JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant is the sole accused, who preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Yadgir in S.C.No.16/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short), wherein the trial Court has sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and also awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- to PW-2–Ashamma. 2. The brief factual matrix of the case, as could be seen from the records are that, a person by name Saibanna who is none other than the maternal uncle of the accused and the deceased, has lodged a complaint as per Ex.P-7 which divulges the factual matrix of this case. It is an undisputed fact from the complaint averments Ex.P-7 that, the accused is no other than the elder brother of deceased Basalingappa. It is also there in the said complaint that they were all residing together under a common roof at Konkal village, Yadgir taluk and district. The accused and deceased family had 6 acres of land. The deceased was often demanding his legitimate share in the said land and the accused was telling him that there are some female folk in the house and after their marriage, deceased can seek for partition. In this context, there were some differences between the brothers. In this background, it is alleged that on 03.02.2010 in the night hours at about 2.30 a.m. when the deceased was sleeping in the house, the accused who was also in the said house, with an intention to do away with the life of deceased, took an axe and came to the place where the deceased was sleeping and assaulted on his head and caused severe injuries to the head of the deceased, and thereby the deceased sustained severe injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, the accused ran away from the said spot even leaving the axe in the house. 3. On the said complaint, the Police have registered a case in Crime No.14/2010 under Section 302 of IPC. The Investigating agency, after thorough investigation, laid a charge sheet against the accused for the above said offence. Thereafter, the accused ran away from the said spot even leaving the axe in the house. 3. On the said complaint, the Police have registered a case in Crime No.14/2010 under Section 302 of IPC. The Investigating agency, after thorough investigation, laid a charge sheet against the accused for the above said offence. The learned District and Sessions Judge secured the presence of the accused, who was in custody, recorded the plea of the accused after framing a charge against him for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. As the accused pleaded not guilty, he was put on the trial. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined as many as twelve witnesses and got marked thirteen documents as Exs.P 1 to P13 and material objects as M.O.s-1 to 9. The accused did not take any specific defence. The accused was also examined by the Court under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. After thorough examination of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has established the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused as stated supra. 5. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant-accused has contended before this Court that, the witnesses who are examined before the Court particularly, the so-called eyewitnesses i.e., mother and sister of the accused are also the mother and sister of the deceased. They are related interested witnesses. Their evidence has not been scrutinized by the trial Court meticulously considering the contradictions and omissions. The trial Court has relied upon the evidence of interested witnesses and the so-called recovery at the instance of the accused which has not been properly established by the prosecution. Therefore, he submits before the Court that this Court has to look into the materials once again and has to come to the conclusion that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and hence he pleaded for acquittal of the accused. 7. Per contra, learned Addl. S.P.P. submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the so-called eyewitnesses who have no ill-will or hatred against the accused. 7. Per contra, learned Addl. S.P.P. submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the so-called eyewitnesses who have no ill-will or hatred against the accused. There is absolutely no evidence elucidated from the cross-examination of these witnesses as to why these witnesses have to be disbelieved. Coupled with the evidence of the doctor who has stated about the homicidal death of the deceased and the nature of the weapon used by the accused and the time selected by the accused particularly when the deceased was sleeping, the accused taking advantage of the same assaulted the deceased. Therefore, it is a clear cut case of an intentional murder done by the accused. There is no room for this Court to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. 8. On careful reevaluation of the evidence on record and also bearing in mind the submissions made as noted above, the point that would arise for consideration of this Court is: “Whether the appellant has made out any reasonable or specific substantial ground to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in any manner? 9. In order to answer the above said point for consideration, it is just and necessary for us to have a brief cursory appreciation of the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses. 10. PW-1 Saibanna is no other than the maternal uncle of the accused and deceased who is the brother of the mother of the accused and deceased. He categorically stated about the relationship between the parties which is not in dispute. He also stated about the existence of 6 acres of land to the family of the accused and deceased. The accused is a married man and deceased was yet to be married. There was some dispute between the brothers with regard to the said 6 acres of land. In this context, it is stated by him that on the date of the incident at about 2.30 a.m. he heard screaming voice from the house of Ashamma his sister. He went there and he saw the dead body of deceased Basalingappa who died due to the cut injuries to his head. In this context, it is stated by him that on the date of the incident at about 2.30 a.m. he heard screaming voice from the house of Ashamma his sister. He went there and he saw the dead body of deceased Basalingappa who died due to the cut injuries to his head. On enquiry, he came to know through his sister Ashamma and sister of the accused Basalingamma and CW-8 Sharanamma who have stated that on that particular night the accused has assaulted the deceased with an axe and due to the injuries sustained, the deceased died. On hearing such information, he lodged the complaint before the Police as per Ex.P7. 11. In the cross-examination, though some factual aspects are elicited, that is, the presence of some other 10 to 15 persons at that particular point of time and a suggestion that he did not lodge any complaint at all and also suggesting that the deceased Basalingappa was a womanizer and he had some illicit intimacy with some ladies because of that reason some people in the village were having grinding axe against the said man, all these suggestions were denied by PW-1. But no specific material has been produced to establish these suggestions before the Court and there is no reason as to why this witness who is the very close relative of both deceased and the accused has to give a false evidence before the Court. Though he is not an eyewitness, he is a circumstantial witness who received the information from the eyewitnesses soon after the death of the deceased. His evidence is admissible as res-gestae. 12. PW-2 Ashamma and PW-3 Basalingamma and PW-4 Sharanamma are actually the eyewitnesses to the incident. PW2, PW-3 and PW-4 are the mother, sister and neighbor of the accused and the deceased. PW-2 and PW-3 actually have no grievance against the accused or the deceased. They have categorically deposed that, there was quarrel between the brothers (accused and the deceased) with regard to the land of 6 acres to their family. The deceased was often demanding for his share and in this regard they were quarreling with each other. This is the motive projected by the prosecution which has not been virtually denied in the cross-examination. The deceased was often demanding for his share and in this regard they were quarreling with each other. This is the motive projected by the prosecution which has not been virtually denied in the cross-examination. Speaking to the incident, both of them categorically stated that, in the early hours at about 1.00 a.m. these two witnesses heard some voice, they woke up and saw the accused assaulting the deceased with an axe. Immediately at that time Sharanamma also came to the spot she also saw the accused assaulting the deceased. Though there is some discrepancy in the evidence of these two witnesses with reference to the time factor and as well as PW-3 seeing the accused little earlier to the incident, wherein she stated that she saw the accused woke up at that particular point of time and tying the sheep and thereafter came to the spot with an axe and assaulting the deceased. Except this minor discrepancy, so far as the core of prosecution case is concerned, has been fully supported by these two witnesses. It is also stated by these witnesses that after seeing that incident they started weeping and after hearing their weeping, the other witnesses including PW-1 came to the spot. Therefore, these two witnesses not only spoke about the actual incident being taken place, but also corroborated the evidence of PW-1 who came to the spot little later and saw the dead body of the deceased. These two witnesses have also stated the source of light i.e. the lantern, which was burning in the house and with that light they saw the incident. They also identified the clothes of the deceased and also the clothes of the accused i.e. a lungi and a baniyan and as well the axe which was used by the accused for the purpose of committing the offence which are marked before the trial Court as per M.O.s1 to 9. In the cross-examination of these two witnesses, some suggestions have been made. Of-course it is elicited that Sharanamma came little later and they specifically stated that, except these two witnesses no other witnesses have witnessed the incident. Though it creates some doubt with regard to Sharanamma actually witnessing the incident, of-course she was not in the house at that particular point of time, on hearing screaming voice of PW-2 and PW-3 she came to the house. Though it creates some doubt with regard to Sharanamma actually witnessing the incident, of-course she was not in the house at that particular point of time, on hearing screaming voice of PW-2 and PW-3 she came to the house. Nevertheless her evidence cannot