JUDGMENT : H.P. Sandesh, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant/accused challenging the judgment of conviction passed in S.C.No.53/2011 dated 28.01.2013 on the file of Fast Track Court, Tiptur for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 27.02.2010 at about 4.45 p.m. at N.H.47 road towards Tiptur-Halkurike near Machakatte Tandya within the jurisdiction of Honnavalli police station, accused committed murder intentionally causing the death of Lakshminarayana Setty who was coming on his motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA.06-J-2173 Yamaha RX on the extreme left side of the road dashing in his Maruti Omni bearing Reg.No.KA-02-Z-6568 and thereafter, get down from the vehicle and shifted the injured near bush since there was a dispute and ill-will between the deceased and accused's father regarding repayment of Rs.80,000/- which was taken by the father of the accused and charges were framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code after securing him before the lower Court. 3. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused, examined 17 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 17, got marked 21 documents as Ex.P.1 to P.21 and 10 material objects as M.O.Nos.1 to 10. Having recorded the 313 statement of accused and after hearing the arguments of both the sides, the Court below convicted the accused for both the offences. 4. The Court below has sentenced the life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and imposed fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of six months and ordered for rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for further period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused in the present appeal would contend that the Court below failed to appreciate the evidence available on record and at the first instance, complaint was registered as case of accident and thereafter based on the another complaint in terms of Ex.P.3 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code were invoked. 6. 6. Though the prosecution cited two witnesses as eye witnesses, it did not examine C.W.3-Smt.Maniyamma deliberately and so also another witness C.W.5, who informed about the incident to the complainant. The non examination of C.W.3 and C.W.5 was fatal to the case of prosecution and only examined P.W.2 and P.W.3 in the place of Maniyamma and Ramlingappa. In fact, P.W.2- Smt.Jayamma had no intention to go to Tiptur. As could be seen from the case of prosecution that Smt. Maniyamma had invited Smt.Jayamma to accompany her to Tiptur. The best person for this case is Maniyamma but she has not been examined. P.W.1 deposed that he got the information about the incident from one Ramalingappa-C.W.5 but he has not been examined. After lapse of seven days, the complainant makes a statement stating that he got the information from Ramalingappa and Girish Babu on 27.02.2010 and the said statement is only to improve the earlier statement so as to eliminate Ramlingappa and to plant P.W.3-Girish Babu in his place. The Court below fails to scrutinize the oral and documentary evidence and with regard to the transaction of Rs.80,000/-, a cheque was taken and executed an On Demand Pro-Note which have been marked as Exs.P.4 and 5. The Pro-Note is undated and cheque is dated 15.01.2010 and the same has not been proved and there was no link in the evidence of prosecution and the Court below has committed an error in convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. 7. Learned counsel, Sri. Sunil S Rao appearing for appellant in his arguments vehemently contended that, the prosecution has mainly relied upon the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.7. Another eye witness has not been examined and also relied upon the evidence of P.W.3 who saw the vehicle lying by the side of road and the injured. Thereafter, he was taken to hospital where he died. The case has been registered at the first instance for accident, thereafter, it was converted as murder and delay has not been properly explained by the prosecution. The Court below also taking note of the evidence of P.W.16 coupled with the evidence of P.W.s.2, 7and 3 erroneously convicted the accused. If the Court comes to the conclusion that this accused caused an accident and there was no intention to cause the accident and motive to commit the murder. The Court below also taking note of the evidence of P.W.16 coupled with the evidence of P.W.s.2, 7and 3 erroneously convicted the accused. If the Court comes to the conclusion that this accused caused an accident and there was no intention to cause the accident and motive to commit the murder. This Court can invoke Section 304(a) or 304(2) of Indian Penal Code as there was no any intention or pre-meditation to commit the murder and hence, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence require to be interfered with. 8. Per contra, learned State Public Prosecutor-II, Sri.I.S.Promod Chandra appearing for State, in his arguments contended that there is no discrepancy in the evidence of prosecution and Court has to take note of the fact that after causing accident, instead of providing the first aid to the injured, accused shifted the injured to the bush and vanished from the place of accident. Hence, the very contention of the appellant's counsel is that at the most, Court comes to the conclusion that if the accused caused accident, it can invoke Section 304(A) or 304(II) of Indian Penal Code or no such circumstances warranted to invoking Section 304(A) or 304(II) and it is intentional act of accused and not only he caused the accident in order to commit the murder, he did not take the injured to the hospital and threatened the eye witnesses who are all present in the vehicle and shifted the injured near the bush, thereafter he vanished from the spot. As such, it is not a fit case, even to show any leniency in favour of accused. There is motive to the accused since there was a dispute on account of repayment of Rs.80,000/- to the deceased. The Court has to take into account the conduct of the accused. Apart from that, after causing the accident, accused took the vehicle to M.R.Motors, Bengaluru and left the vehicle for repair and same was seized by the police. The owner of the vehicle who has been examined before the Court also reiterated that the vehicle was taken by the accused. P.W.7 also says the accused left the vehicle for repair and the evidence of Investigating Officer who has been examined as P.W.16 corroborates the case of prosecution. Hence, there is no ground to interfere with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. P.W.7 also says the accused left the vehicle for repair and the evidence of Investigating Officer who has been examined as P.W.16 corroborates the case of prosecution. Hence, there is no ground to interfere with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The sentence which is awarded against the accused is just and reasonable. 9. We have heard the arguments of learned appellant's counsel and also the learned State Public Prosecutor appearing for State. 10. This Court has to examine whether the trial Judge has committed any error in convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him for life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code respectively. 11. We have already mentioned the gist of the case of prosecution. Further we would like to mention in nutshell before discussing the evidence available on record. 12. It is the case of the prosecution that on 27.02.2010 when deceased was coming on the motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KA.06/J-2173 Yamaha RX on the extreme left side of the road in an opposite direction, this accused was driving his Maruthi Omni bearing Reg. No.KA-02-Z- 6568 and intentionally dashed against the motor cyclist in order to commit the murder. Thereafter, he tried to screen the evidence in throwing the injured near the bush and threatened P.W.2 and her inmate not to reveal the same to anyone. 13. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.s.1 to 17 and out of them, P.W.1 is the complainant who is the son of the deceased. P.W.2 is the eye witness and she was traveling in the said car when accident was occurred. P.W.3 noticed that the motor cycle was lying on the side of the road and saw the injured near the bush and thereafter, he took the injured to the hospital and he was informed that injured was dead. The other witnesses are the persons who have participated in the panchayath which was held on the same day. P.W.7 is the mechanic who repaired the vehicle belonging to the accused and accused took the vehicle and entrusted the same for repair to P.W.7. P.W.9 is the doctor who conducted post mortem and revealed the cause of death. The other witnesses are the persons who have participated in the panchayath which was held on the same day. P.W.7 is the mechanic who repaired the vehicle belonging to the accused and accused took the vehicle and entrusted the same for repair to P.W.7. P.W.9 is the doctor who conducted post mortem and revealed the cause of death. P.W.11 is the mahazar witness for seizure of the vehicle and P.W.12, who is the owner of the maurthi van, had taken the same for interim custody and got repaired the vehicle thoroughly after taking the vehicle for interim custody. P.W.13 is the person who repaired the mixi jar and he says that P.W.2 and C.W.3 came to their shop. P.W.14 is the IMV inspector who conducted the inspection of the vehicle. P.W.15 is the police inspector who received the complaint in terms of Ex.P1 and registered the complaint. P.W.16 is the Investigating Officer who conducted investigation. After collecting the materials, he has filed charge sheet. 14. We have carefully considered the evidence available on record. Prosecution has mainly relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 who is the son of the deceased and he came to know about the accident and taking the injured to the hospital. He rushed to the spot where his father's body was kept in the Ambulance and immediately took the injured to the hospital. At the first instance, he says that he gave complaint about the accident in terms of Ex.P1. After coming to know that it was not an accident but it was a murder, he filed another complaint in terms of Ex.P3. He also says that the police conducted mahazar at the spot as per Ex.P2 and seized the broken aerial stick and same was marked as M.O.1. On information that one Maniyamma and Jayamma were traveling in the said car and they knew about the incident, P.W.1 went and met P.W..2. After enquiry, she revealed that accused intentionally caused the accident and thereafter shifted the injured near the bush and the accused threatened her and her inmate not to reveal the same to anyone. Accused dropped both of them near Aluru Gate. Thereafter, accused proceeded from there. 15. P.W.1 has also spoken with regard to the loan transaction between his father and accused's father and there was a dispute between them regarding non payment of loan. Accused dropped both of them near Aluru Gate. Thereafter, accused proceeded from there. 15. P.W.1 has also spoken with regard to the loan transaction between his father and accused's father and there was a dispute between them regarding non payment of loan. Cheque and On Demand Pronote are marked as Ex.P.4 and P.5. Ex.P.3 is another complaint given by the complainant and also got marked M.O.2-Bike regarding damages caused to the vehicle. He was subjected to cross examination. In the cross examination, he admits that at the first instance, he gave complaint that the same is accident and he rushed to the spot within 30 to 35 minutes. One Girish Babu and Ramlingappa who noticed his father lying near the bush, have enquired with his father and but he was not able to speak. He cannot say at what time, information was given to Honnavalli police and he gave complaint on the next day and the broken aerial stick was lying on the left side of the road. He admits that in terms of Ex.P.3 he has stated that he came to know the same through P.W.6 who was in turn informed by one Jayamma who is a cook in school within two to three days. Thereafter, he went and enquired Jayamma. Thereafter after receiving information lodged the complaint. The main witness of the prosecution is P.W.2 and she is an eye witness. When P.W.2 appeared before the court, she says that father of the accused went to the house of P.W.2 on the previous day of examination and gave threat not to reveal about the accident and same was revealed before the Court and the learned Sessions Judge ordered to give protection to P.W.2. P.W.2 in her examination-in-chief narrated how accident had taken place. After the accident, accused threatened P.W.2 and C.W.3 not to inform about the accident to anyone. In the cross examination, it is elicited that vehicle was moving in a high speed and while giving the statement before the police, she did not tell that accused took extreme right side and caused accident. However she witnessed the accident and saw the vehicle at a distance of sixty feet and did not notice that the rider of the motor cycle was having any acquaints with her and there was no difficulty to get down from the vehicle and witnessed the spot. However she witnessed the accident and saw the vehicle at a distance of sixty feet and did not notice that the rider of the motor cycle was having any acquaints with her and there was no difficulty to get down from the vehicle and witnessed the spot. Except these answers, nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W.2 to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2. Only answer elicited is that there is no difficulty to get down from the vehicle to see the injured. The very fact that she witnessed the vehicle has not been disputed and no worth while evidence to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2. 16. P.W.3 who was proceeding on the same road, noticing that the motor cycle was lying on the road and injured was lying near the bush, immediately, took the injured to the hospital but injured lost his breath. In the cross-examination of P.W.3, he admits that it is high way, he cannot tell whether it is high way but it is the main road and motor cycle was lying at the five to ten feet distance from the road, no other persons were gathered from the place of accident. After five to ten minutes, people were gathered at the spot of accident and he did not notice the time. P.W.3 is only circumstantial evidence who came to the spot and the main contention of the defence is other eye witnesses have not been examined and nothing is elicited in the cross examination of P.W.3. 