JUDGMENT : K. Somshekhar, J. This appeal is by the convicted accused against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Belgaum in S.C. No. 282/2010 dated 09.01.2012. 2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution is as under: That PW.1-Manjula Nagappa Kallur is the complainant. Ex.P1 is the complaint. In Ex.P1, it is stated, that her marriage was performed with the accused about seven years prior to the incident. For about one year, both PW.1 and the accused were residing in Kargund village and later they shifted to Turamari village. PW.1 already had two daughters aged five years and two years and she delivered a female child for the third time also. When she delivered a female child for the second time, the accused used to harass her stating that she is delivering only a female child. About 20 days prior to the date of incident she had delivered a girl baby. To look after her post delivery, PW. 1's mother-Tayawwa had come to the house of the accused. On 14.05.2010 at about 10.00 p.m., while the deceased Tayawwa being the mother-in-law of the accused, PW.1-wife of the accused, PW.2-brother of the complainant and the accused were in the house, PW1 called the accused for taking the meals. He got angry and refused to take meals. Then, PW1's mother and his brother also called the accused. He did not listen to their words also and went to sleep. PW.1, her mother and brother had their food and thereafter, PW2-brother of the complainant slept out of the house and PW. 1 and the deceased Tayawwa slept inside the house. On the same day, at around 2.00 a.m., (intervening night of 15.05.2010), the accused felt hungry, got up and asked for food. When PW. 1 was little late to get up, the accused started abusing PW 1 and his mother-in-law in a filthy language and stating that he would kill them and took an iron blow pipe which was lying in the house and started assaulting PW1 and his mother-in-law-Tayawwa indiscriminately on the head, hands etc. On account of the injuries sustained, Tayawwa fell on the ground and PW1 started screaming. At that time, PWs.2 to 6 (brother and neighbours) rushed into the house of the accused. The accused ran away from the house. On account of the injuries sustained, Tayawwa fell on the ground and PW1 started screaming. At that time, PWs.2 to 6 (brother and neighbours) rushed into the house of the accused. The accused ran away from the house. PW1 was initially shifted to hospital at Kittur and thereafter she was shifted to District Hospital, Belgaum. 3. On the basis of the complaint-Ex.P1, a case came to be registered on 15.05.2010 against the accused in Crime No. 144/2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 302, 504 and 506 of IPC. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer has investigated the case and laid the charge-sheet before the Committal Court. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty. 4. In order to prove the guilt against the accused, the prosecution in all examined 21 witnesses and got marked 39 exhibits and 9 material objects. The trial Court, on evaluation of the material on record and after hearing, convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 504 and 506 of IPC. 5. On behalf of the defence, no evidence has been adduced. 6. The learned Sessions Judge, on appreciation of the evidence on record has held that the appellant/accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 504, 506 of IPC and he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. He is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for commission of offence punishable under Section 307, IPC. He is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for commission of offence punishable under Section 504, IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for commission of offence under Section 506, IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two years and one year, respectively and all the sentences shall run concurrently. 7. Aggrieved by that, the appellant/accused has preferred this appeal. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment and conviction and sentence cannot be sustained in law, which could be viewed from any angle. He also submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has failed to consider the evidence on record in proper perspective. 7. Aggrieved by that, the appellant/accused has preferred this appeal. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned judgment and conviction and sentence cannot be sustained in law, which could be viewed from any angle. He also submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has failed to consider the evidence on record in proper perspective. He has further submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the marriage took between the accused and PW 1. Subsequent to his marriage with PW 1 they have got three female children. Since PW 1 delivered female baby for the third time the accused was angry against PW1, that is the motive for commission of an offence, but, there are many contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 8 and 20 and the same is required to be appreciated in this appeal. 9. PW1-Manjula, wife of the accused has specifically admitted in her evidence that she was in an unconscious condition when she was taken to Kittur Hospital and she regained conscious about five days later. She was enquired by the police and had obtained her left hand thumb impression (LTM) on the complaint-Ex.P1 made by her. Based on her complaint, a crime was registered and then proceeded for investigation. Ex.P1 is the concocted statement of the complainant-PW1. It is not the statement of PWI in true version. Therefore, the evidence of PW 1 runs contrary to the evidence of PW 12-Dr. Ashok. According to him, PW 1 was conscious when she was brought to Kittur Hospital. He has specifically stated that in case if an injured is conscious and capable of giving statement, the doctors will not be consulted by the police before recording the statement of the injured as per Ex.P1. The injuries found in the medico-legal case Register produced before the Court are manipulated. There are inconsistencies in the testimonies of PWs. 1 to 6. Therefore, their evidence would render their versions incredible for the prosecution. The incredible versions, which were found in the evidence of the prosecution, required to be extended to the accused as benefit of doubt. This incredible evidence found in the evidence of PWs. 1 to 6 which were examined by the prosecution has not been appreciated in a proper perspective by the learned Sessions Judge despite of it held conviction against the accused for the charges levelled against him. This incredible evidence found in the evidence of PWs. 1 to 6 which were examined by the prosecution has not been appreciated in a proper perspective by the learned Sessions Judge despite of it held conviction against the accused for the charges levelled against him. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence cannot be sustained in law and it requires to be called for interference by considering the evidence on record. 10. On controvertible to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has contended that the trial Court on proper consideration of the material evidence on record has rightly convicted the appellant/accused and therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence does not call for interference. The prosecution has examined PWs.1, 2, 8 and 20 as they are the prime witness for the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused. After analysing the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 8 and 20, the learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and held conviction against the accused for the charges levelled against him. 11. Heard learned counsels and examined the material evidence on record. 12. PW9 being the doctor has stated in his evidence that on 15.5.2010 at 3.20 p.m., one Kallappa CPC 904 of Kittur Police Station had brought the dead body of one Tayawwa Sadeppa Pujari from the place of occurrence for conducting post mortem examination. During the course of post mortem examination, the doctor has noticed the following injuries: i. Linear cut injury over the occipital area measuring 6 cm x 2 cm with fracture of the underlying bond. ii. Blunt trauma over the chest. iii. Blunt trauma over the abdomen. iv. Blunt trauma over the back. v. Fracture over the occipital area. vi. Hemorrhage inside the skull cavity. He has further stated in his report that on opening of the skull, he had found fracture over the occipital area of the skull (corresponding to external injury No.1) and that the membranes were congested and the brain and spinal chord were congested. He had also noticed fracture of ribs (corresponding to injury No.2). He had also found partially digested food particles in the small and large intestine; the liver and spleen were intact. He had also noticed fracture of ribs (corresponding to injury No.2). He had also found partially digested food particles in the small and large intestine; the liver and spleen were intact. He has opined that the death occurred due to hemorrhagic shock secondary to injury to occipital area. Accordingly, he issued PM report as per Ex.P9. He has further stated that injury No. 1 referred to above was sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. He had examined the iron blow-pipe and found blood stains and gave his opinion as per Ex.P 10 that the injuries found on the deceased could be caused with the said iron blow-pipe, which is marked as MO1. Ex.P11 is the inquest panchanama. Ex.P12 is the scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P13 is the seizure panchanama, which was conducted by PW20-I.O. and during the course of investigation Ex.P12-spot panchanama was drawn by him and seized sample of unblood stained and mud blood stained mud, blood stained blanket, broken bangle pieces and iron blow-pipe, which were all lying at the scene of crime marked as MOs.1, 6 to 9. 13. PW15 being the Head Constable delivered the FIR Ex.P24 along with the report of Ex.Pl-complaint and the same was submitted to the Committal Court, Bailhongal and subsequently gave a report as per Ex.P25 to the SHO. His evidence would disclose that there is no delay in reporting of the incident to the police and recorded the FIR. 14. PW16 being the police constable of Kittur Police Station in his evidence has stated that the I.O. handed over sealed packets pertaining to the case on 08.07.2010 to him and carried the same to the RFSL, Belgaum, for chemical analysis. 15. PW17 being the PSI of Kittur Police Station in his evidence he has stated that at about 6.45 a.m. on 15.5.2010 he received a telephone call from the District Hospital, Belgaum. regarding receipt of medico-legal intimation and also admission of PW 1 at the hospital. Accordingly, he went to the hospital and recorded the statement of PW 1 between 8.20 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. on that day itself as per Ex.P1. PW1 has scribed her LTM mark on the complaint after read over the contents of Ex.P1-statement of complainant. 16. regarding receipt of medico-legal intimation and also admission of PW 1 at the hospital. Accordingly, he went to the hospital and recorded the statement of PW 1 between 8.20 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. on that day itself as per Ex.P1. PW1 has scribed her LTM mark on the complaint after read over the contents of Ex.P1-statement of complainant. 16. Though PW1 has been subjected to cross-examination, nothing worthwhile has been elicited to disbelieve the averments made in her complaint at Ex.P1 as putforth by the prosecution that the accused assaulted PW1 and also assaulted the deceased Tayawwa with the means of iron blow-pipe-MO1. 17. PW 12 being a medical officer had given treatment to PW1-Manjula. He has stated in his evidence that injured-PW1 was brought to the Community Health Centre, Kittur at 4.50 a.m. by one Basappa with a history of assault by iron rod caused at 2.00 a.m. on 15.5.2010. On examination of PW1-Manjula, he noticed the following injuries: 1. cm. x cm. lacerated wound over the left forearm lower end, blood clot present. 2. 9 cm. x 8 cm. contusion over the left side of the face. 3. 7 cm. x 6 cm. contusion over the left hand palm. 4. cm. x cm. lacerated wound over the left forearm, blood clot present. 5. 5 cm. x 10 cm. contusion over the left forearm. 6. 6 cm. x cm. lacerated wound over the right parietal region, blood clot present. 7. 3 cm. x cm. oblique lacerated wound over the scalp middle part of the parietal region, blood clot present. He has also stated in his evidence that he has issued the wound certificate of PW 1 as per Ex.P 14. He has opined that PW 1 has sustained seven injuries. Out of 7 injuries, injury No. 3 is grievous in nature and other injuries are simple in nature. He has specifically stated in his evidence that the injuries noted at Ex.P14 could be caused with MO 1-iron blow-pipe. 18. Having gone through the evidence of prosecution, it is clear that except PW1 had given birth to a female baby for the third time, there was no provocation by her. On the night of the incident, when PW1-Manjula being wife asked the accused to take meals, the accused got angry and refused to take food. 18. Having gone through the evidence of prosecution, it is clear that except PW1 had given birth to a female baby for the third time, there was no provocation by her. On the night of the incident, when PW1-Manjula being wife asked the accused to take meals, the accused got angry and refused to take food. Even on an earlier occasion when she delivered the second female baby, he had quarrelled with PW 1 for the reason that she had given birth to three female babies. During the intervening night of 14/15.5.2010, after PW1-Manjula, her mother-Tayawwa and brother-Mahantesh took food, PW 1 and her mother slept inside the house, the accused, who was also sleeping inside the house, got up around midnight and started abusing both PW 1 and her mother-Tayawwa. The accused also threatened PW1 saying that he would finish her and took a iron blow pipe which was lying in the house and started assaulting both PW1-Manjula and her mother-Tayawwa indiscriminately. The evidence of PW 1 would indicate that the accused abused both PW 1 and her mother-Tayawwa and also intimidated them. This evidence is borne out by the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused. 19. The learned Sessions Judge, keeping in view that the prosecution has examined PWs. 1 to 21, got marked Exs.P1 to 39 and MO.1-iron blow-pipe used by the accused in committing the murder of the deceased-Tayawwa who is none other than his mother-in-law and inflicted multiple injuries on PW1-Manjula being his wife, as indicated at Ex.P14-wound certificate, as where the accused attempted to kill her, has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused by placing cogent, corroborative, positive and acceptable evidence to probablize that the accused has caused the death of his mother-in-law and also caused injuries to his wife-PW 1 and convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 504 and 506 of the IPC. 20. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no perversity found in the impugned judgment and no justifiable grounds to be urged by the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal to call for interference of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence held against the accused for the charges levelled against him. 21. 20. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no perversity found in the impugned judgment and no justifiable grounds to be urged by the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal to call for interference of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence held against the accused for the charges levelled against him. 21. For the aforesaid reasons and findings, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal filed by the appellant/accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Belgaum in S.C. No. 282/2010 dated 9.1.2012 is hereby confirmed.