be rejected because she has categorically stated that she came to the house immediately after hearing the voice of PW-2 and PW-3 and she saw the dead body of the deceased and also the accused going away from the said place. Though she cannot be turned as an eyewitness, but she has fully corroborated the evidence of PW-2 and PW3. But PW-4 has categorically reiterated in her examination-in-chief and cross-examination that she actually saw the incident. She also stated that she saw the accused running away from the house. It is suggested to this witness that, on that particular day the accused was not at all there and he had been to his wife’s house. If that being so, the question arises as to why the mother and sister deposing before the Court about the presence of the accused and the deceased in the house on that day. In order to explain this particular aspect, the accused neither in the course of 313 statement nor by leading evidence of his wife established this particular aspect. Therefore, it remains as a mere suggestion without there being any proof. Looking to the above said evidence of these witnesses the prosecution has not only proved the homicidal death of the deceased but has established that the accused is the purporter of the crime. 13. The remaining witnesses are not so relevant. Therefore we will have a cursory look on the evidence of these witnesses with reference to other circumstances and as well as the recovery of the incriminating articles at the instance of the accused. PW5 Buggappa is the person who came to the house of accused on that day immediately after the incident. He saw the accused running away throwing the weapon on the spot itself. This witness also corroborated the evidence of other witnesses who have also stated that the accused after commission of the offence throwing the axe on the spot and running away. In the course of cross-examination, nothing has been elicited except making a suggestion that, the accused did not run away by throwing the axe on the spot. This witness also corroborated the evidence of other witnesses who have also stated that the accused after commission of the offence throwing the axe on the spot and running away. In the course of cross-examination, nothing has been elicited except making a suggestion that, the accused did not run away by throwing the axe on the spot. It is suggested to this witness and accepted by this man that, accused and deceased were quarreling with each other, he saw the quarrel for about three to four times and he actually resolved the quarrel between the accused and the deceased on some occasion. In the course of cross-examination, by way of such suggestions, it is fortified with regard to the existence of motive behind the act of the accused. 14. PW-6 Hanamant is the person who is the attestor to Ex.P1. He turned hostile to the prosecution case. In Ex.P1 the Police said to have recovered one baniyan and one lungi at the instance of the accused. PW7 Hussenappa is also another witness to Ex.P1 who also turned hostile to the prosecution. PW-8 Bakkappa is the Junior Engineer who drew up the spot sketch as per Ex.P-2. There is no dispute with regard to existence of the house, place of the incident, by the accused during the course of cross-examination. Therefore, the evidence of this witness becomes insignificant. 15. PW9 Sabanna is the panch witness to the inquest proceedings marked at Ex.P-4. He is also a witness to spot panchanama Ex.P5 and also the seizure of clothes of the deceased under Ex.P6 panchanama. He identified all the material objects before the Court. During the course of cross-examination it is only suggested that no such panchanamas have been drawn but, he reiterated that, he was very much present when those panchanamas have been drawn by the Police at the spot and also inquest proceedings on the dead body. This clarifies the situation with regard to the sustaining of the serious injuries on the head by the deceased and also seizure of the clothes of the deceased which are relevant for the purpose of considering the recovery from the accused. 16. PW-10 Jagannath is the P.S.I. who actually after receiving the complaint from PW-1 as per Ex.P-7 registered a case in Crime No.14/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and dispatching F.I.R. as per Ex.P-8 to the jurisdictional Court. 16. PW-10 Jagannath is the P.S.I. who actually after receiving the complaint from PW-1 as per Ex.P-7 registered a case in Crime No.14/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and dispatching F.I.R. as per Ex.P-8 to the jurisdictional Court. He was also deputed to apprehend the accused. On 04.02.2010, he apprehended the accused and produced him before the Court. There is no much cross-examination so far as this witness is concerned with regard to arrest of the accused, except suggesting that he has falsely registered a case against the accused. 17. PW-11 is Dr. Md. Yunus Saleem who has conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. He has categorically stated about the injuries on the dead body of the deceased. There were as many as three injuries which were close to each other on the head and as well as middle line of nape of neck on the left side, which are deep cut injuries. According to the doctor there was a fracture of occipital bone and fracture of right parietal bone and there was rupture of membranes around the brain, etc. which discloses the nature of deep injuries sustained by the deceased and as well the force used by the accused to cause those injuries. The doctor was of the opinion that the death was due to head injury by a sharp heavy weapon and the death was since 12 to 18 hours prior to postmortem examination. Again in the course of cross-examination it is suggested that injury No.1 cannot be caused with one blow. But the said suggestion has been denied. It is further suggested that other injuries could only be caused with several blows and not with a single blow. But the doctor has denied the said suggestion also. But as could be seen from the injuries sustained by the deceased there are as many as three injuries very close to each other. They are very deep cut injuries. There is denial of the suggestions in the course of cross-examination that, there was no death of deceased in the house of the accused and the death was not due to sustaining any injuries. 18. On the above evidence it is crystal clear that, the accused was inside the house on that night he was very much present according to all the witnesses. 18. On the above evidence it is crystal clear that, the accused was inside the house on that night he was very much present according to all the witnesses. He also should have known as to how the deceased died. There is no suggestion as to the alternative nature of death of the deceased, to any of the witnesses. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the doctor in order to come to the definite conclusion that the deceased died a homicidal death due to the injuries sustained by him and we are also of the opinion that the cause of those injuries is nothing but due to the act of the accused with the help of an axe. 19. PW-12 Ramanna is the CPI who conducted the investigation and laid the charge sheet. The evidence of this witness plays a dominant role so far as the recovery of the incriminating articles at the instance of the accused is concerned. It is categorically stated by him that at about 10.30 a.m. the next day of the incident the accused was produced before him and he examined him and recorded his statement. Thereafter he recovered the blood stained clothes which were of the accused at that particular point of time in presence of the panch witness. However, as we have already referred to the panch witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution. So far as the recovery of the blood stained clothes of the accused is concerned, there is no much cross-examination so far as this aspect is concerned as to why this public servant has to depose falsehood against the accused. Further added to that, it is not the evidence of the Investigating Officer alone which is sufficient to come to such conclusion as we have already narrated the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 who have categorically identified the blood stained clothes of the accused worn by him on that particular day which were the clothes actually recovered by the Investigating Officer. There is no explanation by the accused or denial that the said clothes do not belong to him. 20. In this background, when the public servant discharging his duty and conducts mahazar and recover certain articles and there is semblance of corroboration to the said act of the public servant, there is no reason to disbelieve such public servant’s version. There is no explanation by the accused or denial that the said clothes do not belong to him. 20. In this background, when the public servant discharging his duty and conducts mahazar and recover certain articles and there is semblance of corroboration to the said act of the public servant, there is no reason to disbelieve such public servant’s version. Therefore, so far as this case is concerned, we accept the evidence of the Investigating Officer so far as the recovery of the blood stained clothes of the accused. 21. As could be seen from the Investigating Officer’s report after recovery of the blood stained articles and also seizure of all the other incriminating articles like axe, lantern, towel, dhoti, jerkin baniyan underwear, lungi and baniyan of the deceased marked as M.O.s.1 to 9, all these articles were sent to FSL. The FSL report is marked as Ex.P11. The FSL report discloses that these articles particularly the blood stained clothes of the deceased and axe and as well as blood stained clothes of the accused contain human blood particularly ‘A’ group blood. The above said report clearly indicates that the blood stain found on the clothes of the accused matches with the group of blood of the deceased. This has also went unexplained by the accused as to how he could have the blood stains of the deceased on his clothes. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has, beyond all reasonable doubt, established this recovery and as well as connectivity with the incriminating articles with that of the crime committed by the accused. 22. Looking to the above said evidence, even after reevaluation of the same, we do not find any strong reason to differ from the opinion expressed by the learned Sessions Judge with regard to the involvement of the accused in the crime. We do not find any reason to deviate from the said finding. 23. In the above said facts and circumstances, we answer the point formed by us in the negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is hereby dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in S.C.No.16/2010 dated 24.01.2011 is hereby confirmed.