JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. The appellant herein was tried by the Court of the I Additional Sessions Judge at Khammam in S.C. No. 319 of 2009 for the offence of causing the death of one Shyamala on 13.02.2009. Through its judgment, dated 30.12.2009, the trial Court convicted the appellant i.e. the sole accused, of the offence alleged against him and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Hence, this appeal. 2. The facts, as presented by the prosecution before the trial Court, are that; the deceased was married to one Malla Venkata Rao of Pondugala Village of Mylavaram Mandal and were blessed with two sons, Rambabu and Pullaiah. In the year 2006, the accused is said to have developed illicit intimacy with Shyamala and thereupon the husband of Shyamala i.e. Venkata Rao left her company and was staying separately, with his two sons. Shyamala was said to be living with the accused, in the same village. 3. The accused is said to have suspected the character of the Shyamala and used to quarrel with her frequently and on several occasions threatened her with dire consequences. Shyamala is said to have shared that information with her sister - PW-1 and other members of the family, and on certain occasions, the accused was advised to look after Shyamala, properly. 4. On 13.02.2009, Shyamala, the accused, PW-1 - Bingi Savithri, PW-2 Bingi Ramana and PW-3 Malla Venkata Laxmi, are said to have gone to the subabul plantation of one Sri Regalia Lacthi Reddy, to collect the dried up sticks, for being used as firewood. At about 11.00 a.m., the accused is said to have used filthy language against Shyamala and exchange of words ensued between them. At that time, the accused is said to have taken a knife from his waist and cut the neck of Shyamala and escaped from the scene. 5. PW-1, is said to have witnessed the occurrence, and submitted a complaint at 2.00 p.m. on 13.02.2009 before the Station House Officer, P.S., Vemsoor. Crime No. 9 of 2009 was registered under Section 302 IPC against the accused. The police reached the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of the persons, who witnessed the crime and prepared the scene of offence panchanama. Crime No. 9 of 2009 was registered under Section 302 IPC against the accused. The police reached the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of the persons, who witnessed the crime and prepared the scene of offence panchanama. The inquest of the dead body of the deceased was conducted in the presence of the Executive Magistrate, and Post Mortem was conducted in the Government Hospital. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed. The trial Court framed the charge and on the accused pleading not guilty, the trial was conducted. 6. The prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 11 and filed Exs. P-1 to P-8. M.Os. 1 to 4 were taken on record. No evidence was adduced by the defence. Through its judgment, dated 30.12.2009, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused. 7. Smt. Hema Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that PW-1, being the sister of the deceased, is an interested witness and the evidence of other witnesses is not trustworthy. She contends that the deceased was a stranger to the accused and just on the basis of unfounded allegations of illicit intimacy between them, the trial Court convicted the accused. She contends that wild and baseless allegations that the accused killed two of his wives earlier, were made and the trial Court was almost carried by them. Learned counsel further submits that though it may appear to be a case of there being eye witnesses, in reality, the entire evidence is nothing, but a concocted one. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the offence took place right in the presence of three persons, other than the accused and the deceased, and no where in the cross examination of P.Ws. 1 to 3, doubt was expressed about their presence at the scene of offence. She contends that if one takes into account, the suggestion made to PW-1 on behalf of the accused, it becomes clear that the accused admitted that he was living with the deceased, even though he was married to another women; and that the prosecution has proved the case presented by it, beyond pale of doubt. She submits that the trial Court has appreciated the evidence on record by applying relevant principles and that the judgment rendered by it is perfect in all respects. 9. She submits that the trial Court has appreciated the evidence on record by applying relevant principles and that the judgment rendered by it is perfect in all respects. 9. The information about the death of the deceased reached the police, with the submission of complaint - Ex. P-1. PW-1, sister of the deceased, made a brief narration of the various aspects of the life of the deceased, such as that she was married to Venkata Rao, they begot two sons and just three years before the occurrence, the accused developed illicit intimacy with the deceased. She further stated that feeling insulted and rejected by the conduct of the accused and the deceased, Venkata Rao started living separately with his sons. 10. As regards the incident that occurred on 13.02.2009, PW-1 stated that herself, the deceased, accused and P.Ws. 2 and 3 went to subabul plantation for collecting firewood and there the accused attacked the deceased and killed her on the spot. The plea of the defence is one of denying any relationship between the accused and the deceased at all. However, if one takes into account, the purport of cross examination, the plea of the defence cannot be accepted. The relevant answers of PW-1 are stated as under: It is not true to suggest that my deceased sister herself brought the accused to the Kandukuru village. It is not true to suggest that my deceased sister Shyamala eloped with the accused, the husband of my deceased sister, due to grudge killed my deceased sister Shyamala. 11. One can easily imagine the type of questions that were put, to elicit these answers. There is a hidden admission of the accused that he lived with the deceased knowing fully well that she was married to another. One may doubt as to why a man, who eloped with a woman would have any grievance to the extent of nurturing an intention to kill her. In Ex. P-1 as well as in her deposition, PW-1 stated that the accused used to suspect that the deceased was moving with others also. Apart from not contradicting that, the defence has in a way added strength to it. Here again, we can refer to a sentence from the cross examination of PW-1: It is not true to suggest that accused was looking after my deceased sister Shyamala very well. Apart from not contradicting that, the defence has in a way added strength to it. Here again, we can refer to a sentence from the cross examination of PW-1: It is not true to suggest that accused was looking after my deceased sister Shyamala very well. It is not true to suggest that my deceased sister Shyamala was moving with other strangers and having illicit intimacy with them. It is not true to suggest that I am not living amicably with my husband as such I did not mention my husband's name in the statement recorded by police. 12. This would only indicate the impression, which the accused was nurturing about the deceased and the transformation thereof into a motive, to cause harm to the deceased as and when occasion permits. 13. There may be some force in the contention of the accused that PW-1 is the sister of the deceased and there is every likelihood of her being interested in supporting the case of the prosecution. We, however, have the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, the independent witnesses, who too have accompanied the accused, deceased and PW-1 to the subabul plantation on the date of occurrence. The relevant portion of the evidence of PW-2 reads as under: About 9 months myself, PW-1, Venkata Laxmi LW-3, deceased Shyamala and accused went to Subabul garden for picking up fire wood. While we were returning wit head load of fire wood I noticed accused and deceased Shyamala quarreling thereafter accused took a knife from his waist and cut the throat of Shyamala and ran away from that place. By the time we reached deceased Shyamala and noticed she died thereafter we informed to villagers. I was examined by police and police recorded my statement. 14. The suggestion made to this witness in the cross examination is that the husband of Shyamala killed her, and the accused is having his own wife and son. Strangely enough, even while making an attempt to show that the accused is not at all acquainted with the deceased, a suggestion, similar to the one that was put to PW-1 was also repeated to PW-2. The resultant answer reads: It is not true to suggest that the deceased Shyamala herself brought the accused to Kandukur village. It is not true suggest that the deceased Shyamala and accused were living amicably. 15. The resultant answer reads: It is not true to suggest that the deceased Shyamala herself brought the accused to Kandukur village. It is not true suggest that the deceased Shyamala and accused were living amicably. 15. It is only absence of a proper thought, or lack of experience that would result in putting the questions, to extract answers of this nature. An attempt was also made to take the plea of alibi suggesting that the accused was not present in the village, on the date of incident. Once that plea was raised, the burden squarely rested upon the accused to prove it. However, not only he did not adduce any evidence in that behalf but also failed even to carry the plea further in his statement made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Failure to prove the plea of alibi by an accused, would, in a way, weaken his defence and correspondingly strengthen the case of the prosecution. 16. PW-3 is a minor child. She too is said to have accompanied P.Ws. 1 and 2, the accused and the deceased to subabul plantation for collecting firewood. The only suggestion made to her was that 13.02.2009 was a working day and that she went to the school. She denied that suggestion. The other persons examined by the prosecution are either panch witnesses or the officials of Medical or Police department. Once the eye witness account of as many as three witnesses is available, and their evidence is not shaken in any manner, the charge against the accused can certainly be treated as proved. The accused is not able to point out any other reasons to disbelieve the evidence of the witnesses or to find fault with the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court. We do not find any basis to interfere with the judgment rendered by the trial Court. 17. The Criminal Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed