JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred by the accused assailing the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Fast Track Court – II at Mysore on 12.04.2012 in S.C.No.64/2011 whereunder appellant who came to be tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, has been convicted for the said offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- with default sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of six months for failure to pay fine and benefit of set off for the period undergone in custody. 2. The gist of the prosecution case can be crystallized as under : Accused was married to deceased - Smt. Rasheeda Banu and prior to same she was married to one Akbar Pasha, who was a resident of Hunsur and in the said wedlock they had four children. Accused and first husband of deceased were working together as driver and loader respectively and as such they had acquaintance. Accused came to know deceased in the course of a chit business, which she was conducting. On account of said acquaintance intimacy was said to have developed between them and after divorcing her first husband by Talaqnama on 16.02.2009, she married appellant/accused and they were initially living together at Ramanagara and then at Mysore in a rented house. Accused was said to have taken gold articles and cash of the deceased and having spent the same, was not taking care of her. It was further alleged by the prosecution that deceased had given a complaint to Mahila Sahayavani, Mysore Police Helpline on 14.10.2010, on the basis of which said authorities made attempts to serve notice on the accused but in vain. 3. On 18.11.2010 at 12 noon, accused was said to have taken the deceased to Shalimar Lodge situated within the limits of Mandi Police Station, Mysore and having taken a room on rent, accused was said to have gone out at about 2.00 p.m. to procure lunch and while returning, he had brought a weapon – macchu and after finishing lunch with the deceased he had picked up a quarrel with her relating to family matter and had assaulted the deceased with the said weapon-macchu on vital parts of her body and on account of severe injuries sustained, she succumbed to them. 4. 4. The son of the owner of lodge, who was present at that time, having heard the loud voice of screaming coming from room No.17, was said to have informed his father who was in the ground floor and together they rushed and tapped on the door of said room and on persistent tapping on the door by them, accused was said to have opened the door and they saw accused holding macchu in his hand and the deceased lying on the floor in a pool of blood in room No.17. It was also alleged by the prosecution that father and son took the accused to the ground floor and informed the jurisdictional police and father (P.W.1) lodged a complaint about the incident with the Mandi Police. Police was said to have conducted mahazar after registering the complaint and had also seized the weapon apart from seizing the clothes of deceased and accused. The articles along with the sample of blood at the spot were forwarded to the Forensic Laboratory and dead body of deceased was sent for post mortem. The doctor who conducted the post mortem opined that deceased had died on account of sustaining severe multiple injuries caused to the vital parts of the body. Doctor also opined that the deceased might have sustained the injuries noticed by him due to assault with a weapon like macchu. After conducting further investigation and recording the statements of witnesses, police submitted charge sheet to the jurisdictional Magistrate against accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 5. The jurisdictional Magistrate registered the charge sheet in CC No.169/2011 and after complying with the provisions of Cr.P.C. committed the case to the jurisdictional Sessions Court for being tried and learned Sessions Judge after hearing the accused, framed the charge for the offences punishable under Sections 302 of IPC. On accused pleading not guilty, trial came to be held and to establish the guilt of the accused prosecution, in all examined 22 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.22, out of 27 witnesses cited in the charge sheet and in all 38 documents were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-38 and material objects were marked as M.O.1 to M.O.16. On accused pleading not guilty, trial came to be held and to establish the guilt of the accused prosecution, in all examined 22 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.22, out of 27 witnesses cited in the charge sheet and in all 38 documents were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-38 and material objects were marked as M.O.1 to M.O.16. On closure of prosecution side, statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. came to be recorded and accused denied the case of prosecution and had submitted that, on the day of alleged incident, he had been to Mission Hospital to see his father’s sister and in order to have a cup of tea he went near the hotel located near Circle and found that there was a galata at the lodge and on being inquisitive he went to see what the galata was about and at that time, owner of the lodge had shown him as the person who was responsible for the alleged murder in question and as such police had apprehended him. On these grounds, he denied the charge made against him. However, accused did not examine any witness in support of his defence. 6. Learned Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments advanced by the respective learned Advocates appearing for the parties and formulating the points for consideration, by judgment in question i.e., S.C.No.64/2011 has held that prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted the accused as noticed hereinabove. 7. Perusal of judgment of learned Sessions Judge would disclose that in order to bring home the guilt of the accused prosecution had examined two material witnesses namely, owner of the lodge as P.W.1 and his son as P.W.2, where the alleged incident of murder took place. These two witnesses who are disinterested in the accused have spoken about the chain of events which took place commencing from accused and deceased together entering the lodge till accused came to be apprehended immediately after the incident namely, on the same day i.e., on 18.11.2010. The mahazar witnesses namely, P.W.1, P.W.5 and P.W.6 in whose presence the weapon - macchu – MO-1 alleged to have been used by the accused to murder came to be seized, have also been examined and they have supported the case of prosecution and have clearly stated the manner in which material MO-1 came to be seized in their presence. The mahazar witnesses namely, P.W.1, P.W.5 and P.W.6 in whose presence the weapon - macchu – MO-1 alleged to have been used by the accused to murder came to be seized, have also been examined and they have supported the case of prosecution and have clearly stated the manner in which material MO-1 came to be seized in their presence. On evaluation of entire evidence tendered by prosecution, learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused, which is challenged in the present appeal. 8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the accused namely, Sri. I.S. Pramod Chandra and Sri. Vijay Kumar Majage, learned Addl. SPP appearing for the State. Perused the entire records secured from the Session Court. 9. It is the contention of Sri. I.S. Pramod Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that prosecution has not been able to prove the presence of accused at the place of the incident beyond reasonable doubt including the alleged act of murdering the deceased. It is contended that lodge in which alleged incident took place has two entries and even according to prosecution on the date of incident i.e., on 18.11.2010 there was one more room namely, room No.15 in same floor, which was occupied and the inmates of said room were not examined and this was fatal to the case of prosecution. He would elaborate his submission by contending that prosecution had failed to establish the link between accused having carried the alleged weapon –M.O.-1 to the room which had been taken on rent by him, and there being no positive evidence available on record; and on mere probabilities, the accused could not have been convicted. He would also submit that accused undisputedly had gone out of lodge between 2.00 p.m. to 3.00 p.m. and there being two entries to the lodge, incident could have taken place during said time and the fact that prosecution also admitting that deceased was a woman of easy virtue, is yet another factor which ought to have swayed in the mind of learned Sessions Judge to arrive at a conclusion that accused could not have committed the act of murder and as such benefit of doubt ought to have been extended to the accused. He would also submit that there being no dispute about the fact that accused and deceased are husband and wife and as such there was no need or necessity for them to have taken a room on rent in a lodge and this suspicious circumstances surrounding the incident had not been cleared by the prosecution. On these grounds he contends that accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and prays for acquittal. On these grounds, learned counsel appearing for accused prays for allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment and order of sentence imposed on the appellant and prays for acquitting the accused. 10. Per contra, Sri. Vijay Kumar Majage, learned Addl. SPP appearing for the State by relying upon the statement of witnesses in general and evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.5, P.W.6 in particular would buttress his arguments by contending that judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge convicting the accused is based on proper appreciation of evidence and there being no contradictions in the evidence tendered by the prosecution witnesses, learned Sessions Judge has rightly arrived at a conclusion that chain of events would clearly establish the guilt of accused and as such he prays for dismissal of the appeal and prays for confirming the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge. 11. He has also taken us through the entire trial Court records including deposition and particularly FSL report to contend that blood stains found on the clothes worn by the deceased and the accused would match and accused having failed to explain his presence in the room where deceased was found murdered along with weapon in his hand would also point the guilt of the accused in committing the act in question viz., murdering his second wife namely, Smt. Rasheeda Banu. Learned Additional SPP has also brought to our notice the fact that blood group of blood stains found on the weapon and on the clothes of deceased and accused are one and the same. As such, he seeks dismissal of the appeal. 12. Learned Additional SPP has also brought to our notice the fact that blood group of blood stains found on the weapon and on the clothes of deceased and accused are one and the same. As such, he seeks dismissal of the appeal. 12. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of material records and on bestowing our careful and anxious considerations to the rival contentions, it would emerge from the records of Sessions Court that on 18.11.2010 deceased and accused had taken a room on rent at Shalimar Lodge, at about 12.00 p.m. and this fact is evidenced by the register maintained at the lodge, which came to be marked as Ex.P-4. At the time of obtaining room on rent accused has remitted a sum of Rs. 200/- as room rent and has affixed his signature not only to the receipt but also in the register - Ex.P-4. In order to prove the entries found in these two documents namely, Exs.P-4 and P-5 prosecution has examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 namely, the owner as well as his son, who were present on the day incident took place. A joint reading of deposition of these two witnesses would clearly disclose that on the said day accused had taken a room on rent and on being allotted room No.17, he was guided to said room by P.W.2. On reaching said room he (P.W.2) had handed over the key of the room to the accused. Thereafter accused is said to have summoned for a room boy to procure lunch from outside and on account of said day being festival on the eve of Bakrid and staff of the hotel being on holiday, accused had been informed of this fact by P.W.1 and P.W.2 and as such accused had left the lodge at about 2.00 p.m. and proceeded to procure lunch from outside. According to P.W.1 accused did not return for one hour and is said to have returned back at about 3.00 p.m. After having lunch with deceased there seems to have been scuffle between the accused and deceased. According to P.W.1 accused did not return for one hour and is said to have returned back at about 3.00 p.m. After having lunch with deceased there seems to have been scuffle between the accused and deceased. P.W.2 son of P.W.1, who was in the first floor where deceased and accused were staying, had heard screaming voices and as such he had informed his father P.W.1, who also rushed to the first floor and both went near the room occupied by accused and inspite of tapping on the door for being opened, accused is said to have not opened the door initially and on their repeated banging of the door accused is said to have opened the door and it was seen by P.W.1 and P.W.2 that accused was standing in the said room (room No.17) with blood stained macchu - MO-1 in his hand and deceased was lying on the floor in a pool of blood with multiple injuries sustained to vital parts of her body. Immediately P.W.1 and P.W.2 are said to have snatched the weapon from the hand of the accused and brought the accused to the ground floor and informed the jurisdictional police viz., Mandi police. Immediately on arrival of jurisdictional police, a complaint came to be lodged by P.W.1, which came to be registered by P.W.18 and said complaint came to be marked as Ex.P-1. 13. Evidence of P.W.1 when read in conjunction with the contents of Ex.P-1 it leaves no manner of doubt with regard to chain of events as stated by P.W.1 in his deposition. P.W.2 - son of P.W.1, who was also present not only at the time of incident but also when accused and deceased checked into lodge, has reiterated his statement made before the jurisdictional police. He has specifically and categorically stated that accused had checked into the lodge, signed the register and he had taken the accused to room No.17 and after opening the lock had handed over key of the room to the accused. He has specifically and categorically stated that accused had checked into the lodge, signed the register and he had taken the accused to room No.17 and after opening the lock had handed over key of the room to the accused. He has also stated accused wanted lunch to be brought to the room and on being informed of non-availability of room-boys, accused himself had gone out of lodge at about 2.00 p.m. and had