JUDGMENT : The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in S.C. 319/2011 dated 23.4.2012. 2. The genesis of the case of the prosecution are that complainant has got four sons and three daughters. All sons have got married and were living separately. Appellant-accused is the grandson of the complainant and he is the son of second son Narsimha Murthy. Accused Venkatesha alias Dasa had been addicted to liquor and was making galata every day in the house. In that light, on 18.6.2011 at about 7.30 p.m. accused came to the house of the complainant and started quarrelling and insisted the complainant to pay money, to which the complainant told him that he does not have any money to pay him, for which the accused abused him as a “XXXX”. By saying so he took out a knife and with an intention to commit the murder assaulted the complainant on his stomach and as a result of the same, the intestine came out and thereafter also accused assaulted with the same knife on his neck, chest and other parts of the body and when complainant started shouting for help, his wife Smt. Dhanalakshmi came there and by seeing her, accused ran away from the house. With the help of neighbourers and third son they shifted the injured to the Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru. On the information received from the Medical Officer, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Tavarekere, after ascertaining the condition of the complainant to the effect that whether he is in a fit state of mind to give the statement, recorded the statement of complainant who is suffering with injuries. On the basis of such complaint a case was registered in Crime No.246/2011 for the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC. Subsequently, injured died due to the injuries on 23.6.2011 and after investigation police filed the charge sheet as against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. After filing of the charge sheet the Jurisdictional Magistrate took the cognizance and committed the case to the Principal District and Sessions Court after complying the formalities by supplying the copies of the charge sheet. 3. After filing of the charge sheet the Jurisdictional Magistrate took the cognizance and committed the case to the Principal District and Sessions Court after complying the formalities by supplying the copies of the charge sheet. After receipt of the records Sessions Court took the cognizance, secured the accused who was in custody and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused charge was framed, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, as such the trial was fixed. 4. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 13, got marked Exs.P1 to P10 and MOs.1 and 2. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused the Court below passed the impugned order convicting the accused under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant-accused is before this Court. 5. The main grounds apart from the grounds No.6 to 9 made out in the appeal memo, it is contended that there are no eyewitnesses to the alleged incident, entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence. All the chain of events have not been proved by the prosecution, but the trial Court erroneously without considering the contentions raised by the appellant-accused has convicted the accused. He further contended that there is no motive established by the prosecution in spite of that the trial Court has wrongly convicted the accused. He further contended that the voluntary statement which has been recorded in respect of the appellant-accused clearly indicates the fact that the accused was in an intoxicated condition and was not having any intention to kill the deceased, the trial Court without considering the said aspect has wrongly convicted the accused. He further contended alternatively that when the accused has proved that he was not having intention and was in an intoxicated condition and was not having any premeditation or intention to kill, then under such circumstances the trial Court ought to have convicted the accused for lesser offences. He further submitted that now the Court can consider the said evidence and accused may be convicted for the lesser offence. In order to substantiate his contention he relied upon a decision in the case of Hanmantha S/o Sabanna Telgar Vs. The State of Karnataka reported in 2017 Supreme (Kar) 836. He further submitted that now the Court can consider the said evidence and accused may be convicted for the lesser offence. In order to substantiate his contention he relied upon a decision in the case of Hanmantha S/o Sabanna Telgar Vs. The State of Karnataka reported in 2017 Supreme (Kar) 836. On these grounds he prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader Smt. B.G. Namitha Mahesh vehemently argued that the statement of the deceased clearly indicates the fact that the accused assaulted the deceased with knife and the presence of the accused is not disputed at the place of incident and even accused used to quarrel with the deceased for demand of money. Under such circumstances the intention of the accused was clear that with an intention to cause the death he brought the knife and assaulted by causing grievous injuries and the deceased has died due to the injuries caused by the accused. She further submitted that as per the wound certificate and the evidence of the doctors PWs.4 and 5, they have deposed that the deceased has sustained as many as eight injuries and one injury is grievous in nature and even intestine has come out of the stomach, then under such circumstances it cannot be held that the accused was not having any intention to cause the death. She submitted that the entire case is not based on circumstantial evidence. 7. She further submitted that PW.1 the wife of the deceased is an eye witness to the alleged incident and PWs.2 and 3 have also come to the place of incident immediately after hearing the screaming voice and have seen the accused at the place of incident. There is corroborative evidence to show that the accused has committed the murder of the grandfather. She further contended that immediately after the incident he has washed the knife and brought and kept in the house of the deceased with an intention to conceal the evidence. That also clearly goes to show that the accused was having an intention to kill. She further submitted that the appellant- accused has not made out any good grounds so as to interfere with the order of the trial Court. The same may be confirmed by dismissing the appeal. 8. That also clearly goes to show that the accused was having an intention to kill. She further submitted that the appellant- accused has not made out any good grounds so as to interfere with the order of the trial Court. The same may be confirmed by dismissing the appeal. 8. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution got examined in all 13 witnesses. PW.1 is the wife of the deceased and the grandmother of the accused. In her evidence she has deposed that she has got seven children and all have got married and her husband deceased Dasaiah used to get Rs.400/- pension and accused is the son of her second son Narsimha Murthy. She has further deposed that about seven-eight months back at about 7.00 p.m. when herself and her husband was there in the house, accused came to their house and asked the deceased to give money to meet the expenses and at that time deceased told that he has no money and at that time accused by saying that he has got money to give it to others and why he is not giving to him and by saying so he took out the knife and assaulted on his face, neck and stomach and other parts of the body and as a result of the same the intestine came out and the deceased by calling her name told that his intestine has come out, asked her to come immediately and when she went inside the house and asked him who has assaulted, then the deceased told that the accused assaulted him and by seeing the same she made a hue and cry and hearing the same, Cws.2 and 3 came inside the house and at that time accused ran out of the house and thereafter they took the deceased to the hospital and there the police recorded the statement of the deceased and subsequently as the treatment failed, he died. During the course of cross examination it has been elicited that she was not hearing the talks between the accused and the deceased and when after hearing, she came in, she saw the injured and at that time he told that the accused assaulted with knife. Except that nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this witness. PW.2 is the son of the deceased. Except that nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this witness. PW.2 is the son of the deceased. He has also deposed that the deceased father was getting Government pension of Rs.400/- and by the side of his house his father’s house is there. The said house is a single room house and accused was not doing any job. He further deposed that on 18.6.2011 at about 7.30 p.m. his father and mother made a hue and cry and himself, PWs.3 and 4 went to the house of his father and his father was there in the house and accused by seeing them ran out of the house and when he saw his father he was suffering with stab injuries and when he asked who assaulted, his father told that the accused assaulted for having asked the money and when he said he was not having money, by enraging accused stabbed with knife on his body and to his stomach and the intestine has come out. Immediately, himself and PW4 made a call to ambulance and took him to Victoria hospital. During the course of cross examination it has been elicited that by hearing the screaming voice he came to the house of his father and his father was there in the house about 10 minutes and at that time he talked. Except that nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this witness. PW3 is the neighbour, she is the eyewitness who saw the accused running away from the house of the deceased immediately after the incident. During the course of cross examination nothing has been elicited so as to discard the evidence of this witness. PW4 is the doctor who treated the injured who came to the hospital on 19.6.2011 at about 12.40 a.m. with history of multiple stab injuries over the abdomen. He further deposed that on 20.6.2011 he received requisition to examine the injured to say whether he is in a fit condition to give the statement. He further deposed that after examination he has opined that the patient is in a fit condition to give the statement and police recorded the statement of said Eeranarasimhaiah in his presence as per Ex.P1. He has further deposed that he has also signed Ex.P1. During the course of cross examination nothing has been elicited. He further deposed that after examination he has opined that the patient is in a fit condition to give the statement and police recorded the statement of said Eeranarasimhaiah in his presence as per Ex.P1. He has further deposed that he has also signed Ex.P1. During the course of cross examination nothing has been elicited. PW5 is the doctor who conducted the post mortem over the body of the deceased Eeranarasimhaiah. In his post mortem report at Ex.P3 he has opined that the cause of death is due to complications of abdominal injuries sustained. During the course of cross examination nothing has been elicited to discard the evidence of this witness. PW6 is the Assistant Engineer who prepared the sketch of scene of offence as per Ex.P4. PW7 is the inquest mahazar pancha to Ex.P7. PW8 is the seizure mahazar pancha of the clothes of the accused. In his evidence he has deposed that the accused produced blood stained pant and a knife which were used for commission of the offence and the same were seized by drawing a mahazar as per Ex.P8. During the course of cross examination nothing has been elicited to discard the evidence of this witness. PW9 is the Police Constable who carried the FIR to the Jurisdictional Court. PW10 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who received the information from the hospital and sent ASI Nagaraj to record the statement of the injured Eeranarasimhaiah and thereafter he registered the case in Crime No.246/2011 and issued the FIR. He has also drawn the spot mahazar by visiting the spot and he has also received the death memo. PW11 is the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. In his evidence he has deposed that as per the instruction of PW10 he went to the hospital and contacted the Medical Officer and ascertained whether the patient is in a fit state of condition to give the statement and thereafter in the presence of the doctor he recorded the statement of the injured as per Ex.P1. During the course of cross examination nothing has been elicited so as to discard his evidence. PW12 is the Circle Inspector of Police, who took the further investigation and filed the charge sheet. PW13 is also a Circle Inspector of Police. He has also conducted the investigation. 