JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Fast Track Court, Sagar in S.C. No.129/10, wherein the Fast Track Judge has convicted the accused-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- and also convicted the accused for the offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. and imposed punishment of seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-, with default sentences. 2. The brief case of the prosecution as could be seen from the entire case is that, the accused is none other than the son of deceased Manjanaika and brother of another deceased Vasanthi. It is the case of the prosecution that, the said Manjanaika along with his wife and two sons and daughter had been residing in Goragodu village in their agricultural land. The accused one of the son of Manjanaika was demanding for his share in the family property since two months prior to the alleged incident. As the said Manjanaika had not been parting with the properties on the ground that the marriage of another son and daughter has to be conducted and after their marriage the family properties would be partitioned. The accused was not satisfied with the said assurance given by his father and in that regard he had a grinding axe against his father and other members of the family. In this context, it is alleged that, on 21.04.2010 there was some quarrel in the family and due to which the accused had quarreled with his wife and sent her out of the house along with children. In this background it is alleged that on 22.04.2010, at about 7.00 a.m. in the morning the accused person had been to the house of his father Manjanaika and took out a chopper in the said house and demanded for the family properties to the extent of his share and he quarreled with his father and in fact assaulted his father with the chopper on the neck. When his sister Vasanthi came in between to rescue her father, he assaulted the said girl also with the same chopper. Thereafter both father and sister having sustained severe injuries later succumbed to the injuries. When his sister Vasanthi came in between to rescue her father, he assaulted the said girl also with the same chopper. Thereafter both father and sister having sustained severe injuries later succumbed to the injuries. It is also the case of the prosecution that the mother of accused by name Gowramma and another brother also went to rescue the deceased Manjanaika and Vasanthi, in that context, it is alleged that the accused also assaulted them and they also sustained injuries. Further it is the case of the prosecution that the accused threw the said chopper in the house itself and ran away from the spot. At that time, the complainant who is none other than the maternal uncle was passing in front of the house and saw Gowramma and Hiriyappa both with bleeding injuries. Both the injured wept before the complainant and told that, the accused had killed his father and sister. The complainant seen them with bleeding injuries, immediately with the help of neighbours secured ambulance and shifted the injured persons as well as the deceased to the hospital and later came to know that the deceased already succumbed to the injuries. On these allegations, the police after investigation filed a charge sheet against the accused. The accused was later nabbed by the police and he was throughout in the custody after his arrest. The Trial Court has proceeded to secure the presence of the accused after committal and framed charges for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 307 of I.P.C. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined as many as 20 witnesses PW1 to 20 and got marked 28 documents Ex.P-1 to P-28 and also one sickle MO-1 and other material objects MO-2 to 11. 3. The accused was also examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. after completion of the evidence of the prosecution all incriminating circumstances were put to the accused. It is nothing but total denial of the prosecution case by the accused. 3. The accused was also examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. after completion of the evidence of the prosecution all incriminating circumstances were put to the accused. It is nothing but total denial of the prosecution case by the accused. He has not taken any specific defence under Section 313 Cr.P.C statement, but during the course of cross examination of witnesses, an attempt was made by suggesting that, the accused was not mentally sound at that particular point of time and that, there was a quarrel in the family and in fact the deceased and other family members assaulted the accused himself and fractured his hand, etc. After analyzing the entire oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court has reached to the conclusion that, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the Trial Court has sentenced the accused as noted above. 4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant as well as the additional High Court Government Pleader for State. 