JUDGMENT : The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 7.7.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri in SC.No.40/2008, by which accused Nos.1 and 2 appellants herein are convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, is called in question in this appeal by the convicted accused. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that complainant S.S. Kumari is the daughter of the deceased Sannappa. Deceased belonged to Madiwala Shetty community. Wife of the deceased CW.2 Sharada belongs to Telugu Banajiga Shetty community. Accused are the sons of senior paternal uncle of CW.2 Sharada. Because of intercaste marriage of CW.2 and the deceased, accused persons had an illwill against the deceased. According to them, deceased belonged to lower caste and therefore they were not visiting the house of the deceased. Accused persons used to interfere in the family affairs of the deceased and they tried to see that his son Cheluvaraju should not stay with the deceased and made him to leave his house. Cheluvaraju left his house and went to Bangalore, where he got married. When facts stood thus, on 7.12.2007, there was marriage of the daughter of the elder brother of the accused. On the said day, deceased had gone to hospital in Arkalagudu and came back at about 4.00 p.m. Thereafter, he left the house by saying that he would go to the lands. Again he came back and went to Bus Stand in Shirangala, which he always used to go. At about 10.30 p.m., when the complainant Kumari, CW.2 Sharada and CW.9 Manjula, sister of the complainant were in the house, CW.8 Krishnappa came and informed that accused were quarrelling with the deceased and assaulting him near Nala. Immediately, the complainant and her mother CW.2 went to the said place and saw the accused assaulting the deceased with stone and by hands and also kicking him. They also saw that the accused persons pushed the deceased to the Nalaand stamped on him. On hearing the screaming voice of the complainant and CW.2, CWs.11, 12, 13 and 14 came there. By seeing them, accused persons ran away. Thereafter the complainant and other persons took out the deceased from Nala, by that time, he was dead. They also saw that the accused persons pushed the deceased to the Nalaand stamped on him. On hearing the screaming voice of the complainant and CW.2, CWs.11, 12, 13 and 14 came there. By seeing them, accused persons ran away. Thereafter the complainant and other persons took out the deceased from Nala, by that time, he was dead. Thereafter, CW.1 went to the police Station and filed the complaint as per Ex.P1, on the basis of which, case was registered in Crime No.157/2007 in Kushalnagar Police Station as against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was laid against them. After filing of the charge sheet, the jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance and after following the procedure as per law he committed the case to the Sessions Court as it was triable by the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court took cognizance and secured the presence of the accused and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, framed the charge. Accused pleaded not guilty, as such the trial was fixed. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all has examined 33 witnesses as PWs.1 to 33 and got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to P20 and also MO.Nos.1 to 16. During the course of cross-examination, accused got marked Exs.D1 to D6. Thereafter, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by putting incriminating material as against them. Accused persons denied the same. However, accused No.1 stated that at the relevant point of time, he was staying in Bangalore and had come to Shirangala for marriage of the daughter of his brother and he had gone to Holenarasipura to take part in the dinner which was arranged in connection with the said marriage. Accused No.2 has also stated that he had been to Holenarasipura, where he was arrested. After hearing both parties, impugned judgment and order came to be passed. Aggrieved by the same, the accused are before this Court in the present appeal. 4. We have heard Sri Srinivasa Gowda, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.Namitha Mahesh B.G. learned HCGP for the respondent-State. 5. After hearing both parties, impugned judgment and order came to be passed. Aggrieved by the same, the accused are before this Court in the present appeal. 4. We have heard Sri Srinivasa Gowda, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt.Namitha Mahesh B.G. learned HCGP for the respondent-State. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants-accused apart from urging grounds (a) to (d) in the appeal memo, has contended that PWs.1 and 2 are not the eye witnesses to the incident in question. The evidence produced by the prosecution indicates that the deceased had consumed alcohol and hence he himself had fallen into the Nala and sustained injuries. The evidence of the doctor PW.24 would indicate that injuries mentioned in the PM report at Ex.P10, may be caused due to fall and not due to assault. He has further contended that the motive which is urged by the prosecution is not a motive at all as there was no animosity between the accused and the deceased with regard to intercaste marriage of the deceased and CW.2. The complaint was filed only with an intention to take a revenge against the accused. The trial Court without considering the said aspect and without appreciation of the material on record, has wrongly convicted the accused. On these grounds, he prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and order passed by the trial Court and pleaded for acquittal of the accused. 6. On the other hand, the learned HCGP for the respondent-State has vehemently argued by contending that the evidence of PW.25 clearly indicates that prior to the alleged incident, accused made a galata with the deceased. PWs.1 and 2 have seen the accused persons assaulting the deceased and also stamping by pushing him into the Nala. They also thrust his head into the drain pipe. The doctor PW.24 has opined that the death was due to asphyxia as a result of injuries sustained by him. There is sufficient evidence to show that it is the accused who have committed the alleged offence. Hence, there are no good grounds made out by the appellants so as to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the same deserves to be confirmed by dismissing the appeal. 7. As aforementioned, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 33 to prove its case. Hence, there are no good grounds made out by the appellants so as to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the same deserves to be confirmed by dismissing the appeal. 7. As aforementioned, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 33 to prove its case. PW.1 is the daughter of deceased, who has filed the complaint at Ex.p1. She is also an eye witness to the incident in question. She has deposed that her father had been to Hospital at Arakalgudu for treatment on 7.12.2007 and came back at about 4.00 p.m. Again he went out of the house to go to the land and came back. He again left the house by 7.00 p.m. and at about 10.30 p.m. PW.7 came and informed that the accused were quarrelling with the deceased. Immediately, she rushed to the spot along with her motherCW.2 by carrying a kerosene lamp and they saw accused quarrelling with the deceased and assaulting him with stone and also stamping on him by pushing him into the drain. During the course of cross-examination, nothing has been elicited so as to discard the evidence of this witness. PW.2 is the wife of the deceased who has reiterated the evidence of PW.1. She has deposed that because of the ill will as the deceased got married to her the accused persons have caused the death of her husband. During the course of her cross-examination, nothing has been elicited so as to discard the evidence of this witness. PWs.3 and 4 are the panchas to inquest mahazarat Ex.P2. PW.5 is another daughter of the deceased. PW.6 is the son-in-law of the deceased and husband of PW.5. After receiving the phone call, they came to the house of PW.2 and were told about the incident in question by PWs.1 and 2. PW.7 is the witness who heard the galata between the accused and the deceased and informed the same to PWs.1 and 2. PW.8 is another daughter of the deceased. When she was in the house, PW.7 Krishnappa came and informed that accused were quarrelling with deceased. PWs.9, 10 and 11 are the witnesses who came to the place of incident after hearing the galata. PWs.10 and 11 have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been treated as hostile. PW.8 is another daughter of the deceased. When she was in the house, PW.7 Krishnappa came and informed that accused were quarrelling with deceased. PWs.9, 10 and 11 are the witnesses who came to the place of incident after hearing the galata. PWs.10 and 11 have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been treated as hostile. PW.12 is the panchato seizure mahazarat Ex.P5 whereunder the clothes of the deceased were seized. PW.13 is a witness who went to the place of incident after hearing the galataand saw the dead body of the deceased. He was informed by PWs.1 and 2 about the galata and the assault committed by the accused persons. PW.14 is an elderly person in the village. He is the panchato spot mahazarat Ex.P6 and seizure mahazarat Ex.P7 under which MO.No.4 stone was seized. PW.15 is also a panchato Exs.P6 and P7. He has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been treated as hostile. PWs.16 and 17 are the panchasto seizure mahazarat Ex.P8, whereunder cash of Rs.5,300/- which was snatched by the accused from the pocket of the deceased was seized. PW.18 is the panchato seizure mahazarat Ex.P5. He has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been treated as hostile. PW.19 is the witness who had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,000/from the deceased and repaid the said amount on the date of the incident. PW.20 is the cousin of the deceased, who has deposed that when he was in the Bar in his village, accused came there after attending the marriage and deceased was also present in the said Bar. However, he left to his house at about 8.30 to 9.00 p.m. PWs.21 and 22 are the panchasto seizure mahazarat Ex.P9 under which MO.Nos.1 to 3 were seized. PW.23 received a phone call informing the death of the deceased. He visited the place and came to know that people gathered at the place were talking that there was quarrel between the accused and deceased. PW.24 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased and issued the PM report as per Ex.P10. PW.25 is the owner of the beedashop who speaks about the galata between the deceased and the accused prior to the alleged incident, near his shop. PW.24 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased and issued the PM report as per Ex.P10. PW.25 is the owner of the beedashop who speaks about the galata between the deceased and the accused prior to the alleged incident, near his shop. Though he was treated as hostile, subsequently, during the course of his cross-examination, he has supported the case of the prosecution and nothing has been elicited to discard his evidence. PW.26 is the Junior Engineer who has drawn the sketch of the place of the incident as per Ex.P12. PW.27 is the Police Constable who carried the FIR to the jurisdictional Court. PWs.28 and 30 are the Police Officials who apprehended the accused and produced them before the Investigating Officer. PW.29 is the Police Constable who took the body to the hospital for conducting postmortem examination and thereafter he handed over the body to the relatives of the deceased. He collected the clothes of the deceased and produced before the Investigating Officer. PW.31 carried the articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Mysore. PW.32 is the PSI who received the complaint as per Ex.P1, registered the case and filed the charge sheet against the accused. PW.33 is the Assistant Director of FSL, Mysore who has examined MO.No.1 and other articles and has given his reports at Exs.P18 and P19. 8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-accused that the deceased died due to fall in the drain by consuming alcohol. But, as could be seen from the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 and Ex.P2 with the evidence of the doctorPW.24 who conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased and his opinion, the death of the deceased was due to asphyxia as a result of injuries sustained by him. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused persons quarrelled with the deceased and thereafter they pushed him into the drain, stamped on him and thrust his head into the drain pipe. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused persons quarrelled with the deceased and thereafter they pushed him into the drain, stamped on him and thrust his head into the drain pipe. When there are eye witnesses to the alleged incident and even the doctor has also opined that the death was due to asphyxia and there were so many injuries found over the body of the deceased, then under such circumstances, it can safely be held that the death was due to the injuries suffered by the deceased as a result of stamping him by pushing him into the drain and it is a homicidal death. 9. From the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, it is clear that they went to the place of incident by carrying a kerosene lamp. They saw the accused persons assaulting the deceased by pushing him into the drain and also stamping and assaulting him with stone. Even the evidence produced clearly indicates the fact that there was an illwill between the accused and the members of the family of the deceased as he married PW.2 though he was belonging to the lower caste. The said evidence is credible and reliable and nothing has been elicited so as to discard the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. Apart from this, if we peruse the evidence of PW.7, he has deposed that he went and informed PWs.1, 2 and 8 that the accused persons were quarrelling with the deceased. Thereafter they went and saw the accused persons assaulting the deceased. Even during the course of crossexamination of PW.7, nothing has been elicited so as to discard his evidence. The said evidence appears to be worth accepting and is reliable, which also corroborates with the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. Even if we peruse the evidence of PW.25, the owner of beedashop, he has also deposed that near his shop accused and deceased were quarrelling and immediately thereafter PW.7 has also seen accused persons quarreling with the deceased and thereafter he went and informed PWs.1, 2 and 8. This entire evidence clearly goes to show that the accused persons picked up a quarrel with the deceased and thereafter assaulted him by pushing him into drain and caused his death. This entire evidence clearly goes to show that the accused persons picked up a quarrel with the deceased and thereafter assaulted him by pushing him into drain and caused his death. The evidence of PW.19 also discloses that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,000/from the deceased and on the date of the incident, he repaid the said amount which was subsequently seized from the possession of the accused in the presence of PWs.16 and 17 by drawing mahazarEx.P8. Accused have not come forward with any explanation as to how they were in possession of the said cash belonging to the deceased. Even the evidence produced regarding the FSL report as per the evidence of PW.33, it supports the case of the prosecution. 10. Though it is the contention of the appellant’s counsel that there is no motive to commit the offence, when there are eye witnesses to the incident in question, the motive will not play much importance. Further, there is consistency in the evidence of PWs.1, 2, and 7 and corroboration to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Though while recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. they have contended that they had been to Holenarasipura, but, in order to substantiate the said fact, they have not produced any evidence. When the accused take plea of alibi and if they fail to prove the same, then the prosecution case stands to reason. Looking from any angle we find that there is sufficient evidence to show that because of the earlier illwill, the accused persons picked up quarrel with the deceased, assaulted him with stone and hands, pushed him into drain and robbed an amount of Rs.5,000/and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. The accused–appellants have not made out any good ground to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. 11. We have carefully and cautiously gone through the original records including the impugned judgment and order of conviction. There is no perversity or illegality in the judgment passed by the trial Court so as to interfere with the same and it is liable to be confirmed. 11. We have carefully and cautiously gone through the original records including the impugned judgment and order of conviction. There is no perversity or illegality in the judgment passed by the trial Court so as to interfere with the same and it is liable to be confirmed. In the light of the discussion held by us, even on reappreciation of the entire evidence and material on record in the background of contentions put forth by the learned counsel for appellant-accused, we are unable to accede to any one of such contentions. We find no good ground to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. The appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed.