JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant herein has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.2010 in S.C. No.106/2009 passed by I Addl. Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru (hence forth for brevity referred to as the ‘Sessions Court’) for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. In his memorandum of appeal the appellant has taken contention that all the prosecution witnesses speaking regarding the occurrence have turned hostile to the prosecution, as such, there was no material to convict him for the offence alleged against him. He was just wanted to take back his hand loan which he had given to the deceased and at the refusal of the deceased a quarrel started and he has bet the deceased, the deceased had consumed alcohol which aspect the court below has not properly appreciated. Further pleading that he is young and aged only about 30 years having old aged parents and small children, has prayed for setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence and to acquit him of the alleged charges. 3. In response to the notice the respondent is being represented by the prosecution. 4. Lower court records was called for and the same are placed before us. 5. Heard arguments from both sides. Perused the material placed before us. 6. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that the complainant one Smt. Rathnamma, w/o Ramaiah a resident of Konchady, Kadri village, Mangaluru lodged a complaint as per EX.P1 on 26.06.2009 before the complainant police. The summary of the said complaint was that she along with her husband (who is the deceased in this case) was residing in their house at Kadri village. They had two daughters by name Shobha married to one Sri Nagaraj and the second daughter by name Shashikala and was married to the present appellant-Ramesh. Said Shashikala and the accused were residing in Jyothinagar in a rented house. On 25.06.2009 Shashikala along with her husband/accused had come to their (complainant’s) house in the evening at which time the accused demanded the repayment of a sum of Rs.300/- which is stated to have been lent by him to her husband (deceased) two days before. The deceased pleaded his inability to repay the said amount then and there itself, but prayed for some time to repay the same. The deceased pleaded his inability to repay the said amount then and there itself, but prayed for some time to repay the same. The accused warned the deceased that he would kill him if he does not repay the loan amount. The deceased was working as a watchman. On the same night at 11.30 p.m. while the deceased was sleeping in the varanda the complainant heard some voice of somebody abusing her husband. She came out and saw that her son-in-law/accused Ramesh was demanding the repayment of the money by her husband and was insisting him to pay of the said money then and there itself and was abusing him. In the said action the accused picked up an axe and while abusing the deceased assaulted him on his head. At that moment Shashikala (the wife of the accused and daughter of the deceased) also rushed to the rescue of the deceased and she was also assaulted by the accused. Even the accused assaulted complainant also with the axe. The complainant and her daughter Shashikala shifted the injured Ramaiah in an auto rickshaw to the Government Wenlock hospital and admitted for treatment. Thereafter she filed a complaint against the accused alleging of he attempting to kill her husband, which was registered in complaint station Crime No.142/2009 for the offence punishable under Section 504, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. On the next day i.e., on 26.06.2009 afternoon the deceased succumbed to the injures. Thereafter the offence of Section 307 of Indian Penal Code was converted into an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal code. After investigation the complainant police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 324 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Charges were framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 302 of IPC. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, trial was conducted. 7. In order to prove the guilt against the accused the prosecution examined 20 witnesses from PW.1 to PW.20 and got marked exhibits from EX.P.1 to EX.P.16 and material objects at MO.1 to MO.7. On behalf of the accused neither any witnesses were examined nor any documents were marked as exhibits. 8. 7. In order to prove the guilt against the accused the prosecution examined 20 witnesses from PW.1 to PW.20 and got marked exhibits from EX.P.1 to EX.P.16 and material objects at MO.1 to MO.7. On behalf of the accused neither any witnesses were examined nor any documents were marked as exhibits. 8. After hearing both sides and considering the materials placed before it the Sessions Court by its judgment of conviction dated 29.11.2010 held the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and by its order on sentence dated 30.11.2010 sentenced the accused to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. A default sentence of six months if the accused fails to pay the fine amount was also passed. It is challenging the said judgment of conviction and order on sentence the accused has preferred this appeal. 9. Learned counsel Sri Dinesh Kumar K Rao was appointed as an amicus curiae for the appellant. Said learned counsel in his argument vehemently submitted that even though PW.1 and PW.2 have supported the case of prosecution claiming themselves to be the eye witnesses to the alleged incident, but both of them are interested witnesses as PW.1 is the wife and PW.2 is the daughter of the deceased. Though learned counsel did not dispute that the death of the deceased was homicidal, but he submitted that if at all the court comes to a conclusion holding that the accused has committed the alleged act, then the Court was requested to consider that fact reveals that the act of the accused was not a murder, but death committed under a grave and sudden provocation, as such the offence would fall under Section 304 (part II) of the Indian Penal Code. 10. On the other hand Sri Chethan Desai, learned High Court Government Pleader in his arguments vehemently submitted that the incident has taken place in the house of the complainant, as such being the wife of the deceased, her presence in the place of the offence is quite obvious. 10. On the other hand Sri Chethan Desai, learned High Court Government Pleader in his arguments vehemently submitted that the incident has taken place in the house of the complainant, as such being the wife of the deceased, her presence in the place of the offence is quite obvious. The presence of Shashikala, the wife of the accused in the same house is also not in dispute, as such, after hearing the noise of the accused abusing the deceased she too has awaken from her sleep and witnessed the incident. He further submitted that said Shashikala cannot be treated as an interested witness for the reason that apart from the daughter of the deceased she is the wife of the accused too. The act of the accused previously threatening the deceased of killing him and even at the time of commission of the act, picking up the axe which was at a different place and assaulting the deceased with the said weapon establishes the motive on the part of the accused and the knowledge about the consequences of his act by him, as such, the act at no stretch of imagination be termed as an act without any intention or under grave and sudden provocation. 11. Among the 20 witnesses examined by the prosecution PW.1 and PW.2 are very important material witnesses since the prosecution has projected them showing them as eye witnesses to the alleged incident. It is not in dispute that PW.1 is the complainant and the wife of the deceased. PW.2 Shashikala is her daughter. As such, the deceased is the father of PW.2 and deceased and PW.1 are the father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of the accused. The other important witnesses examined by the prosecution are PW.3, the son of the deceased, PW.4 is another daughter of the deceased, PW.5–the husband of PW.4, PW.6 and PW.7 are the panchas for the spot mahazar, PW.8 is the pancha for the inquest panchanama, PW.9 is the Medical Officer who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. PW.10 is a scientific officer from Forensic Science Laboratory. PW.12 is another Medical Officer who treated the injured PW.1 and PW.2 and rest of the prosecution witnesses are police officials including PW.20, the main Investigating Officer in the matter. 12. PW.10 is a scientific officer from Forensic Science Laboratory. PW.12 is another Medical Officer who treated the injured PW.1 and PW.2 and rest of the prosecution witnesses are police officials including PW.20, the main Investigating Officer in the matter. 12. PW.1 in her evidence has stated that her husband had taken a hand loan of a sum of Rs.300/- from the accused for the repayment of which the accused was pestering her husband, but her husband was seeking time to repay the said amount. It is in that connection on the ill-fated day the accused has assaulted the deceased with an axe on the vital part of his body, i.e., on his head causing grievous injuries to which injuries the injured succumbed on the very next day i.e., on 26.06.2009. She has clearly and categorically stated that she was an eye witness and had tried to rescue her husband in which process the accused also assaulted her also with the same axe. She was subjected to a thorough and detailed cross examination wherein she adhered to her original version. 13. PW.2, the daughter of the deceased and PW.1 and is also the wife of the accused. In her examination in chief she has categorically stated that she was also present in the house of her parents on the ill-fated night. On 25.6.2009 at about 11.30 p.m. accused initiating a quarrel with her father for repayment of the hand loan taken by the deceased, assaulted the deceased with an axe which was available in that premises. She also has stated that her attempt to rescue her father went in futile, but in the process the accused assaulted her also. The injured father succumbed to the injuries on the next day in the hospital. She was also subjected to a detail and searching cross examination from the accused side which she withstood. 14. PWs.3 to 5 have stated that the accused committed the murder of the deceased by assaulting him with the axe. However, they are hearsay witnesses about the incident. 15. PWs.6 and 8 are the witnesses for inquest panchanama who have deposed that the inquest panchanama was drawn in their presence as per EX.P3 on 27.06.2009. They have opined the cause of death as homicidal. However, they are hearsay witnesses about the incident. 15. PWs.6 and 8 are the witnesses for inquest panchanama who have deposed that the inquest panchanama was drawn in their presence as per EX.P3 on 27.06.2009. They have opined the cause of death as homicidal. PWs.6 and 7 have also supported the case of prosecution stating that scene of offence panchanama was drawn in their presence as per EX.P2 and under the said panchanama the material objects at MO.1 to MO.4 were seized which also they have identified in the Court. 16. The medical evidence regarding the nature of the death is given by PW.9 Dr. Jagadish Rao who has stated that he has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Ramaiah on 27.06.2009 at 11.45 a.m. at Wenlock District Hospital, Mangaluru on the request made by the complainant police. He has given a detail description of the injuries found on the dead body which is as below: “1. Inverted ‘U’ shaped surgically sutured wound, with its base directed upwards present over the left side of the head, corresponding to the left temporal region. One of the limb of the inverted ‘U’ shaped surgically sutured would measured 7 c.m. [2 c.m. vertically above the left tragus of the ear], horizontal limb directed backwards measured 9 cm in length and another limb of the surgically sutured wound measured 9 cm in length [ 5 cm away and vertically above the left mastoid process]. 2. Obliquely placed partially healed linear abrasion 9 x 0.5 cm, brownish black in colour, over the outer and upper aspect of right chest, 10 cm vertically below the right shoulder joint. 3. Partially healed abrasion, 3 x 0.5 cm brownish black in colour, over the back of right shoulder joint. 18. Further doctor opined in his postmortem report Ex.P.4 and also stated in this court by giving evidence about the injury caused to the brain as follows: Scalp: Diffuse sub-scalpal contusions over the left temporo-parieto-occipital region. Left side temporails muscle sutured. Skull: Irregular defect [absence of skull fragment], 7 x 5 cm, over the left temporal bone. Brain and Brain coverings: Left side duramater sutured, Weight of Brain 1250gm, congested and oedematous. Evidence of diffuse sub-dural and sub-arachnoid hemorrhage. Left temporal lobe showed haemorrhagic intracerabral contusions measuring 10 x 4 cm, associated with softening and necrosis.” 17. Skull: Irregular defect [absence of skull fragment], 7 x 5 cm, over the left temporal bone. Brain and Brain coverings: Left side duramater sutured, Weight of Brain 1250gm, congested and oedematous. Evidence of diffuse sub-dural and sub-arachnoid hemorrhage. Left temporal lobe showed haemorrhagic intracerabral contusions measuring 10 x 4 cm, associated with softening and necrosis.” 17. The doctor has opined that the death of the deceased was due to complications of cranio cerebral injury (head injury), secondary to blunt force trauma to the head. The said evidence of the doctor regarding the cause of death has not been seriously disputed from the accused side. As such, the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and the inquest panchanama read with the medical evidence clearly go to show that deceased Ramaiah died due to complications of cranio cerebral injury (head injury), secondary to blunt force trauma to the head and that his death was a homicidal. 18. The evidence of PW.1 and P.W.2 to the effect that the accused was demanding the repayment of hand loan of Rs.300/- from the deceased and in that regard he had a quarrel with the deceased on the evening of the date of incident is not seriously disputed from the accused side. On the other hand the accused in his memorandum of appeal itself at paragraph No.3 has stated that he had given a hand loan to the deceased of a sum of Rs.300/- and he demanded the deceased to return the said amount immediately as he was in urgent need of money. Since the deceased stated that he did not have money and that he would arrange to pay it in two days the appellant bet him up. Even excluding the ground taken up by the appellant admitting his act of assaulting the deceased the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 who are none else than the wife and daughter of the deceased is appreciated and it can be noticed that both of them have uniformly stated about the alleged incident. Merely because PW.1 and PW.2 happens to be the wife and the daughter of the deceased respectively it cannot be treated that their evidence is not reliable. At the same time it also cannot be forgotten that PW.2 is also the wife of the accused. 19. Merely because PW.1 and PW.2 happens to be the wife and the daughter of the deceased respectively it cannot be treated that their evidence is not reliable. At the same time it also cannot be forgotten that PW.2 is also the wife of the accused. 19. PW.1 in her examination-in-chief itself categorically stated that on the day of the alleged incident even though the deceased had asked his son-in-law (accused) for some time for repayment of the money the accused once again went to her house at about 11.00 p.m. and stating that the deceased has not repaid the loan amount he took up an axe which was left there by the workers and assaulted on the left side of the head and near the chest of the deceased. At that time both herself and her daughter Shashikala went to the rescue of her husband at which time the accused assaulted her (PW.1) also with the same axe on her left shoulder. The Sessions Court has also recorded that while stating so the witness has shown an injury on her left shoulder as the one caused by the accused. PW.1 has further stated that when PW.2 Shashikala shouting that her husband should not assault them went to their rescue, the accused assaulted her also. In this way about the incident the witness has categorically and clearly stated as to how it happened and the motive behind the alleged incident. In her cross examination she has given the details as to when her daughter Shashikala and accused came to their place and started residing at Jyothinagara. The following portion of the statement as come out in the cross examination of PW.1 which is of some importance is reproduced here below: xxx xxx xxx 20. By eliciting the said detail and also making suggestion in that process the accused has admitted that on the date of alleged incident he had been to the house of the deceased i.e., his father-in-law. In the further cross examination of PW.1 from the subsequent paragraph of 23 to the end also no statements were able to be extracted from the witnesses which can be considered as favourable to the accused. In the further cross examination of PW.1 from the subsequent paragraph of 23 to the end also no statements were able to be extracted from the witnesses which can be considered as favourable to the accused. The entire cross examination of this witness has been mainly concentrated upon eliciting the details regarding the lodging of the complaint, visit of the police and eliciting that PW.1 was illiterate and also trying to know from her about the place and time of lodging the complaint and her signature in the complaint etc., However, none of them could able to dismantle the evidence of PW.1 given by her in her cross examination about the occurrence of incident and the role of the deceased, accused, PW.1 and PW.2 in it. 21. Apart from it in the very same cross examination of PW.1 from the accused side a suggestion was also made to the effect that after the deceased telling the accused that he would repay the amount on the second of the month the accused left the place. The accused has once again admitted that on the date of incident he had been to the house of the deceased. Further in the very same cross examination the accused in the form of taking a defence has made a suggestion to the witness that after the accused left the deceased, his wife and daughter (wife of the accused) quarreled and in which process PW.1 and PW.2 (wife of the deceased and wife of the accused) assaulted the deceased with an axe. PW.1 has not admitted the said suggestion as true. However, by making the said suggestion accused has admitted that at the time of the incident which has resulted in the deceased sustaining bleeding injuries, both PW.1 and PW.2 were present and injuries upon the deceased was caused by making use of an axe. Exactly the case of the prosecution is also that, at the time of incident both PWs.1 and 2 were present and the injury upon the deceased was caused by making use of an axe. To this extent the suggestions made by the accused in the cross examination of PW.1 helps the prosecution rather himself. PW.1 has also identified the axe at MO.1 stating that the same was the weapon used by the accused in assaulting her husband. To this extent the suggestions made by the accused in the cross examination of PW.1 helps the prosecution rather himself. PW.1 has also identified the axe at MO.1 stating that the same was the weapon used by the accused in assaulting her husband. In this way the evidence of PW.1 has strongly supported the case of the prosecution and the defence could not able to weaken the strength of her evidence. 22. Evidence of PW.2 is also on the similar lines of PW.1 who also in her examination in chief stated that on the date of alleged incident in the evening at about 5.00 p.m. both herself and her husband (accused) went to the house of PW.1 at Yeyyadi where at the accused demanded repayment of hand loan of Rs.300/- from her father. When her father stated that he had no money, the accused cautioned him that he would return back in a short while and by that time money has to be paid back. Stating so he left the said place and it was only at about 11.00 p.m. in the night he returned and started quarreling with her father. This witness also has stated that accused assaulted her father upon his head making use of an axe. He also attacked her mother who went to the rescue of the injured. Accused assaulted her also with the same weapon. The witness further stated that the accused who is none else than her husband has also assaulted her. She has categorically stated that she has seen the accused assaulting her father and running away from the place throwing the axe there itself. Like PW.1 she also has stated that she joined PW.1 in shifting the injured to the hospital where her father succumbed to the injuries on the next date of the incident. This witness also has identified the axe at MO.1 stating that it was the same weapon with which her husband assaulted her father and mother. She again reiterated that she has seen the entire incident from very close distance and by that time there was light in that place. She has also identified the accused in the court stating that he is her husband, as well, the accused, who has committed the alleged offence. 23. PW.2 was subjected to a detailed and searching cross examination from the accused side wherein she adhered to her original version. She has also identified the accused in the court stating that he is her husband, as well, the accused, who has committed the alleged offence. 23. PW.2 was subjected to a detailed and searching cross examination from the accused side wherein she adhered to her original version. She has given the details as to when her family including her husband came back to the place and settled at Jyothinagara in a house. She has given further details about the incident in her cross examination stating that on that night at about 8.30 p.m. her husband was there in her parental house and thereafter he left that place and it was only after 11’0 clock he returned back. She made it clear that deceased had no habit of consuming alcohol/liquor. A suggestion was made to this witness in her cross examination which she has admitted as true. The same is reproduced here below. Xxx xxx xxx 24. By making said suggestion which the witness has admitted, the accused has admitted that on the night of alleged incident his wife i.e., PW.2 was also staying in the house of deceased and it was only a wall that was in between the places of sleeping of her father and herself. She has also stated in her cross examination that at the time of incident none was seen on the street in front of the house so also nobody was seen outside from the other huts in the locality. In this way she has ruled out any possibility of any pedestrian or the neighbors rushing to their rescue on that night. In this way PW.2 who is none else than the wife of the accused has fully and strongly supported the case of the prosecution. 25. PW.3 is though the son of the deceased, but admittedly is not an eye witness to the incident, but has come to the place of the incident after hearing about the incident and his evidence regarding the incident is hearse, but the witness has stated that PW.1 and 2 who are his mother and sister respectively have stated to him also that it was the accused who has caused the death of the deceased. 26. 26. PW.4 who is a close relative of the accused also supported the case of the prosecution, but not as an eye witness, rather as a hearsay witness, who came to know about the incident immediately after it occurred. She also has stated that on the night of the incident at 2.30 hours her sister Shashikala (PW.2) telephoned to her and told that her husband Ramesh has assaulted her father with an axe and has run away from the place. Her said statement could not be shaken in her cross examination. Thus, PW.4 has proved to be a witness to whom an injured/victim of the incident has immediately narrated about the incident identifying the accused. As such, her evidence is also of some importance and supports the case of the prosecution. 27. PW.5 who is the husband of PW.4 has also given the evidence on the lines of PW.4. Even according to this witness his wife (PW.4) received a telephone call to her to her cell phone, made by PW.2 and that PW.2 narrated about the incident and stated that it was her husband Ramesh who has committed the act. His statement on these lines also could not be shaken in his cross examination. Thus, the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 who are none else than the eye witnesses the evidence of PW.4 and PW.5 who have heard about the incident by none else than one of the victims in the incident immediately after the incident clearly establishes that it was the accused and accused alone who has assaulted deceased Ramaiah on that night with an axe causing grievous injuries to him and that the injured succumbed to it on the very next day of the incident. The evidence of these four witnesses is further corroborated by the medical evidence as already observed above. 28. PW.9 Dr. Jagadish Rao has given the cause of death as ‘head injury secondly to blunt force trauma to the head’. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 - the eye witnesses read with the evidence of the doctor and the post mortem report at EX.P4 clearly establishes that the death of the deceased was homicidal. On that it was the accused who has caused the said death. 29. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 - the eye witnesses read with the evidence of the doctor and the post mortem report at EX.P4 clearly establishes that the death of the deceased was homicidal. On that it was the accused who has caused the said death. 29. PW.12 Doctor Vasanth has stated in his evidence that he has examined PW.1 and PW.2 and noticed injuries on them and that he has issued wound certificate in that regard as per EX.P8 and Ex.P9. The said witness has categorically stated that both the injured had stated before him that the injuries were caused due to assault by one Sri Ramesh (the accused herein) who assaulted them with an axe. Thus, the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 corroborated by the evidence of PW.4 and PW.5 and also by the evidenced of the doctors who conducted autopsy and treated the injured clearly establishes that it was the accused and accused alone who has caused the alleged act. Thus the evidence of PW.1 , PW.2 and PW.9 when considered in the light of the injuries found on the deceased as could be seen in the post mortem report at EX.P.4 conclusively prove that the death of the deceased Ramaiah was a homicidal death and it is the accused and accused alone who has caused the said death of Ramaiah. 30. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant was that even though it is taken that it was the accused/appellant and he alone has caused the said death, but the same is not an intentional one, as such, it attracts Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. In this regard it was the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused and the deceased are from the lower strata of the society and were under the influence of liquor, as such, in their heated exchange of words with respect to the alleged repayment of loan the accused got enraged and provoked and as such due to grave and sudden provocation he must have assaulted the injured. 31. 31. In the analysis of the evidence above it has become very clear that on the date of alleged incident the accused had in the evening already quarreled with the deceased with respect to the alleged repayment of the loan amount and had warned him of dire consequences in case the deceased failed to repay the loan when the accused returns in a short while thereafter. According to PW.2 the wife of the accused the accused returned home in the same night and initiating quarrel with her father assaulted him after picking up an axe left by the workers in that house. Evidence of PW.1 is also on the similar lines. That being the case while leaving the house for the first time in that evening which according to PW.2 was at about 8.30 p.m. itself the accused had decided as to what to do in case the deceased failed to repay the loan amount. As such, he had threatened the deceased of finishing him off, so that, when he visited the deceased again in the same night he was fully prepared to put an end to the matter, i.e., either to get the money back or to finish the deceased off. It is also clear from the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 that the axe with which the deceased was assaulted by the accused was not placed near the deceased while he was sleeping, but it was in the premises of the house. The accused went to it and picked it up, thereafter assaulted the deceased with the axe. This also go to show that from that evening till the time of incident the accused has sufficient time to think. As such, he has thought and decided to finalize the matter. It is also not the case the weapon was either in his hand when he started demanding the money or that it was just on the side of the deceased. So that, in the spur of the moment the accused is said to have picked it up and assaulted. When the accused has picked by himself the weapon which was not near the deceased the same would show that accused had the knowledge of his act and its consequences despite that he wanted to finish off his father in law i.e., the deceased. When the accused has picked by himself the weapon which was not near the deceased the same would show that accused had the knowledge of his act and its consequences despite that he wanted to finish off his father in law i.e., the deceased. For this reason also it cannot be accepted that there was any grave and sudden provocation. 32. The motive behind the incident is also the alleged non-repayment of the loan by the deceased to the accused. The amount of loan is said to be Rs.300/- only. Further the deceased also has not denied about his liability, but only had sought for a couple of days accommodation to pay it back. That being the case for such a small amount of Rs.300/-, that too when the lonee has prayed for a very short accommodation to clear the liability the loner who is none else than the son-in-law of the lonee getting provoked to an extent of killing the lonee is unimaginable. 33. Lastly, the part of the body to which injuries caused due to assault is the vital part of the body which is the head of the deceased. Had the accused no intention or knowledge of his act and its consequences he would not have targeted such a vital part for assault. If at all by some provocation if he has caused injury he would have caused some hurt to other organ or limb of the deceased, but not to the vital organ which is the head. This also go to show that the act of the accused in killing the deceased was not out of any grave and sudden provocation, but it is only after having the knowledge of his act and its consequences. As such, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the act of the accused/appellant of causing death of the deceased can only attract Section 304, but not Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not acceptable. 34. Apart from taking the defence of alleged grave and sudden provocation the accused has also taken a defence in the court below in the form of suggestion to PW.2 in her cross examination that she was not agreeable to bring back a child by name Kumara born to the accused through his first wife. As such, she joined by her parents had fixed the accused in the case. As such, she joined by her parents had fixed the accused in the case. PW.2 has flatly denied the said suggestion. Except a stray suggestion made to PW.2 in her cross examination, no other materials have been placed by the accused to substantiate his defence. Further, even after taking that accused had a child by name Kumara born to him through his first wife and that the said child is now being brought up in its native place still it cannot be believed that merely for her non acceptance to permit that child to reside with her, PW.2 could make a plot to fix her husband in a murder case. As such, the defence of the accused is also not tenable. 35. Regarding the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court is concerned, the accused has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The life imprisonment is the minimum sentence that can be imposed for a convict under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The imprisonment of one year imposed for the guilt proved for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is also not exorbitant. As such, we do not find any reason to intervene in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence imposed by the Sessions Court. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this appeal and we proceed to pass the following order. ORDER The appeal stands dismissed. The judgment of conviction dated 29.11.2010 and order on sentence dated 30.11.2010 passed by I Addl. Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangaluru in S.C. No.106/2009 is confirmed. Amicus Curiae fee is fixed at Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only).