JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy, J. The appellant herein was tried as the sole accused by the Court of VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Warangal at Mahabubabad, in S.C.No.104 of 2009, on the allegation that he killed his wife, Sunkari Upendra, at 9.30 a.m. on 16.08.2008, by hacking with an axe. The trial Court delivered its judgment on 28.10.2009, convicting the accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. Fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months, was also imposed. This appeal is filed by the accused. Smt. C. Vasundhara Reddy, learned counsel for the accused, submits that though there is no reference to the existence of eyewitnesses in Ex.P.1-the complaint submitted by the brother of the deceased, P.W.1, the trial Court accepted the eyewitness account of P.Ws.3, 4 and 5. She contends that P.W.3 is a person from a different village, so much so, he admitted that he cannot identity the other persons, who were said to be present at the time of the incident, and P.Ws.4 and 5 were not consistent about what is alleged to have happened in their presence. Learned counsel further submits that the case was foisted against the accused by the brothers of the deceased, P.Ws.1 and 2, and the record discloses that those two persons have criminal background. Alternatively, learned counsel submits that the death may have taken place, during the course of quarrel, and since the accused did not nurture any intention to kill his wife, the incident can be treated as the one, falling under Section 304 Part I or II IPC. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that this is a rare case in which the occurrence was witnessed by as many as three independent persons, and the evidence of the eyewitnesses is consistent and uniform. She submits that the accused was having serious differences with his wife, the deceased, and the death caused by him cannot be said to be out of sudden provocation or an unintended act. She further submits that the trial Court has analysed the evidence on correct lines and arrived at a correct conclusion. The incident is said to have taken place at 9.30 a.m. on 16.08.2008. She further submits that the trial Court has analysed the evidence on correct lines and arrived at a correct conclusion. The incident is said to have taken place at 9.30 a.m. on 16.08.2008. The marriage between the deceased and the accused took place about 25 years prior to the date of the incident, and they were blessed with two daughters and one son. Both the daughters are said to have been married. Incidentally, the brothers of the deceased are from the same village i.e., Maripeda, and they were eking out their livelihood, by working as agricultural labourers. The information about the death of the deceased reached the police, with the submission of the complaint by P.W.1, the brother of the deceased, at 11.00 a.m. on 16.08.2008. In Ex.P.1, P.W.1 furnished a detailed account of the differences that existed between the deceased and the accused, and he ultimately, stated that the accused hacked the deceased to death, with an axe. Since the police station is in the same village, the police reached immediately and necessary steps, such as, preparation of scene of offence panchanama, causing of inquest and post-mortem were undertaken. On the same day, the statements of three persons i.e., P.Ws.3, 4 and 5, were recorded. The accused is also said to have confessed before the police. Other steps in the investigation are taken, and ultimately, charge sheet was filed. The trial Court framed the charge, and to prove it, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 21 and filed Exs.P.1 to P.12. M.Os. 1 to 7 were also taken on record. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the brothers of the deceased. Since they are not the eyewitnesses to the occurrence, their evidence is not of much helpful to the case of the prosecution. P.W.3 is a resident of Upparapally village. His daughter resides in Meripeda village. He is said to have come to Meripeda village to see his daughter in the morning of 16.08.2008. The house of his daughter is in the neighbourhood of the house of the accused and the deceased. He stated that at about 9.00 a.m., he was getting ready to return to his village, and in the meanwhile, the deceased came and spoke to him. The daughter of P.W.3 is said to have brought meals to him, and the deceased also has gone inside for preparation of meals. He stated that at about 9.00 a.m., he was getting ready to return to his village, and in the meanwhile, the deceased came and spoke to him. The daughter of P.W.3 is said to have brought meals to him, and the deceased also has gone inside for preparation of meals. He stated that the accused quarreled with the deceased and gave a blow with an axe on the neck of the deceased and ran away. He spoke to the presence of some persons, who are not known to him. The cross-examination of this witness was not that extensive. The suggestions made to him are about the existence of disputes between the deceased and the accused. Other suggestions are not serious in nature, and they do not have the effect of diluting his credibility. P.W.4 is a resident of the same village and she too was an agricultural labourer. On 16.08.2008 at about 9.00 a.m., she is said to have been passing through the house of the deceased along with P.W.5 and was waiting for the deceased to join them for paddy transplantation work. Herself and P.W.5 were said to have noticed the quarrelling between the deceased and the accused, and the deceased coming out with a plate of rice in her hand. The accused is said to have beat the deceased on her neck with an axe. This witness and others are said to have raised cries, and thereafter, people gathered. She also stated that after some time, the brothers of the deceased came and took the dead body of the deceased to hospital, and that her statement was recorded by the Magistrate at Mahabubabad. In the cross-examination, it was suggested to her that the brothers of the deceased have some criminal background. It was also suggested to her that herself and P.W.5 were not present at the time of the incident, and that they did not witness the occurrence. The chief and cross examinations of P.W.5 are on the same lines. Nothing was elicited from these witnesses to doubt the truthfulness of the statements made by them. Their evidence completely accorded with the statements recorded from them, under Section 164 Cr. P.C. P.W.6 is said to be a resident of the same village and his house is situated at 100 yards away from the house of the deceased. Nothing was elicited from these witnesses to doubt the truthfulness of the statements made by them. Their evidence completely accorded with the statements recorded from them, under Section 164 Cr. P.C. P.W.6 is said to be a resident of the same village and his house is situated at 100 yards away from the house of the deceased. Obviously because he deviated from the statement recorded from him, the trial Court declared him as hostile, at the instance of the prosecution. Same is the case with P.W.7. P.W.8 stated that on the date of the incident, he saw the accused going away across the fields. P.Ws.9 and 10, who too were examined by the police on the earlier occasion, were declared hostile. The son of the accused and the deceased, a juvenile witness, was examined as P.W.11. He stated that on the day of incident, it was Rakhi Pournami, he was waiting for his sisters on a bazaar, but he came to know that his father killed his mother. In the chief-examination, he made a reference to the quarrel that took place between his mother and father, and the factum of his mother going to the house of her brothers and her coming back to her house with the intervention of his sisters and brothers-in-law. In the cross-examination, he stated that he saw his mother in a pool of blood, and he denied the suggestion that he went to the school on that day. P.W.12 is one of the daughters of the accused and the deceased. She referred to an incident, where the accused beat her mother on head with a stick, and P.W.2, her maternal uncle, took her mother to his house. The deceased is said to have come back to her house, on being implored by P.W.12 and her husband. In the cross-examination, she stated that the accused used to beat her, her sister and brother, whenever they tried to rescue their mother. When a question was put about the death of her maternal aunt, Laxmi, P.W.12 stated that said Laxmi was killed by her husband, and that she heard that the husband of Laxmi, by name, Narsaiah, was killed by P.Ws.1 and 2. A thoroughly hopeless suggestion was made to her to the effect that the deceased was killed by Narsaiah, husband of Laxmi, and she rightly denied the same. A thoroughly hopeless suggestion was made to her to the effect that the deceased was killed by Narsaiah, husband of Laxmi, and she rightly denied the same. Other witnesses were examined in the context of completion of statutory formalities. P.W.21 summed up the entire investigation conducted by him, and no lapses whatever were pointed out nor any contradictions were elicited from this witness in the cross-examination. Normally, the quarrels between the spouses are not noticed by any eyewitnesses, and for the most part of it, such quarrels take place between the two, almost in seclusion. In the present case, the incident took place in the morning at 9.30 a.m. that was the time, during which, paddy transplantation was taking place in the agricultural fields. The deceased, being one of the agricultural labourers, P.Ws.4 and 5 were said to have come to her house to take her along with them. The houses of those two witnesses are, no doubt, at a distance, but their presence at the house of the accused and the deceased cannot at all be doubted. Both of them, in one voice, stated as to what occurred before them. No enmity or any ulterior motive was suggested to them to discredit their version. P.W.3 is from a different village, but his presence at the scene of occurrence was, on account of the fact that he came to the house of his daughter, which is situated in front of the house of the accused and the deceased. Even to him, no suggestions to discredit his version in the cross-examination were made. It has already been pointed out that P.W.8 has seen the accused running away, soon after the incident. Two children of the deceased and the accused, namely, P.Ws.11 and 12, deposed before the Court. Being tender in age, P.W.11 simply stated that there used to be quarrels between his mother and father, and he found his mother in a pool of blood, on a particular day. P.W.12 is a grown -up woman and she gave a detailed account of the relationship that used to exist between her parents. At one point of time, the accused is said to have beat the deceased on head, and on that, P.Ws.1 and 2 have taken her to their house. P.W.12 is a grown -up woman and she gave a detailed account of the relationship that used to exist between her parents. At one point of time, the accused is said to have beat the deceased on head, and on that, P.Ws.1 and 2 have taken her to their house. It is with the intervention of P.W.12 and her husband, that the deceased is said to have been brought back to her house. One incriminating circumstance stated by P.W.12 is that whenever herself, her sister, and her brother intervened in the quarrel between their father and mother, their father i.e., the accused, used to beat them also. The evidence of P.W.12 totally accords with the confessional statement recorded from the accused. The accused made a reference to the alleged illicit intimacy of the deceased with some other persons. It only shows that he had a clear intention to put an end to the life of his wife, and enraged with that, he killed her by hacking with an axe. We have gone through the entire evidence on record and examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused meticulously. However, we do not find any basis to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial Court about the act of murder committed by the accused. Not only the occurrence was seen by the eyewitnesses, but also there existed a clear motive for the accused to kill his wife, the deceased. We, therefore, dismiss the Criminal Appeal.