returned at 3.00 p.m. He has also stated that he had heard screams from said room and along with his father (P.W.1) they had asked the accused to open the door, which was done after some time and they had seen accused standing in the room and was holding the weapon namely, macchu - MO-1 when he opened the door and both namely, P.W.1 and P.W.2 had found deceased lying in a pool of blood on the floor due to injuries sustained by her. 14. In order to prove the seizure of MO-1 namely, macchu prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.5 and P.W.6. A perusal of their evidence would clearly disclose that weapon came to be seized under mahazar - Ex.P-3 and accused was also present at the spot when seizure took place. Except minor discrepancies with regard to mentioning of time by P.W.5, his evidence when read in its entirety would leave no manner of doubt with regard to seizure of the weapon used for murder. So also P.W.6 has categorically stated that in his presence and in the presence of accused, weapon MO-1 came to be seized under mahazar - Ex.P-3. Both these witnesses have stated that they were called upon by P.W.1 to the lodge in order to evidence the seizure of weapon and merely because they were called by P.W.1 to the lodge to be the witnesses to mahazar – Ex.P-3 cannot be a ground to reject his evidence or brush aside the prosecution case. In the absence of any admission elicited in his cross-examination, such witness can be considered as worthwhile. In the absence of any admission elicited in his cross-examination, such witness can be considered as worthwhile. Hence, evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.6 cannot be discarded nor it can be held that they were interested witnesses particularly when they have clearly stated that they were not interested either in P.W.1 or deceased and there being no other contra material available on record to show their interest in the incident in question or their relationship with the deceased or accused. 15. Hence, we are of the view that evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.6 has been rightly accepted by the learned Sessions Judge. Their evidence would also clearly establish that weapon used by the accused for murder has been seized in the presence of accused by the police on the same day at the spot. That apart, as could be seen from the evidence of these two witnesses, they have identified the accused in the open Court during trial. These factors cumulatively had swayed in the mind of the learned Sessions Judge to arrive at a conclusion that, seizure of the weapon - MO-1 used by the accused to commit murder of the deceased had been proved. We do not find any error committed by the learned Sessions Judge in this regard. 16. The prosecution examined P.W.1 in order to establish or prove the guilt of the accused. Complaint lodged by P.W.1 came to be marked as Ex.P-1. In his complaint, P.W.1 has stated that he along with his son (P.W.2) had caught the accused when he opened the door of room No.17 and they had found accused standing in the room by holding blood stained weapon. Lodging of said complaint by P.W.1 has also been proved by the prosecution by examining the recipient of the complaint namely, P.W.18. In the cross examination of these two witnesses nothing worthwhile has been elicited to discard their testimony. Said complaint would clearly disclose that written complaint was sent to the police station and ASI - P.W.18 had registered the same at 6.30 p.m. in Cr.No.193/2010 on 18.11.2010. Complainant and accused were also at the lodge in the custody of P.W.22 till 9.45 p.m., at which point of time mahazar - Ex.P-3 came to be drawn. 17. Said complaint would clearly disclose that written complaint was sent to the police station and ASI - P.W.18 had registered the same at 6.30 p.m. in Cr.No.193/2010 on 18.11.2010. Complainant and accused were also at the lodge in the custody of P.W.22 till 9.45 p.m., at which point of time mahazar - Ex.P-3 came to be drawn. 17. Now turning our attention to the injuries sustained by the deceased when seen in the background of chain of events it would emerge from the records that accused had checked into the lodge on 18.11.2010 at about 12.00 in the noon and he had left the lodge at about 2.00 p.m. and had returned back at about 3.00 p.m. The macchu - MO-1, which is said to have been used by the accused to commit the murder of deceased Rasheeda Banu is measuring about 15 inches including the handle. Same could have been easily hid by the accused while entering the lodge when he came back with packed lunch, for bringing which he had gone out. On account of no enquiries having made by P.W.1 and PW.2 with the accused, doubt cannot be raised with regard to weapon being carried and used by the accused for committing the act of murder of his wife. Until and unless a suspicion being there about any unusual things, material being carried by a lodger, the Owner or Manager cannot be expected to enquire about the contents of the bag/s a customer may carry inside the room. 18. That apart, P.W.2 himself was present in the first floor where room No.17 is located, which was occupied by the deceased along with accused. According to deposition of P.W.2 he had heard screaming voices from room No.17 at about 5.30 p.m. and immediately he had informed his father P.W.1, who was in the ground floor and together they proceeded to room No.17 and had called upon the accused to open the door and on his refusal they tried to break-open the door by banging the same and at that point of time, accused had opened the door and was standing with weapon - MO-1 in his hand, which was blood stained and deceased was lying in the pool of blood with multiple injuries all over her body. As already noticed hereinabove by us, clothes worn by the deceased and accused have been sent for Forensic laboratory for opinion along with blood stained weapon – MO-1. The report of FSL, which came to be marked as Ex.P-37 would disclose that blood stains found on these three items namely, clothes of deceased, clothes of accused and weapon, were of the same blood group namely, ‘B Positive’ and that of accused was different blood group. Thus, prosecution has been able to drive home the guilt of the accused. 19. Accused has stated in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. that he had gone near the hotel in question, since he intended to have a cup of tea and found that there was some galata going on and at that time he had been apprehended. This plea was not established. Though accused had pleaded in his defence there are witnesses, but none was examined. In the absence of such defence not being substantiated and chain of events commencing from deceased along with accused taking room in the lodge belonging to P.W.1 at 12.00 p.m. till the door of said room being opened at about 5.30 p.m., it cannot be gainsaid that prosecution had failed to prove its case. It is also to be noticed that accused was in possession of blood stained weapon - MO-1, which was seen by P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the fact that there was differences of opinion between deceased and accused with regard to financial transactions, would also establish chain of link with regard to motive. Injuries sustained by deceased on account of assault made by the accused as indicated in the post mortem report Ex.P-31, which are 21 in number, would clearly go to show that deceased had sustained grievous injuries to vital parts of her body namely head, neck, spinal chord and other parts of the body, which resulted in her death. The doctor who conducted the post mortem has been examined as P.W.21 and he has not only reiterated the injuries reflected in Ex.P-31, but has also stated that during the course of post mortem he had found that on account of assault on head, the skull bone had fractured into pieces. He has also stated that vertebra had been fractured and so also spinal chord. He has also stated that vertebra had been fractured and so also spinal chord. He has opined that MO-1 could have caused the injuries in question, which was sustained by the deceased. The opinion in that regard was produced by the prosecution and was got marked as Ex.P-32 and at the time of opening the seal, it was found to be intact. P.W.21 has also identified MO-1 and has stated that he has also affixed his signature to the same. In the light of evidence of doctor disclosing that injuries sustained by the deceased was on account of assault made by the accused with the weapon M.O-1 and said injuries had caused death of the deceased has been clearly established by the prosecution. 20. Insofar as motive is concerned, it is the case of prosecution that deceased having divorced her first husband by giving Talaqnama had married accused and they were leaving together as husband and wife and after sometime, accused had started demanding money from deceased and on many occasions had borrowed money from her and was not repaying and taking care of the family. It was also alleged that deceased had lodged a complaint against accused with Mahila Sahayavani as per Ex.P-28 and in order to secure the presence of accused said Mahila Sahayavani had issued notices to accused and to establish this fact prosecution had examined P.W.16, who had deposed about complaint lodged by deceased with the Helpline and said complaint also came to be marked as Ex.P-27 and the signature of deceased was identified by P.W.16 and it was marked as Ex.P-27(a). Her evidence has remained uncontroverted. 21. A bare reading of said complaint – Ex.P-27 would disclose that deceased has alleged thereunder that accused had demanded money from her, was not taking care of her and had not provided her with proper food and shelter; she has also alleged in her complaint that accused had threatened that he would do away with her life if she refuses to bring more money. She has also alleged in her complaint that accused was always threatening her with a knife that he would kill her if she refused to meet his demand for money. This evidence of P.W.16 when read along with Exs.P-27 and P-28 would clearly establish that accused had motive to commit the crime in question. She has also alleged in her complaint that accused was always threatening her with a knife that he would kill her if she refused to meet his demand for money. This evidence of P.W.16 when read along with Exs.P-27 and P-28 would clearly establish that accused had motive to commit the crime in question. Immediately after this complaint – Ex.P.27 came to be lodged, accused had called the deceased on the pretext of repaying the amount which he had borrowed from her and it is in this background deceased had proceeded to Shalimar lodge along with the accused with a fond hope that her money would be returned and also with the fond hope that she would be able to purchase new clothes to her children on the eve of Bakrid festival. This chain of events cannot be held as one surrounded with suspicion and there is no valid reason to disbelieve the case of prosecution. 22. A feeble attempt has been made by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that non examination of Manager of the lodge was fatal to the prosecution case namely, non-examination of Mr. Hameed Bhai – Manager of Shalimar lodge. It is no doubt true that prosecution did not examine said witness and it is not the case of prosecution that either he had made the entries in the room register when accused along with deceased had entered the lodge or he had issued the receipt to the accused. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the prosecution that it is P.W.1 - owner of the lodge, who was very much present at the relevant point of time when accused along with deceased had checked into the lodge and it is P.W.1, who had entered the details of the accused in the register - Ex.P-4 and had issued the receipt - Ex.P-5 to the accused. This fact has been proved by prosecution by examining the person who made entries in Exs.P-4 and P-5 namely, P.W.1. Thus, even in the absence of examining Mr. Hameed Bhai, who was the Manager of the lodge, it cannot be gainsaid by the accused that it was fatal to prosecution case. Accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C has not stated that said Mr. Hameed Bhai was present at the time of incident in question. Thus, even in the absence of examining Mr. Hameed Bhai, who was the Manager of the lodge, it cannot be gainsaid by the accused that it was fatal to prosecution case. Accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C has not stated that said Mr. Hameed Bhai was present at the time of incident in question. No suggestion is made to P.W.1 and P.W.2 about presence of Mr. Hameed Bhai at the lodge on 18.11.2010. Hence, we are of the considered view that non-examination of Mr. Hameed Bhai was not fatal to prosecution case and his examination would in no manner have tilted the scale in favour of the accused/appellant. 23. It is also the case of the appellant/accused that circumstances surrounding death of his wife, possibility of she having been murdered by someone else cannot be ruled out and also cannot be accepted for the simple reason viz., at the time P.W.1 and P.W.2 were forcing the accused to open the door of the room in his occupation i.e., room No.17 it was the accused who had opened the door and he was found standing in said room along with blood stained weapon M.O-1 in his hand and dead body of his wife Rasheeda Banu was lying on the floor in a pool of blood. It is to be noticed at the cost of repetition that doctor - P.W.21, who conducted post mortem has stated that injuries found on her body can be caused by weapon M.O-1. Hence, it cannot be said that injuries found on the body of deceased was on account of self infliction by the deceased as sought to be contended. 24. We have also examined this appeal from the angle as to whether the act which has led to death of Smt. Rasheeda Banu would amount to culpable homicide falling within the four corners of Section 299 of IPC and our answer is in the negative for the reason that intention of causing bodily injury to deceased is clearly established by prosecution in the light of injuries found on the body of deceased as could be seen from the post mortem report Ex.P-31, which has been reiterated by the doctor who conducted the post mortem namely, P.W.21. Apart from establishing motive, the prosecution has also proved presence of accused at the time of incident. 25. Apart from establishing motive, the prosecution has also proved presence of accused at the time of incident. 25. For the reasons aforestated, we are of the considered view that judgment and order of sentence passed by the learned Single Judge would not call for interference. Hence, we proceed to pass the following : JUDGMENT (i) Criminal appeal is hereby dismissed. (ii) Judgment and order of sentence passed in S.C.No.64/2011 on 12.04.2012 by Fast Track Court-II, Mysore, on the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 IPC is hereby affirmed. (iii) Registry to transmit the records to the jurisdictional Sessions Court forthwith.