9. During the course of cross examination nothing has been elicited so as to discard his evidence. PW12 is the Circle Inspector of Police, who took the further investigation and filed the charge sheet. PW13 is also a Circle Inspector of Police. He has also conducted the investigation. 9. On perusal of the entire records, the entire case rests upon the statement of the deceased, which is said to be a dying declaration as per Ex.P1 and the evidence of PW1 the wife of the deceased who has seen the accused assaulting the deceased. On close scrutiny of the evidence it indicates the fact that deceased Eeranarasimhaiah has given the statement as per Ex.P1. 10. PW11 - Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who recorded the complaint of deceased Eeranarasimhaiah as per Ex.P1 has clearly deposed that as per the instruction of PW10 on 20.6.2011 at about 8.00 p.m. he came over to Victoria Hospital and thereafter he obtained the opinion of the Medical Officer to know whether the injured Eeranarasimhaiah was in a fit state of mind to give the statement and thereafter the Medical Officer after examining the injured gave his opinion to the effect that the injured is in a fit condition to give the statement and accordingly he recorded the statement as per Ex.P1 and even the Medical Officer has also made an endorsement to that effect and thereafter on the basis of the said statement a case was registered. Even PW4 the doctor has also reiterated the evidence of PW11 and the prosecution has also proved the fact that the deceased was in a fit state of mental condition to give the statement and accordingly the statement is recorded as per Ex.P1. Even PW4 the doctor has also reiterated the evidence of PW11 and the prosecution has also proved the fact that the deceased was in a fit state of mental condition to give the statement and accordingly the statement is recorded as per Ex.P1. In Ex.P1 Dying Declaration deceased has clearly stated that the accused came to the house and on 8.6.2011 at about 7.30 p.m. and asked him to pay the money and made a galata and when he said that he is not having money and to the said act accused by saying “you old man you are having money to give it to other grandsons and if you are alive, then only you say so” by saying so by taking the knife from his pocket with an intention to kill assaulted on his stomach as a result intestine came out and he also assaulted on the left side of below stomach and chin and other parts of the body. By seeing the same his wife made a hue and cry and the accused ran away. This evidence is also corroborated to the evidence of PW1 the wife of the deceased. 11. By going through Ex.P1 it fully satisfies the requisite ingredients of dying declaration. It is well settled principles of law that a dying declaration is an independent piece of evidence like any other piece of evidence and the Court can act upon the said dying declaration without there being any corroboration if it is found to be otherwise true and reliable. This proposition of law has been laid down in the decision of Jai Karan Vs. State of Delhi (NCT) reported in (1999) 8 SCC 161 , wherein at paragraph 10 reads as follows: “10. A dying declaration is admissible in evidence on the principle of necessity and can from the basis for conviction if it is found to be reliable. While it is in the nature of an exception to the general rule forbidding hearsay evidence, it is admitted on the premises that ordinarily a dying person will not falsely implicate an innocent person in the commission of a serious crime. It is this premises which is considered strong enough to set off the need that the maker of the statement should state so on oath and be cross-examined by the person who is sought to be implicated. It is this premises which is considered strong enough to set off the need that the maker of the statement should state so on oath and be cross-examined by the person who is sought to be implicated. In order that a dying declaration may form the sole basis for conviction without the need for independent corroboration it must be shown that the person making it had the opportunity of identifying the person implicated and is thoroughly reliable and free from blemish. If, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is found that the maker of the statement was in a fit state of mind and had voluntarily made the statement on the basis of personal knowledge without being influenced by others and the court on a strict scrutiny finds it to be reliable, there is no rule of law or even of prudence that such a reliable piece of evidence cannot be acted upon unless it is corroborated. A dying declaration is an independent piece of evidence like any other piece of evidence-neither extra strong nor weak-and can be acted upon without corroboration if it is found to be otherwise true and reliable.” 12. It is also well established principles of law by the Hon’ble Apex Court, dying declaration can be the sole basis of conviction if it inspires full confidence of the Court and if Court is satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind at the time of making the statement and that it was not the result of tutoring, prompting or product of imagination. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Muthu Kutty and another Vs. State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 2005 SC 1473 , wherein at paragraph 17 reads as under:- “17. There is no material to show that dying declaration was result of product of imagination, tutoring or prompting. On the contrary, the same appears to have been made by the deceased voluntarily. It is trustworthy and has credibility.” 13. Even without corroboration of the evidence of the doctor if the dying declaration satisfies, under such circumstances it can be relied upon and the accused can be convicted. 14. Be that as it may. On the contrary, the same appears to have been made by the deceased voluntarily. It is trustworthy and has credibility.” 13. Even without corroboration of the evidence of the doctor if the dying declaration satisfies, under such circumstances it can be relied upon and the accused can be convicted. 14. Be that as it may. Apart from the said dying declaration the evidence of PW1 the wife of the deceased also clearly indicates the fact that accused came and demanded for money and when deceased refused to pay the money, he took out a knife and assaulted him. Even the said fact is also corroborated with the evidence of PWs.2 and 3. When they came to the house of the deceased by hearing the screaming voice of PW1, they noticed the presence of the accused and when they made enquiry with deceased he has also said that the accused has assaulted. By going through the evidence it clearly indicates the fact that it is the accused who assaulted the deceased on the stomach and on other parts of the body with M.O.1-knife. 15. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the accused was not having any motive to commit the said offence, as such the conviction is not sustainable, but by going through Ex.P1 and the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 it clearly indicates the fact that when accused demanded to pay money and deceased refused, being enraged accused who brought the knife and has assaulted and caused the injuries, that itself is sufficient to show that there was motive. Leave apart this, when there are direct eyewitness and there is a dying declaration given by the deceased, then under such circumstances motive becomes irrelevant. In that light also the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the accused appellant is not acceptable. 16. During the course of argument the learned counsel for the appellant by relying upon the decision quoted supra contended that the accused has consumed the alcohol and he was not having any intention to kill and immediately after the incident he was also apprehended and has not tried to escape and all the incident has taken place in a spur of moment and as such he prays that if at all this Court comes to the conclusion that the accused has committed an offence, it falls under Section 304-II of IPC. Whether the act of the accused falls under the provisions of 304-II of Indian Penal Code. The said provision reads as under: “304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.- Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, Or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.” By going through the above said provision it makes it clear that the accused if he commits such an offence without there being any intention to cause death or cause such bodily injuries, though he has knowledge that his acts are likely to cause death, then under such circumstances the said provision will be made applicable. 17. From the evidence of PW.5 the doctor who conducted the post mortem he has mentioned the following injuries: 1. Vertically placed suture wound present over the front of middle of abdomen measuring 18 cms situated 2 cms below xiphisternum. 2. Oblique suture wound present over hteright sideof chest measuring 4 cms. situated 6 cms. below and inner right nipple. 3. oblique suture wound present over right side of cheat measuring 4 cms in length situated 6 cms. below wound No.2. 4. Suture wound measuring 4 cms present over right inguinal region. 5. Oblique suture wound 3 in numbers present over right gluteal region each measuring 1.5 cm. in length. 6. sutured wound 3 cms in length present over the front of left ankle joint. 7. sutured wound 2 cm in length present over the front of right ankle joint. 8. vertical suture wound 2 cm in length present over left chin. 18. Oblique suture wound 3 in numbers present over right gluteal region each measuring 1.5 cm. in length. 6. sutured wound 3 cms in length present over the front of left ankle joint. 7. sutured wound 2 cm in length present over the front of right ankle joint. 8. vertical suture wound 2 cm in length present over left chin. 18. If we peruse the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the accused has assaulted with knife which he has carried along with him and even the blow which has been given on the stomach has brought out the intestine out of his stomach and even the words uttered by the accused itself indicates that with an intention to cause the death he assaulted mercilessly and has given eight blows. It is sufficient to draw the inference that the accused had an intention to cause the death of the deceased. Under the said facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that the contention taken up by the learned counsel for the appellant to reduce the sentence to the lesser offences is also not acceptable. 19. We have gone through carefully and cautiously all the original records and the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The trial Court after considering all the material has rightly convicted the accused appellant. There is corroborative evidence to prove the case of the prosecution that the accused with an intention of committing the murder of the deceased has committed the alleged offence. Accused appellant has not made out any good grounds so as to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction. The same deserves to be confirmed and accordingly it is confirmed. Appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits.