JUDGMENT : These appeals are preferred against the same judgments. The Crl.A.No.1329/2012 is preferred by accused No.1 and connected Crl.A.No.1330/2012 is preferred by accused No.2 and 3. Hence both appeals were taken up together for the disposal by this common judgment. 2. The appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dated 5.10.2012 passed by the Principle Sessions Judge at Chickmagaluru in S.C. No.85/2011, wherein the appellants/accused No. 1 to 3 were convicted for the offences punishable under sections 302, 324 read with section 34 of I.P.C. 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case before the Police by way of complaint are: One Lingaraju S/o H.B is the complainant who lodged the complaint as per Ex.P.1, wherein he has stated that his sister Geetha was given in marriage to one Devendra. Geetha was having four children all of them were females. By the side of the house of Devendra, there was the house of Purushothama @ Shama and his brother Shivakurmar and also the mother Parvathamma who were also staying as neighbours. Since six months, accused No.1 Purushothama was propagating in the village that he is having illicit connection with Geetha, the sister of complainant and he made her pregnant and got aborted the same. In this connection there was galata number of times between Devendra and accused No.1 and they quarreled with each other. On 29.01.2011 also in the evening accused No.1 propagated before others that he is having illicit relationship with Geetha and he also told that he is going to marry and look after her and her four children. Therefore on 30.01.2011 during the night, the complainant, his mother Halamma and his sister Sakamma decided to enquire with accused No.1 and they went towards the house of accused No.1 at 7.30 p.m. At the same time accused No.1 met with them near by his house. The mother of the complainant asked accused No.1 why he is making such a false propaganda against Geetha. At that time accused No.1 started shouting against Halamma telling that he wants to marry her. After hearing the shouting Devendra also came to the said place and in the mean while accused No.1Purushotham’s mother Parvathamma and brother Shivakumar also came there. The mother of the complainant asked accused No.1 why he is making such a false propaganda against Geetha. At that time accused No.1 started shouting against Halamma telling that he wants to marry her. After hearing the shouting Devendra also came to the said place and in the mean while accused No.1Purushotham’s mother Parvathamma and brother Shivakumar also came there. Shivakumar assaulted on the back of the mother of the complainant with club and accused No.3 Parvathamma caught hold the mother of the complainant tightly, in the meanwhile accused No.1 Purushotham assaulted the mother of the complainant on her head with katti, due to pain she started screaming loudly. Then complainant and his sister Sakamma and brother-in-law Devendra went to pacify the quarrel but accused No.2 Shivakumar assaulted Sakamma with club on her back. At that time Devendra made an attempt to caught hold Shivakumar, but Shivakumar bite the middle finger of Devendra and caused bleeding injuries. In the meanwhile, mother of the complainant lost her conscious and she fell on the ground and she was not in a position to talk. Immediately Devendra shifted her in the ambulance and went to Chikkamagalur Government Hospital and after examining her, doctor told that she is already dead. When they went to enquire accused No.1 why accused No.1 is making such propaganda against Geetha, then all the 3 accused persons with an intention to cause the said incident assaulted Halamma with ‘katti’ and club and committed her murder. Hence the complainant requested to take appropriate action against the accused persons. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered in Crime No.11/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C. 4. After conducting investigation, I.O filed charge sheet against accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C. 5. After hearing both sides, learned Sessions Judge framed the charges against accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C. When the charges were read over and explained, accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Accordingly the matter was posted for trial. 6. In support of the prosecution, in all examined 19 witnesses and produced and got marked documents Exs.P.1 to P.22 and also got marked material objects M.O.1 to M.O.17. Accordingly the matter was posted for trial. 6. In support of the prosecution, in all examined 19 witnesses and produced and got marked documents Exs.P.1 to P.22 and also got marked material objects M.O.1 to M.O.17. Then the accused persons were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C and their statement came to be recorded. 7. On the side of the defence, no witnesses were examined nor any documents were produced and got marked. 8. After hearing the arguments on both sides and also considering both oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted three accused persons for the said charges holding that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Court below so also challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of the court below on the grounds as mentioned in the appeal memorandum in ground Nos.6 to 14 in the first appeal and ground No.7 in the connected appeal, appellants are before this Court in these appeals. 9. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants-accused in respect of above two appeals so also learned Addl. S.P.P. for the respondent State in respect of both the appeals. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants-accused made the submission that prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and even then the learned Sessions Judge wrongly held that it has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts. He further submits that the witnesses examined in the case are all relatives of the complainant and no independent witnesses were examined to prove the allegations made as against the accused persons. It is also his submission during the course of examination and cross examination of prosecution witnesses under section 313 Cr.P.C. The defence of the accused No.1 was that he was carrying the bundle of firewood inside also having material object M.O.1 ‘Katti’. It is his submission that accused No.1 has not assaulted the mother of the complainant with M.O.1 but when the quarrel took place in the push and pull process the M.O.1 object came in contact with the head of the deceased Halamma. Therefore learned counsel submits that it is not an intentional act on the part of the accused person to cause such injury on the head of deceased Halamma. Therefore learned counsel submits that it is not an intentional act on the part of the accused person to cause such injury on the head of deceased Halamma. Though it is the allegations made in the complaint that accused No.2 Shivakumar assaulted Halamma on the back with the club so also Sakamma on her back with the club but there are no external injuries sustained by those two persons. In this connection, he draws our attention to the injury certificate produced in the case and submits that there is no question of injuries on the back or on the head of Halamma or on Sakamma. This itself goes to show that false allegations are made in the complaint by the complainant about the alleged assault. 11. Learned counsel took us through the entire materials in the paper book, oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses so also the documents produced in the case. He also submits that the recovery is not proved by the prosecution with the cogent and satisfactory material and though it is the case of the prosecution that C.Ws.1, 15, 21 are said to be the eyewitnesses to the incident but all are relatives of the deceased and the complainant. Therefore, it is his submission that when the independent witnesses are very much available as they are residing in the neighbouring houses. Near by the spot, number of people were gathered and the Investigating Officer supposed to record the statement of the independent witness, but no such statement of independent witnesses were recorded in this case. Hence it is his contention that the allegations made in the complaint were not established with any independent witnesses. 12. The learned counsel also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurmukh Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in (2009) 15 SCC 635 and he submits that even the principle enunciated in the said judgment goes to show that the case will not come under Section 302 of I.P.C. and it is the case under Section 324, at least it may fall under Section 304(2) it cannot be the offence under Section 302. In this connection learned counsel draws our attention to the injury certificates of Sakamma, documents Exs.P.11 and P.12. Ex.P.11 injury certificate in respect of Devendra wherein the injuries have been mentioned and as opined by doctor that the above injuries are simple in nature. In this connection learned counsel draws our attention to the injury certificates of Sakamma, documents Exs.P.11 and P.12. Ex.P.11 injury certificate in respect of Devendra wherein the injuries have been mentioned and as opined by doctor that the above injuries are simple in nature. He also draws our attention to another document Ex.P.12 the wound certificate in respect of Sakamma and again he submits as per the opinion of the doctor above injuries are simple in nature. 13. Even with regard to the deceased Halamma is concerned learned counsel submits that looking to the photographs produced by the side of the prosecution. It is no doubt true the injury on the head portion is visible but there is no blood stains found around vertigo portion or on the clothes of the deceased. Hence it is his submission that the defence taken by the accused persons that, it is in the process of push and pull the M.O.1 object which was carried by accused No.1 along with the firewood bundle incidentally came into contact with the deceased thereby such incident caused. Hence it is his submission that so far as the alleged offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. is concerned absolutely there is no material on the side of the prosecution. All these aspects were not properly appreciated and considered by the learned Sessions Judge and he wrongly comes to the conclusion that accused No.2 committed the offence even under Section 302 of I.P.C. 14. It is his submission that even according to judgment of the trial Court so far as accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned they were convicted for the offences only under Section 324 read with 34 of I.P.C. Hence it is his submission that the prosecution has not established the case with acceptable material and the incident took place during night and there were no sources of light to see the alleged incident. Hence he submits that the judgment and order of conviction passed by the court below is illegal and it is not sustainable in law. Hence he submits to allow both the appeals and set aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the court below in support of all the above appellants-accused Nos.1 to 3 and to acquit them from the charges levelled against them. 15. Hence he submits to allow both the appeals and set aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the court below in support of all the above appellants-accused Nos.1 to 3 and to acquit them from the charges levelled against them. 15. Per contra, learned Additional S.P.P. during the course of his arguments submits that so far as defence of accused No.1, that he was carrying M.O.1 Katti along with the firewood bundle and the same came to contact during the push and pull process and this theory is not acceptable. He submits that as per the opinion of the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body, the death is caused due to result of head injury. Hence he submits that the doctor’s opinion and post mortem report’s contents clearly goes to show that death is caused due to the head injury to deceased Halamma. He made further submission that by taking such defence the accused persons have admitted that they were present at the spot. He also submits that looking to the defence and even statement made by accused No.1 at the time of examination under section 313 Cr.P.C statement itself goes to show that presence of accused persons 1 to 3 are admitted by themselves. Regarding source is concerned he submits that it has come in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that there was street light and also light from the shop of C.W.19. He also submits that the injury certificates Ex.P.11 and Ex.P12 apart from post mortem report goes to show that the injured witnesses Devendra and Sakamma who have been examined in the case in support of the prosecution case they are natural witnesses and when they are the injured eye-witnesses to the incident their evidence cannot be rejected only on the ground that they are the relatives to complainant. Hence he submits that the trial court has rightly appreciated these aspects of the matter. It is also his contention that the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants-accused is not at all acceptable to the facts of the case on hand. He further submits that the motive of the said galata is the accused No.1 was propagating that he is having illicit relationship with Geetha and he made her to become pregnant and took her to the hospital and aborted. He further submits that the motive of the said galata is the accused No.1 was propagating that he is having illicit relationship with Geetha and he made her to become pregnant and took her to the hospital and aborted. It has come to the notice of the complainant and other family members in this regard when they went to enquire with accused No.1 about these aspects accused No.1 made galata and assaulted deceased Halamma and also Devendra and Sakamma by using Katti and club and even by biting the finger also. Hence learned S.P.P. submits that the injured witnesses material relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge while appreciating the case of the prosecution and looking to entire materials learned Sessions Judge has rightly comes to the conclusion in holding that prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and rightly convicted the accused No.1 under section 302 of I.P.C. and even 324 of I.P.C. So far as accused Nos.2 & 3 is concerned they were rightly convicted under section 324 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Hence he submits that there is no illegality committed by the learned Sessions Judge in coming to such conclusion and further submits that there is no merit in both the appeals and appeals are to be rejected. 16. We perused the grounds in both the appeal memorandum, judgment and order of conviction passed by the Court below, oral evidence of prosecution witnesses P.W.1 to 19 and documents Ex.P.1 to P.22 and also perused the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants which are referred above and also considered the oral submission made by the learned counsel on both the side at the bar. 17. Now looking to the prosecution’s case the reason for the deceased and the two others coming to the spot to enquire accused No.1 as to why he is making false propagation about Geetha that he is having illicit relationship with her and he wants to marry her to look after her children. In this connection we have perused the evidence of prosecution witnesses P.W.1 Lingaraju who has spoken about the said aspect i.e. the propagation made by accused No.1 before others that he is having illicit relationship with Geetha. In this connection we have perused the evidence of prosecution witnesses P.W.1 Lingaraju who has spoken about the said aspect i.e. the propagation made by accused No.1 before others that he is having illicit relationship with Geetha. In the examination-in-chief in paras 1 and 2 he has deposed about these aspects and in the cross examination though it was suggested to the witness that he has not at all made propagation but the same which has been denied by the witnesses. Looking to the oral evidence of P.W.12 Devendra, wherein in his examination in chief he has deposed about the relationship and he has further deposed that by the side of his house there is the house of accused person deceased and P.W.1 also used to stay in his house about one and half months back of the alleged incident. He further deposed that accused No.1 propagated falsely by saying that he has made his wife C.W.17 pregnant and got her aborted and he is going to marry her and also look after her four children. When he used to say all these he quarreled with accused No.1. When accused No.1 used to tell about these things by standing on the road even the public used to hear the same, he further deposed in para 2 of his deposition that on 30.1.2011 when himself, C.W.17 were in their house at about 7.30 p.m., at that time deceased, P.W.1 and C.W.18 were on the road they heard the galata and by hearing the same they also came out and went near the said place accused No.3 Parvathamma by hugging the deceased with both hands from front side. So this evidence of the Devendra P.W.12 is also with regard to the propagation made by accused No.1 about Geetha looking to the cross examination of this witness P.W.12 in para 6 of the deposition of P.W.12 deposed that he has not made any galata to C.W.17 Geetha by saying that I am intending to marry another girl as she is getting only female children. But the next suggestion in the matter for consideration is it was suggested that he used to make C.W.17 Geetha she was looking towards accused No.1 and they are having relationship with each other and in that connection she also taken poison and got admitted in the hospital. But the next suggestion in the matter for consideration is it was suggested that he used to make C.W.17 Geetha she was looking towards accused No.1 and they are having relationship with each other and in that connection she also taken poison and got admitted in the hospital. It is no doubt such suggestion denied by the witness but making a suggestion it also goes to show about the illicit relationship which has been led by the prosecution as against accused No.1 due to the propagation P.W.13 is Geetha wife of P.W.12. She deposed in her evidence in her examination-in-chief that accused are residing by the side of their house. She got married to P.W.12 about 14 years back and she has four children. C.W.20 is her mother-in-law. Her mother deceased Halamma died about one year. Six months prior to the death of Halamma, Accused No.1 Purushotham by consuming alcohol used to tell in the street that he has committed rape on Geetha and made her pregnant and got aborted and that he will look after her children. P.W.12, her husband, used to tell accused No.1 not to speak about her in such vulgar words. In the cross-examination she deposed that she has not given any complaint against accused No.1 for having propagated about her that he has kept her and made her pregnant and got aborted her and he will look after her four children. Even they have not held any panchayath with the elders of the village. She admitted the suggestion as true that she has not stated before the Court that accused No.1 by consuming alcohol used to propagate about her. 18. Even looking to the evidence of P.W.13 Geetha, she deposed about accused No.1 propagating that he is having illicit connection with Geetha and during the course of cross-examination also nothing has been elicited from her mouth so as to disbelieve her contention about the said propaganda made by accused No.1. 19. P.W.14 Sakamma, another injured witness and also sister of P.W.13 Geetha has deposed in her evidence that her husband died about 5-6 years back. After the death of her husband, she is residing at Hiregouja in a separate house. P.W.13 Geetha married with P.W.12 Devendra about 14 years back and she has four daughters. 19. P.W.14 Sakamma, another injured witness and also sister of P.W.13 Geetha has deposed in her evidence that her husband died about 5-6 years back. After the death of her husband, she is residing at Hiregouja in a separate house. P.W.13 Geetha married with P.W.12 Devendra about 14 years back and she has four daughters. Six months prior to death of Halamma, accused Nos.1 to 3 used to tell before the villagers and C.W.15 that accused No.1 has made Geetha pregnant and got aborted and that he will look after her children. P.W.12 Devendra used to tell accused No.1 that he should not make any anti propaganda against his wife P.W.13. Even deceased Halamma asked accused No.1 not to make false allegation against P.W.13. At that time, accused persons told deceased as to who is she to ask about these things. In the cross-examination of P.W.14 there is no specific suggestion is made that she is deposing falsely about accused No.1 making propagation before the people and they went and asked accused No.1 not to make such false propagation in connection with Geetha P.W.13. 20. Looking to the evidence of these witnesses i.e., Devendra, Geetha, Sakamma all have consistently deposed about the act of accused No.1 that he was making such propagation before the public that he is having illicit connection with Geetha and made her pregnant and took her to hospital and got aborted and that he is going to marry her and will look after her children. Hence, prosecution has established this aspect of the matter with satisfactory material. 21. So far as the incident is concerned, the evidence of these witnesses show that on 30.1.2011 at about 7.30 p.m. Sakamma, Halamma and Lingaraju went towards the house of accused No.1 to enquire accused No.1 as to why he is making such propagation before others. The evidence of these witnesses show that when they were going nearby the house of accused No.1, accused No.1 also came there and they met him and enquired as to why he is making such propagations. At that time, accused No.1 shouted in a loud voice claiming that he is having such relationship with Geetha and what will they do and because of such loud voice, people gathered there and in the meanwhile, accused No.2 Shivakumar and accused No.3 Parvathamma, mother of accused Nos.1 and 2 also came to the spot. At that time, accused No.1 shouted in a loud voice claiming that he is having such relationship with Geetha and what will they do and because of such loud voice, people gathered there and in the meanwhile, accused No.2 Shivakumar and accused No.3 Parvathamma, mother of accused Nos.1 and 2 also came to the spot. Accused No.2 Shivakumar assaulted deceased Halamma with club on her back and thereafter, accused No.1 Purushotham assaulted with M.O.1 Kathi on head portion and caused injury. Then Halamma screaming loudly fell on the ground. The evidence of these witnesses also shows that accused No.2 Shivakumar also assaulted Sakamma on her back and on hands with club. Accused No.3, the mother of accused Nos.1 and 2, had tightly held Halamma while making assault on her. The witnesses have stated in their evidence that there was a street light when the incident taken place, so also, there was light from the shop of C.W.19. It is no doubt true, during the course of cross-examination of P.W.12 Devendra, it was suggested to him that he has not at all told before the police during investigation about the existence of electricity light in the shop of C.W.19. P.W.12 claims that he has stated in his statement before the police. So far as other witnesses are concerned i.e., Sakamma and Geetha, they have admitted in their cross-examination that for the first time they are telling about the existence of the street light. 22. The source of light at the spot is to be taken into consideration by the Court for the purpose of identifying the accused persons and that there should not be implication of other persons in the incident. But in the case on hand that question will not arise since the presence of accused Nos.1 to 3 has been admitted by the accused themselves in their defence. The defence of accused No.1 is that he was carrying the firewood bundle and M.O.1 Kathi was in the said bundle. At that time, accused Nos.2 and 3 also came to the spot. There was exchange of words between accused persons, complainant, P.W.12 Devendra and P.W.14 Sakamma. These materials makes it clear to the Court that absolutely there was no any sort of difficulty in identifying the accused persons at the place of incident. At that time, accused Nos.2 and 3 also came to the spot. There was exchange of words between accused persons, complainant, P.W.12 Devendra and P.W.14 Sakamma. These materials makes it clear to the Court that absolutely there was no any sort of difficulty in identifying the accused persons at the place of incident. Therefore, even an omission in the statement of these witnesses about existence of electricity light at the said place will not come in the way of the prosecution case. 23. Regarding the defence of the accused, more particularly, accused No.1 that M.O.1 Kathi which was kept along with firewood bundle accidentally came in contact with the head of Halamma and thereby she sustained injury is concerned, we have perused the document Ex.P8, the post mortem report. The doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body gave the opinion that cause of death is due to shock and hemorrhage, as a result of injury to head. 24. We have also perused Exs.P15, P15(1), P15(2) and P15(3), three photographs. In the photograph at Ex.P15(3) the injury and bleeding on the head of deceased Halamma is clearly visible. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that there was no bleeding at all from the said injury cannot be accepted. Apart from that, regarding the contention that M.O.1 Kathi was in the bundle of firewood and in the push and pull it came in contact with the head of deceased Halamma is concerned, we have perused the spot mahazar. If the said contention is true, the firewood bundle would have been found at the spot. But in the spot mahazar Ex.P3 it is noticed that Devendra, P.W.12 the eyewitness, has shown to the police one club which was at the distance of 10 feet from the place of incident lying on the northern side of the road and said that with the same club accused No.2 Shivakumar assaulted them. The police have verified the said club, it was measuring 2 ½ ft. in length and fist size width. The police have seized the club from the spot, packed and sealed the same. So, even the contents of Ex.P3 spot mahazar show that bundle of firewood was not found at the said place. The police have verified the said club, it was measuring 2 ½ ft. in length and fist size width. The police have seized the club from the spot, packed and sealed the same. So, even the contents of Ex.P3 spot mahazar show that bundle of firewood was not found at the said place. Apart from that, accused No.1 in his voluntary statement at Ex.P18 has stated that he has hidden M.O.1 Kathi and if he is taken, he will show the place and produce the same. The material also shows that accused No.1 lead the police and panch witnesses to the place and took out M.O.1 kathi from below the firewood kept by the side of the wall and produced the same before the police. It was seized under the seizure mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses as per Ex.P4. 25. We have also perused the contents of said mahazar Ex.P4, the contents of which shows that the accused lead them to the street nearby his house and from below the firewood and wooden planks he took out M.O.1 Kathi and produced the same before the investigation officer in the presence of panch witnesses. Even the measurement of the M.O.1 has been mentioned in the said mahazar Ex.P4 and that there were blood stains on it. The same was seized, packed and sealed by using the seal having the word ‘D’. 26. In this connection, we have also perused the photographs at Ex.P5. Looking to these photographs it is seen that in one photograph accused No.1 is taking out M.O.1 from below the firewood and wooden planks and in the next photograph he is holding M.O.1 kathi in his hand. These materials shows that this M.O.1 kathi was not found at the place with the firewood bundle, as contended in the defence by the accused persons, but, it was hidden in a place and at the instance of accused No.1 it was seized by the Investigation officer in the presence of panch witnesses under Ex.P4. 27. These materials shows that this M.O.1 kathi was not found at the place with the firewood bundle, as contended in the defence by the accused persons, but, it was hidden in a place and at the instance of accused No.1 it was seized by the Investigation officer in the presence of panch witnesses under Ex.P4. 27. In view of these materials placed on record, so also, the oral evidence of prosecution witnesses, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the injury sustained by deceased Halamma to her head is in the manner as contended by the defence while cross-examining the prosecution witnesses and also as per the written statement of accused No.1 in answer to the questions under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. statement, cannot be accepted. It clearly shows that it is a deliberate act of assaulting deceased Halamma with M.O.1. 28. Further, we have perused the FSL report at Ex.P21. Totally, four articles were sent for examination, mentioned at Sl.Nos.1 to 4 under Ex.P21 and it is opined that items at Sl.Nos.1, 2 and 4 were stained with blood. Item No.3 which is control mud was not stained. We have also perused the Serology report as per Ex.P22 wherein in the column ‘Origin of the Stains’, it is mentioned that item Nos.1, 2 and 3 are stained with human blood and in the column ‘Blood Group of the Stains’ it is mentioned that the blood group of the stains in items 1, 2 and 3 could not be determined because the results of the tests were inconclusive. Therefore, these two documents i.e., Exs.P21 and 22 also would show that M.O.1 Kathi was having blood stains of human blood, which supports the case of prosecution about the use of M.O.1 Kathi for commission of the alleged offence. 29. We have also perused the oral evidence of two injured witnesses i.e., P.W.12 Devendra and P.W.14 Sakamma. They both are said to have sustained injuries in the said incident and their injury certificates are produced as per Exs.P11 and P12. In the oral evidence of P.Ws.12 and 14 these witnesses have consistently stated about the assault made on deceased Halamma with M.O.1 Kathi by accused No.1 on her head. They both are said to have sustained injuries in the said incident and their injury certificates are produced as per Exs.P11 and P12. In the oral evidence of P.Ws.12 and 14 these witnesses have consistently stated about the assault made on deceased Halamma with M.O.1 Kathi by accused No.1 on her head. P.W.12-Devendra is also said to have sustained injury to his right hand finger because of the bite of accused No.2 and Sakamma also sustained injuries because of the assault made by accused No.2 with the club. In Ex.P12, the wound certificate of Sakamma, the Doctor has mentioned that there are multiple small abrasion over both the hands and injuries are simple in nature. Regarding this evidence, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that these witnesses are the relatives of the deceased and as such, it cannot be taken into consideration. When the witnesses have sustained injury and the same is proved by producing wound certificate and they were examined by the Doctor, only on the ground that they are the relatives of the deceased their evidence cannot be rejected from consideration. The presence of these injured witnesses at the time of incident is also established by the prosecution with oral as well as documentary evidence Exs.P11 and P12. 30. So far as M.O.2, club is concerned, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the seizure of M.O.2 club is not established by the prosecution. However, in this regard, we have already made a mention to the contents of Ex.P3, the spot mahazar, wherein Devendra P.W.12 has pointed out the place where M.O.2 club was lying and the same came to be seized by the police in the presence of panch witnesses. However, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the panch witnesses who are examined as P.Ws.6 and 8 have not supported the prosecution case regarding the seizure. 31. In the examination-in-chief, P.W.6 Annappa has deposed that he know C.W.9 Basavaraj and C.W.16 Devendra who has been examined as P.W.12. About one year two months back police called him to act as a pancha. Along with him, C.W.9 Basavaraj and C.W.16 were present. There police have seized the stained and unstained mud by putting it into a cover. Police also seized a club by putting it into a white cover. About one year two months back police called him to act as a pancha. Along with him, C.W.9 Basavaraj and C.W.16 were present. There police have seized the stained and unstained mud by putting it into a cover. Police also seized a club by putting it into a white cover. Already the said club is marked as M.O.2. Seals were in tact. He has no objection to open the same and accordingly, it was opened and got marked as M.O.6. For having seen the place of incident and seized the articles, a mahazar was also drawn. The same is marked as Ex.P3 and his signature is marked as Ex.P3(a). In the cross-examination he deposed that he does not know the contents of Ex.P3. He cannot say who wrote Ex.P3 and his rank and he admitted the suggestion that M.O.2 is used as firewood. C.W.9 Basavaraj is his relative. Deceased Halamma is his brother’s wife. The place of incident is both containing tar road as well as mud road. He cannot say the boundaries of the said place and he has also admitted the suggestion that he has signed Ex.P3 in the police station. 32. P.W.8 Basavaraju has deposed in his evidence that he knows the accused persons present before the Court. He knows P.W.6 Annappa and C.W.16 Devendra. About one year-one and half years back the police came to their village and when he was proceeding to his land they obtained his signature. When Ex.P3 was confronted to this witness he admitted his signature as per Ex.P3(b). However, he was treated as hostile witness and when cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor he denied the suggestion that on 31.1.2011 at about 1.30 p.m. police came to Hiregouja near the shop of Basavaraju C.W.19 and there C.W.16 shown the place of assault by accused persons to deceased Halamma and there in the presence of himself and C.W.6 Annappa, a mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P3 and there they also recovered M.O.2 club and M.Os.6 and 7 stained and unstained mud. He denied the suggestion that he signed after knowing the contents of Ex.P3 and in order to help the accused he is deposing falsely. 33. Referring to the evidence of these panch witnesses P.Ws.6 and 8 it is contended by the defence that seizure of the club M.O.2 is not at all established by the prosecution. 34. He denied the suggestion that he signed after knowing the contents of Ex.P3 and in order to help the accused he is deposing falsely. 33. Referring to the evidence of these panch witnesses P.Ws.6 and 8 it is contended by the defence that seizure of the club M.O.2 is not at all established by the prosecution. 34. In this connection we refer to the oral evidence of Investigation officer who conducted spot mahazar and seized M.O.2 club. The said witness is examined as P.W.19 one S.Ramesh Kumar. He has stated in his evidence in the examination-in-chief that on the same day i.e., on 31.1.2011, he visited the place of incident at about 1.30 p.m. and in the presence of P.Ws.6 and 8 he drew the spot mahazar as per Ex.P3 and Ex.P3(d) is his signature. He has also seized M.O.2 club and M.Os.6 and 7 stained and unstained mud. There he also took the photographs. He saw the said photographs. Four photographs together are marked as Ex.P16. We have perused the said photographs under Ex.P16. In the cross-examination of P.W.19, regarding the seizure of M.O.2 club and also drawing of the mahazar under Ex.P3 is concerned, it was suggested to this witness that he has not visited the place of incident and in the presence of P.Ws.6 and 8 he has not drawn the mahazar as per Ex.P3 and not seized M.Os.2, 6 and 7 and not taken photographs Ex.P16 and not drawn the sketch as per Ex.P17. The said suggestion has been denied by the said witness. It was also suggested that a firewood bundle has also fallen at the place of incident and he noticed the same at the time of drawing Ex.P3. This suggestion is denied by the witness. 35. The evidence of P.W.19 shows that he has visited the place of incident and conducted spot mahazar under Ex.P3. The evidence of P.W.19 is also supported by Devendra P.W.12. Therefore, only on the ground that P.Ws.6 and 8 have not fully supported the drawing of the mahazar under Ex.P3 it cannot be said that prosecution has not established the fact of seizure of M.O.2 club. Apart from that, nothing is placed on record during the course of cross-examination of P.W.19 as to why his evidence is to be disbelieved by the Court. His evidence cannot be rejected only on the ground that he is a police officer. Apart from that, nothing is placed on record during the course of cross-examination of P.W.19 as to why his evidence is to be disbelieved by the Court. His evidence cannot be rejected only on the ground that he is a police officer. If any material is placed on record to show that there was any sort of enmity between P.W.19 with the accused persons, there is no reason for this Court to reject the evidence of P.W.19. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.19 coupled with the evidence of P.W.12 Devendra and other materials, show that panchanama under Ex.P3 has been established regarding seizure of M.O.2 club and also M.Os.6 and 7 stained and unstained mud from the place of incident. The evidence of P.W.19 is also material to show that a false defence has been taken by the accused persons. When it was specifically suggested to P.W.19 that a bundle of firewood was lying at the spot, he clearly denied the said suggestion. Therefore, the defence taken by the accused and more particularly, by accused No.1, that M.O.1 kathi was along with firewood and accidentally it came in contact with Halamma, cannot be accepted. 36. So far as Ex.P3 is concerned, while crossexamining P.W.12 Devendra who was present at the time of spot mahazar, no specific suggestion is made to him that in his presence the police have not drawn Ex.P3 mahazar. Hence, the materials prove the drawing of mahazar Ex.P3 by the Investigation officer in the presence of P.W.12 Devendra and other witnesses P.Ws.6 and 8. 37. P.W.16, Dr.Somashekhar.K.N. has deposed in his evidence that on 31.1.2011 Circle Inspector, Kadur sent a requisition to conduct post mortem examination over the dead body of one Halamma which was in the mortuary and he conducted post mortem from 12.00 to 1.30 p.m. When he examined the rigor mortis was present in all the limbs and he noticed two injuries (1) An incised wound on the left frontal region measuring 2inch x ½inch x ½inch (2) An abrasion over the left side of the neck. On post mortem there was a incised wound on the left frontal region. On dissection the rest of the part of the body were found intact. He is of the opinion that the cause of death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injury to head. On post mortem there was a incised wound on the left frontal region. On dissection the rest of the part of the body were found intact. He is of the opinion that the cause of death is due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of injury to head. He issued post mortem report as per Ex.P8 and Ex.P8(a) is his signature. He further deposed that on 14.3.2011 the CPI, Kadur sent a letter along with a sealed cover containing Kathi for his examination and opinion. After examination of the said Kathi he has given his opinion on 15.3.2011. The letter of CPI is Ex.P9 and his opinion is Ex.P10. M.O.1 is the same Kathi which he examined on that day. If a person is assaulted with Kathi like M.O.1 to the left frontal region it may cause death. 38. In the cross-examination he deposed and admitted as true that he has not mentioned in Ex.P8 that time since death before the post mortem is less than 24 hours. He has not noticed any injuries on the backside of the body of the deceased. On going through the semi-digested food he is of the opinion that death might have occurred one hour after taking meals. Depending upon the force of a person who is assaulting, the nature of injury is going to be caused and it is not necessary that there should be cut injury or a fracture. He admitted the suggestion as true that if a person is holding a weapon like katti along with firewood and if the said person is surrounded by 3-4 persons and in the scuffle if the said person tries to escape, under such circumstances, if the said kathi comes in contact with the person standing side by then the injury mentioned in Ex.P8 may cause. 39. P.W.17-Dr.Chandrashekar Salimath has deposed that on 30.1.2011 at 10.10 p.m., a patient by name Devendra came with a history of assault and he examined him and found following injury, ‘1)incised wound over right hand third finger’. Said injury was simple in nature. He has issued the wound certificate as per Ex.P11 and Ex.P11(a) is his signature. He further deposed that, on the same day, he examined P.W.14 Sakamma who has also come with the history of assault. On examination he found multiple small abrasion over both the hands. He opined that said injuries are simple in nature. He has issued the wound certificate as per Ex.P11 and Ex.P11(a) is his signature. He further deposed that, on the same day, he examined P.W.14 Sakamma who has also come with the history of assault. On examination he found multiple small abrasion over both the hands. He opined that said injuries are simple in nature. He issued wound certificate of Sakamma as per Ex.P12 and P12(a) is his signature. He further deposed Devendra P.W.12 gave the history of injury by bite and injury mentioned in Ex.P11 may occur if a person bites. The injuries mentioned in Ex.P12 may occur if a person has been assaulted with rough club. He examined P.Ws.12 and 14 and the injuries were fresh and might have occurred less than two hours prior to his examination. In the cross-examination he admitted as true that he has not mentioned the age of injury in Exs.P11 and P12 and in Ex.P11 he has not mentioned the history as injury by bite. But witness volunteers and deposed that he has mentioned in the MLC register which he has brought before the Court. If a weapon like M.O.1 delicately and gently handled then under such circumstances the injury mentioned in Ex.P11 may cause. If a person is holding a weapon like M.O.1 and another person tries to snatch the said weapon from his hand and if it comes in contact with the middle finger then under such circumstances also the injury mentioned in Ex.P11 may occur. He has admitted that when a person is carrying the firewood on his shoulder and another person tries to pull the said firewood and the firewood comes in contact with the said person who is pulling injury mentioned in Ex.P12 may cause. As per the evidence of P.W.17-Dr.Chandrashekhar Salimath, the injury sustained by P.W.12 Devendra and P.W.13 Sakamma are established by the prosecution. 40. Hence, we are of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge has considered all the aspects of the matter put forth by the prosecution as well as by the accused persons and has rightly held that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 302 of IPC along with Section 324 of IPC as against accused No.1 and also the offence under Section 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC as against accused Nos.2 and 3. We do not find any illegality in the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge and there are no valid and justifiable grounds for this Court to interfere into said judgment. There is no merit in both the appeals. Accordingly, both the appeals are hereby dismissed.