5. We have carefully perused the entire evidence on record and have re-evaluated the material on record. Though the learned counsel has raised two points before this Court, firstly that, the accused was not having sound mind at the time of commission of offence, therefore his acts falls under exception under the provisions of I.P.C. Secondly, it is contended that due to enragement at that particular point of time, the accused might have committed the said offence due to quarrel between the family members and accused, with regards to accused asking his share in the property. In this background the Court has to examine whether any circumstances are elicited by the accused so far as above circumstances are concerned. Therefore before adverting to the merits of the case, we will have a cursory look at the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. 6. PW1 Manjappa is the complainant who is none other than the cousin of the accused and who has lodged the complaint. He reiterated that after receiving information from PW2 Hiriyappa and PW3 Gowramma that accused had killed Manjanaika and Vasanthi, he went inside the house and saw the dead bodies and the accused present at the spot and immediately he went to police station and lodged complaint and also made attempts to shift the injured to the hospital. He reiterated that after receiving information from PW2 Hiriyappa and PW3 Gowramma that accused had killed Manjanaika and Vasanthi, he went inside the house and saw the dead bodies and the accused present at the spot and immediately he went to police station and lodged complaint and also made attempts to shift the injured to the hospital. The complaint lodged by him has been marked as Ex.P-1 and he has also identified the chopper MO-1 which was alleged to have been used by the accused on that particular day of offence. Though it is elicited that some of the information narrated in Ex.P-1 was not known to PW1 but informed to him by PW2 and 3, it is not the case of the prosecution also that he is an eyewitness to the incident. It is suggested that, the accused was taking some treatment and tablets due to his mental illness, but this witness pleads ignorance of the same. Therefore there is nothing elicited in the course of cross examination so far as two grounds taken up by accused and there is no reason as to why this witness PW1 has to be dismissed. 7. PW2 and PW3 are the eye witnesses to the incident. PW2 Hiriyappa is the brother of accused and PW3 is the mother of accused, who were very much present on the date and time of incident. They have categorically stated as to what had happened on 22.04.2010. Both of them in fact have meticulously stated about the motive behind the act of the accused. More particularly on the date of incident, the accused had demanded his share and the deceased Manjanaika had reiterated that he would give the share after the marriage of another son and daughter, but the accused did not heed to the advise of Manjanaika and assaulted him with a chopper and when Vasanthi went to rescue her father, the accused assaulted her on the neck with the same chopper. The accused also demanded all the persons to go out from the house inspite of PW3 Gowramma requesting the accused with folded hands not to harm anybody. Inspite of that the accused mercilessly assaulted the deceased Manjanaika and deceased Vasanthi who are none other than his own father and sister, who later succumbed to the injuries. The accused also demanded all the persons to go out from the house inspite of PW3 Gowramma requesting the accused with folded hands not to harm anybody. Inspite of that the accused mercilessly assaulted the deceased Manjanaika and deceased Vasanthi who are none other than his own father and sister, who later succumbed to the injuries. PW2 and PW3 have categorically stated about the attitude of the accused even prior to the incident with regard to the motive behind the act. 8. During cross examination of these two witnesses, again it is suggested that the accused was taking treatment from Dr. Shridhar at Shimoga who is a Psychiatrist, but the said suggestion has been denied. It is also suggested that, on 22.04.2010, the family members of these two witnesses have assaulted the accused and because of that reason the accused has also sustained injury on the right hand. But the said suggestion has also been denied. Except suggesting to these two witnesses the above facts, nothing is elicited in the cross examination so as to disbelieve the incident being happened and there is no reason particularly for PW3 who is the mother of the accused to lie before the Court. No mother would come forward to depose against her own son if such incident had not happened, wherein she lost her husband and daughter and she is the last person to falsely implicate her son. There is nothing to disbelieve these two witnesses. 9. PW4 and PW5 are Sujatha and her husband Bhimanaika. Sujatha is none other than another sister of the accused and of course she is a hear-say witness about the incident. She came to know about the incident and immediately herself and her husband came to the house of the deceased Manjanaika and they saw the dead bodies having severe injuries and they also saw PW2 and PW3 also sustained injuries. In fact the other witnesses have also disclosed about the incident to them. They have also spoken about the motive behind with regard the dispute and with regard to demand of his share in the property by the accused. She also identified MO-1-chopper lying near the dead body of Vasanthi. Again in the course of cross examination similar suggestions have been put. She identified MO-1 with a specific mark stating that, the handle of the said chopper was having some damage. She also identified MO-1-chopper lying near the dead body of Vasanthi. Again in the course of cross examination similar suggestions have been put. She identified MO-1 with a specific mark stating that, the handle of the said chopper was having some damage. Therefore the evidence of this witness who is none other than the sister of the accused and she has no animosity against the accused, cannot be disbelieved. In the cross examination nothing has been elicited from these two witnesses PW4 and PW5 as to why they have to depose falsehood against the accused. Therefore in the circumstances, the evidence of PW2 and PW3 with regard to sequence of events is fully corroborated by these two witnesses. 10. PW6 is the person who is of the same village, who after coming to know about the incident, went to the house of the deceased Manjanaika and saw the dead bodies and chopper and also saw the dead bodies having sustained injuries and also saw, PW2 and PW3 also sustained injuries. Again nothing has been elicited in the cross examination and only similar suggestions have been made with regard to mental attitude of the accused, etc. 11. PW7 is the inquest Panch witness, who has specifically stated that on that particular date, the police have visited the house of the deceased and conducted inquest proceedings as at Ex.P-2 and have collected the blood mud and unstained mud. His signature has been marked as Ex.P-1(a). In the cross examination, in fact it is elicited that there was a chopper lying on the spot itself and police have seized the same. 12. PW8 Mahabala is the Head Constable, who apprehended the accused. It is worth to mention here that in the evidence of this witness, he has categorically stated that, on 22.04.2010 he was deputed for the purpose of apprehending the accused. The said police personnel went in search of the accused and saw the accused running away from the house and fell down and sustained injuries. Thereafter the accused was apprehended and brought before the Investigating Officer and thereafter the accused was treated in the hospital. Nothing worth has been elicited in the course of cross examination, but it is suggested that, the accused did not fall in a ditch, but the evidence is otherwise. Thereafter the accused was apprehended and brought before the Investigating Officer and thereafter the accused was treated in the hospital. Nothing worth has been elicited in the course of cross examination, but it is suggested that, the accused did not fall in a ditch, but the evidence is otherwise. Perhaps that may be the reason the accused might have taken a defence that the injured and deceased assaulted the accused on the previous day, but the case is otherwise. There is nothing to prove as to why this police personnel has to lie before the court, on the other hand it is also elicited that Dr. Prakash Bosle examined the injuries on the accused. The sequence of events clearly disclose that immediately after the arrest of the accused, the accused was taken to hospital and treatment was given. Therefore the defence that the deceased and injured persons assaulted him is false to some extent, further the prosecution has successfully explained the injuries on the accused also. 13. PW9 K. Vasanth, is another Head Constable who in fact collected blood sample and also clothes of the deceased and produced them before the Investigating Officer along with Ex.P-3. 14. PW10 is the neighbour of deceased Manjanaika. There is no much evidence so far as this witness is concerned because he also came later after receiving the information and he saw the dead bodies and injured persons on that particular date and came to know about the incident. He also speaks about Ex.P-3 which is Panchnama under which Ex.P-4 to 8 were seized by the police. 15. Ex.P-5 are the photos taken at the time of drawing Ex.P-4 Mahazar and Ex.P-9 is another inquest drawn on the dead body of Manjanaika. PW11 is also another witness to Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-9. PW12 is the photographer who was present at the time of inquest and also spot mahazar and who has taken photographs, videograph of the spot which are already marked at Exs.P-4 to P-8 and Ex.P-10. In the cross examination of these witnesses, only formal suggestions have been made that, they were not present at that time and they have deposed falsehood against the accused, but the reason as to why these witnesses are deposing false is not elicited. In the cross examination of these witnesses, only formal suggestions have been made that, they were not present at that time and they have deposed falsehood against the accused, but the reason as to why these witnesses are deposing false is not elicited. The photographs which are marked are also identified by these witnesses and there is nothing forthcoming in the cross examination as to why these documents which came into existence during investigation have to be disbelieved. The details given by these witnesses with regard to injury sustained by the deceased and also taking up the material from the spot are also not properly controverted in the cross examination to take a different view. 16. PW13 K. Sitharam, who was working as PSI at Kargal Police Station, after receiving the information from PW1 Manjappa and on the basis of complaint Ex.P-1, registered a case in Crime No.18/10 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of I.P.C. He visited the spot later and also assisted the Investigating Agency in apprehending the accused. When he apprehended the accused he started to run away from his house, fell down and sustained injury while running. He chased the accused and caught him. In the cross examination it is not elicited anything so as to disbelieve this witness. On the other hand, it is reiterated by this witness in the cross examination specifically mentioning the time he produced the accused before the Investigating Officer and also at what distance the accused was running away from them, etc. Therefore what has not been stated in the examination-in-chief has been filled up during the course of cross examination, and thereby strengthened the veracity of the evidence. 17. PW14 Shobha, P.C.729 was guarding the dead body of Vasanthi and thereafter delivered the dead body for post mortem examination and thereafter handed over the dead body to PW1 Manjappa on a receipt, Ex.P-14. 18. PW15 Prathima is a doctor who has treated PW2 and PW3 when they were brought to the hospital on 22.04.2010. She has specifically stated about the injuries sustained by PW2 Hiriyappa and has mentioned three injuries on his right shoulder and left shoulder as well on the thumb of his hand. She also stated that PW3 Gowramma also sustained injuries on her neck which was measured 5”X3”X1” and bone was protruding. She has specifically stated about the injuries sustained by PW2 Hiriyappa and has mentioned three injuries on his right shoulder and left shoulder as well on the thumb of his hand. She also stated that PW3 Gowramma also sustained injuries on her neck which was measured 5”X3”X1” and bone was protruding. Though it is stated by the doctor the said injury was simple in nature, she categorically has stated that the injury was serious in nature and there was chances of Gowramma dying due to heavy bleeding if she had not treated her in time. Therefore it clearly goes to show from the evidence of this doctor that the accused has also assaulted Gowramma with an intention to kill her but was not successful in killing her as by that time PW2 and PW3 escaped from the clutches of the accused. The nature of injury sustained by Gowramma clearly indicates that, she has suffered serious injury on her neck. The said injury on the neck of Gowramma also indicates the intention of the accused that he also intended to do away with her life and almost all persons in the family in order to achieve his intention of gaining property. The doctor has given wound certificates marked at Exs. P-15 and P-16. In the cross examination there is a suggestion made to this doctor that, during heavy rain or due to heavy winds if the zinc roof of a house falls on a person, whether sustaining of such injuries was possible, but the doctor has denied the same and categorically stated that those injuries could only be caused if a sharp edged weapon is used. Therefore under the above circumstances and on analyzing the evidence of doctor, it is clear that the accused has also intended to kill Gowramma, but was not successful. 19. PW16 Dr. Prakash Bosle, who has conducted postmortem on the dead bodies of Manjanaika and Vasanthi has categorically stated in the postmortem reports at Ex.P-17 and P-18 and given his opinion that, Manjanaika and Vasanthi have died due to the severe injuries on their bodies and due to heavy bleeding. The doctor has also narrated the injuries sustained by Manjanaika on the hind portion of the neck and also Vasanthi sustained severe injury on the neck and due to severe injuries there was heavy bleeding and due to which death occurred. The doctor has also narrated the injuries sustained by Manjanaika on the hind portion of the neck and also Vasanthi sustained severe injury on the neck and due to severe injuries there was heavy bleeding and due to which death occurred. It is clear from the evidence and from the inquest witness of the doctor that these two deceased Manjanaika and Vasanthi died a homicidal death. 20. PW17 Rathnakar, is also one of the witness who along with PW8 Mahabala apprehended the accused. There is nothing to be discussed about the evidence of this witness. 21. PW18 Dr. N.L. Lingegowda is the Scientific Officer attached to F.S.L. Davanagere. The evidence of this witness play a dominant role in this case to connect the accused person to the crime. He has categorically stated that, the Investigating Officer has sent the seized articles particularly MO-1 which is a chopper or sickle and also blood stained clothes of the deceased. He has specifically stated that, he has examined one chopper which is marked as MO-1 and also clothes of the deceased persons i.e., one shirt, one towel and dhoti and one blouse and petticoat and also some of the blood stains of the deceased persons and control blood. After examining the above said articles, he has given the opinion that the blood stains contained on the above said articles are of human origin and particularly “O” Group blood. In the cross examination, of course, it is elicited that on some of the items which were sent for examination, the blood stains were disintegrated and not fit for examination. But nothing more has been elicited in the course of cross examination that the group of blood found on the chopper as well as the clothes of the deceased persons are same in nature and they are of “O” Group. This witness is an official witness who has conducted the said investigation during the regular course of his official duty and there is nothing to disbelieve this witness. The evidence of this witness fully corroborates the evidence of PW2 and PW3, who have sustained injuries and saw the actual incident happened and using of the chopper by the accused. This witness is an official witness who has conducted the said investigation during the regular course of his official duty and there is nothing to disbelieve this witness. The evidence of this witness fully corroborates the evidence of PW2 and PW3, who have sustained injuries and saw the actual incident happened and using of the chopper by the accused. Therefore once it is established that, the chopper was used by the accused which contained the blood stains of the deceased persons and particularly the group of blood of the deceased persons, then those circumstances which are projected by the prosecution have to be explained specifically by the accused, otherwise those circumstances are very strong circumstances to establish the guilt of the accused. 22. PW19 and PW20 are the Investigating Officers. They have categorically stated about the sequence of events and how they conducted the investigation. There is no need to go in detail with regard to the evidence of these witnesses. We have also observed the cross examination of these witnesses and no contradictions or omissions from the evidence of other witnesses of the prosecution have been elicited. 23. On overall analysis of the oral and documentary evidence on record, it is crystal clear that, the accused was consistently demanding for his share of property from his father and other family members and it appears the deceased Manjanaika has never stated that he would not give any share of property to his son, the accused, but he only requested his son to wait till he performs the marriage of other son and daughter. The accused not being satisfied with the said assurance, in fact having grinding axe against his father, on the particular date, he went to the house of his father and demanded for his share in the property on refusal he assaulted his father. It is clear from the evidence of PW2 and PW3, who are eye witnesses that the accused has mercilessly assaulted his father and sister as well as made attempts to kill PW3 Gowramma who sustained severe injuries on her neck, a vital part of the body. 24. Therefore looking to the above said circumstances, coupled with the evidence of doctor and F.S.L. report as discussed, the prosecution has placed sufficient connecting material to prove the guilt of the accused. 24. Therefore looking to the above said circumstances, coupled with the evidence of doctor and F.S.L. report as discussed, the prosecution has placed sufficient connecting material to prove the guilt of the accused. The defence taken by the accused, in our opinion, no materials are placed even to doubt, with regard to the mental stability or mental illness of the accused. Therefore the defence taken up by the accused has not been satisfactorily established before the Court. Even the argument of the learned counsel that due to some quarrel in the house the accused might had been enraged, therefore the incident might had happened, also cannot be accepted. Of course, there is not even an attempt made by the defense, particularly in the cross examination of eye witnesses to elicit what exactly happened on that date so as to draw any favourable inference in favour of the accused. 25. Under the above said facts and circumstances, we do not find any strong reasons to interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. Hence we proceed to pass the following order: The appeal is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed.