased in as much as he was of the opinion that he was the brain behind lodging the complaint against him by Ramappa. In addition to the same the uncle and aunt of the deceased were members of Grama Panchayath one after another; during the relevant point of time the aunt of the deceased was the Gram Panchayath member, though his uncle and aunt were gram panchayath members, the deceased was helping them in all the panchayath activities in as much as the uncle and aunt of the deceased were illiterates. Since the deceased was taking active role in the village panchayath affairs also (though he was not a member of the gram panchayath), accused no.1 and his family members were against the deceased. Since the deceased was taking active role in the village panchayath affairs also (though he was not a member of the gram panchayath), accused no.1 and his family members were against the deceased. On 24.09.2009 at 10.00 A.M., the deceased Mallappa and his brother Halappa (P.W.1) went to their agricultural land on the bicycle for getting the pumpset repaired; while coming from the agricultural land P.W.1 met P.W.2 Basappa and they started talking with each other and they were coming behind the cycle which was ridden by the deceased; the deceased went a little ahead and when he came near the house of P.W.3, accused no.1 came from opposite direction with the axe in his hand and assaulted the deceased on the neck as well as on his back, consequent upon which the deceased died on the spot. It is further case of the prosecution that accused no.2 and accused no.3 were also present on the spot at the relevant point of time. Immediately thereafter accused no.1 parted the company of accused no.2 and accused no.3, and went away from the scene of offence hurriedly with the axe in his hand. P.W.1 and 2 who were coming at that time, saw accused no.1 rushing from the spot with the blood stained axe in his hand; P.W.1 and 2 after going to the spot found dead body of the deceased. Immediately thereafter complaint came to be lodged by P.W.1 at about 1.00 p.m. as per Ex.P.1 before the Sub Inspector of Police (PW17) of Kulgod Police Station who registered the crime no.153/09 based on the said complaint. P.W.18 the I.O. completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet. 3. In order to prove its case the prosecution in all examined 18 witnesses and got marked 32 exhibits and 13 material objects. The Trial Court on evaluation of the material on record rightly acquitted accused nos.2 and 3 in as much as no case was made out against them. However, the trial Court convicted the A1 for the offences punishable u/S 302 and 341 of IPC and sentenced him accordingly. 4. The Trial Court on evaluation of the material on record rightly acquitted accused nos.2 and 3 in as much as no case was made out against them. However, the trial Court convicted the A1 for the offences punishable u/S 302 and 341 of IPC and sentenced him accordingly. 4. Sri Santosh B. Malagoudar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant/ accused no.1 has taken us through the entire material on record and submitted that the version of the eyewitnesses PW3 and 4 is unbelieveble; their presence could not have been there on the spot; PW3 has turned partly hostile; the evidence of PWs1 to 4 bristles with contradictions and omissions; number of improvements are made by PWs1 to 4 while they were deposing in the Court; the appreciation of evidence made by the trial Court is improper and incorrect. According to him, accused no.1 is innocent and he could have been acquitted by the trial Court. Per contra, Sri V.M. Banakar, learned Addl. S.P.P, argued in support of the judgment of the trial Court by contending that the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 is corroborating with each other; their evidence fully corroborates the case of the prosecution, in all the material particulars. The evidence of these witnesses is supported by the evidence of the Doctor who conducted postmortem examination and gave postmortem report. He further submits that the blood stained axe-MO9, as well as MO12-banian and MO13-towel of the accused are recovered at the behest of accused no.1. Forensic Science Laboratory report clearly discloses that the blood stains found on the apparel of the accused and the axe tally with the blood stains found on the apparel of the deceased, they were containing 'AB' blood group. 5. PW1 is the brother of the deceased. He lodged complaint as per Ex.P.1 before the P.S.I. (PW17) of Kulgod Police Station. He saw accused no.1 going away from the scene of offence with blood stained axe (M.O.9). He deposed that P.W.2 was also with him while he saw the accused no.1 running away from the scene. P.W.2 is the friend of P.W.1. His evidence is also on par with the evidence of P.W.1. He has also seen accused no.1 running away from the scene with blood stained axe. P.Ws.3 and 4 are the eyewitnesses, among them, P.W.3 has supported the case of the prosecution partially. P.W.2 is the friend of P.W.1. His evidence is also on par with the evidence of P.W.1. He has also seen accused no.1 running away from the scene with blood stained axe. P.Ws.3 and 4 are the eyewitnesses, among them, P.W.3 has supported the case of the prosecution partially. P.Ws.5, 6, 7 and 8 have deposed about the aspect of motive for commission of the offence. PW8 in addition to the motive has deposed regarding inquest panchanama-Ex.P.9, panchanama of the spot-Ex.P.10, M.Os.1, 2, 7, 8, 10 and 11, cycle, chappal, plastic container, blood stained mud seized by the Police. P.W.9 conducted autopsy over the dead body and gave postmortem report as per Ex.P.12. She also gave opinion on perusing the weapon-MO9 and 13. PW10-scribe of the complaint-Ex.P.1. PW11 and 15 are the witnesses for recovery of axe, M.Os.9, 12 and 13, amongst them P.W.11 turned hostile. Seizure panchanama is at Ex.P.15. P.Ws.12 and 13 are the Head Constable and Police Constable respectively. They participated in the investigation in different levels. Amongst them P.W.13 carried FIR to the jurisdictional Court. F.I.R. is at Ex.P.24. P.W.14 is another witnesses who has deposed about the motive. As aforementioned, P.W.15 is another witness for recovery panchanama-Ex.P.15. P.W.16 is the Police Constable, P.W.17 is the Sub Inspector of Police who registered the Crime in Crime No.159/09 based on the complaint; P.W.18 is the C.P.I, who completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet. 6. The case of the prosecution mainly revolves around the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and the medical evidence. 7. Postmortem report is at Ex.P.12. The same discloses that the victim has sustained as many as 9 injuries which are all grievous in nature. All of them were on upper portion of the body and back portion of the deceased. Doctor has opined that cause of death might be due to multiple injuries, hemorrhage and shock. Looking to the injuries, we are of the opinion that the sharp edged weapon is used for the commission of the offence. Postmortem report is supported by the evidence of P.W.9 who has also deposed about the injuries sustained by the deceased as well as the cause of death. On examining the axe, the Doctor has opined that the injuries could be caused with the help of sharp edged weapon like axe-MO9. 8. Postmortem report is supported by the evidence of P.W.9 who has also deposed about the injuries sustained by the deceased as well as the cause of death. On examining the axe, the Doctor has opined that the injuries could be caused with the help of sharp edged weapon like axe-MO9. 8. P.W.1, 2 and the deceased after finishing repair work relating to the pump set in the agricultural land of P.W.1 and deceased, were talking with each other, however, the deceased went on the bicycle little ahead of P.W.1 and 2 who started following him by walk. On going to certain distance, P.W.1 and 2 saw accused no.1 coming from the opposite direction with the blood stained axe in his hands. On seeing P.W.1 and 2, accused no.1 changed his path and went away from the scene. Immediately thereafter P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the spot and saw dead body of the deceased. The trend of cross-examination clearly reveals that the defence does not seriously dispute the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 on the spot. The defence supports the aspect of motive as putforth by the prosecution as well as the presence of A1 on the spot. Nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.1 and 2 so as to discard their evidence. With regard to the circumstance, viz., regarding seeing accused no.1 going away from the scene with the blood stained axe in his hand about 10.00 a.m. 9. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is supported by the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4. Though P.W.3 has supported the case of the prosecution in part, we find that his evidence is also helpful to the case of the prosecution to a major extent, i.e., to prove the participation and the complicity of accused no.1 in the crime. P.W.3 in his examination in chief has deposed that he saw accused no.1 assaulting on the neck of the deceased at about 10.00 am on 24.09.2009. After assaulting accused no.1 went away from the scene with the axe in his hand. The deceased fell on the ground because of the injuries sustained. He further deposed that the plastic cover of the accused as well as chappals of the accused were lying on the spot. After assaulting accused no.1 went away from the scene with the axe in his hand. The deceased fell on the ground because of the injuries sustained. He further deposed that the plastic cover of the accused as well as chappals of the accused were lying on the spot. However, in the cross-examination PW3 has admitted that he was inside the house when the actual incident of assault took place but he came out of the house immediately after hearing the galata in front of the house and he found that the deceased had already fell. According to him, he has seen the accused standing on the spot with the axe in his hand. In his cross examination he has reiterated that the chappal of accused no.1 as well as his bag was lying on the spot. Thus, the evidence of P.W.3 would be helpful at least to prove that accused no.1 was the only person with axe on the spot at the time of incident in question and at that point of time he saw the dead body. It is also proved from the evidence of P.W.3 that accused no.1 was holding axe which was blood stained. His evidence is not shaken by the defence in the cross-examination. 10. Important witness in the case is P.W.4 who is not related either to the accused or to the deceased but he knows the families of the accused as well as deceased. He has deposed that at 10.00 am on 24.09.2009, when he was coming from the agricultural land, the deceased was proceeding on the bicycle, at that time accused no.1 assaulted the deceased with the help of axe while the deceased was in front of the house of Shankareppa (PW3). Immediately after assaulting the deceased, accused no.1 ran away from the scene. Himself and P.W.3 raised hue and cry after seeing the incident and at that time P.Ws.1 and 2 arrived at the scene. Thus, virtually evidence of P.W.4 fully corroborates the case of the prosecution as well as evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. The incident has taken place within fraction of a minute. Accused no.1 has not given any chance to the deceased to escape. Immediately after the incident, accused no.1 left the scene with the blood stained axe in his hand. Thus, virtually evidence of P.W.4 fully corroborates the case of the prosecution as well as evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. The incident has taken place within fraction of a minute. Accused no.1 has not given any chance to the deceased to escape. Immediately after the incident, accused no.1 left the scene with the blood stained axe in his hand. Hence, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 amply and clearly discloses that it was accused no.1 who committed murder of the deceased. 11. The ocular testimony of these witnesses is supported by the evidence of P.W.15 who has deposed about the recovery of the axe apart from other material objects. The blood stained axe is marked as M.O.9. P.W.15 has deposed that accused no.1 led the panchas including himself (P.W.15) from Mannapur village towards Dhavaleshwar; after proceeding for half a kilometer, accused no.1 requested the Police to stop the jeep and he took out one axe (M.O.9) which was hidden in the bush. He has also taken out one banian (M.O.12) and towel (M.O.13) which was also hidden under the very bush. All of them were recovered under panchanama Ex.P.15. M.O.9, 12 and 13 were sent to FSL for examination along with other seized materials at the time of drawing panchanama of the scene of offence. Banian of the deceased was also sent to FSL for examination. The FSL report is at Ex.P.32, which clearly discloses that 'AB' blood group of the deceased was found not only on the clothes of the deceased but also on the clothes of the accused no.1 as well as on M.O.9-axe. 12. Thus, it is clear that it is a full proof case. There is no scope for creating any doubt in the mind of the Court. In view of the consistent, cogent and reliable material on record and as the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the trial Court has rightly convicted accused no.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 341 of IPC. Even on re-appreciation of the entire material on record, we find that the trial Court is justified in convicting accused no.1. The reasons assigned and conclusion arrived at by the trial Court are just and proper. Hence no interference is called for. Appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.