17. P.W.7 is the Managing director of M.R.Motors. He deposed before the court that accused brought his car to his garage for repair and he left the same in his garage. P.W.7 categorically says that accused told him that vehicle met with an accident and he got released the same from the police. After bargaining at cost of Rs.10,000/-, accused gave Rs.2,000/- as advance. P.W.7 repaired the vehicle partly and also signed Ex.P8-Mahazer regarding the seizure of vehicle. In the cross examination, no doubt it was elicited that there was no receipt for payment of Rs.2,000/- and there was no supplementary document to repair the vehicle and maintaining the book. Except these suggestions nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W.7 that accused has not given the vehicle and mahazer was drawn. Vehicle was taken to the custody of P.W.12 who is the owner of said vehicle. 18. Except these suggestions nothing is elicited from the mouth of P.W.7 that accused has not given the vehicle and mahazer was drawn. Vehicle was taken to the custody of P.W.12 who is the owner of said vehicle. 18. P.W.9 is the doctor who conducted autopsy, deposed regarding the nature of injury sustained by the deceased and cause of death of the deceased and there is no dispute with regard to the cause of death of deceased. 19. P.W.12 says in his examination-in-chief that he gave the vehicle to the accused as accused is the cousin brother of his wife. P.W.12 turned partly hostile to the case of prosecution. 20. P.W.13 is the mechanic and he deposed that P.W.2-Jayamma and one Maniyamma had come to his shop for getting repaired the mixi. In the cross examination it is elicited that in the guarantee card the name of Maniyamma was mentioned and he does not know P.W.2 and she had come to his shop along with Maniyamma. The evidence of P.W.13 corroborates the evidence of P.W.2 that P.W.2 and other inmate of the car went to the shop of P.W.13 and this accused gave drop to P.W.2 and Maniyamma. 21. P.W.16 is the Investigating Officer who conducted further investigation. After receiving complaint, he drew mahazer as per Ex.P.16 and P.18 and it reveals that accident road is high way and immediately after the curve, the road is high road and the location of the accident spot is not disputed. 22. Having taken note of clinching evidence of P.W.2, P.W.7, P.W.12 and P.W.13, it is clear that the vehicle belongs to the P.W.12 was damaged and same was given for repair to P.W.7. P.W.7 has repaired the vehicle partly and same was not repaired completely and said vehicle seized under mahazer. From the evidence of P.W.2, it is specific that she traveled in the accused's car and it also important to note that after dashing the motor cyclist, he dragged injured near the bush instead of giving first aid, threatened P.W.2 and her inmates not to reveal the same to anyone. P.W.2 revealed the same to school master P.W..6 and P.W.1 came to know about the same through P.W.6-school master and gave complaint in terms of Ex.P3. 23. P.W.2 revealed the same to school master P.W..6 and P.W.1 came to know about the same through P.W.6-school master and gave complaint in terms of Ex.P3. 23. Based on the complaint, further investigation was conducted by registering the case and seized the vehicle involved in the accident and said vehicle was partly repaired and the same was confirmed by P.W.7. P.W.12 is the owner of the said vehicle also did not dispute the seizure of the vehicle and he got it repaired the same after taking interim custody. 24. Having considered the material evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6, P.W.7, P.W.12 and P.W.13 coupled with evidence P.W.16, the court below has given its anxious consideration to all these witnesses and nothing has been elicited worth while in the cross examination of these witnesses. Particularly, cross examination of P.W.2 except elicited that she did not make any statement before the police that the accused took the vehicle to the extreme right side. Further she categorically deposed that accused dashed the motor cycle which was coming from the opposite direction and thereafter he stopped the vehicle little further and get down from the vehicle and dragged the injured person near bush and he neither took the injured person to the hospital nor provided first aid to him. All these conduct of the accused clearly disclose that the intention of the accused is to take away the life of injured person who is coming on the motor bike in the opposite direction and caused accident and shifted him near the bush and threatened the inmates of the car not to reveal about the incident. Investigating Officer collected the material and seized the vehicle of the accused and broken aerial stick of the car. Hence, we did not find any ground to interfere with the finding of the Trial Judge who has given adequate and convincing reasons while appreciating the evidence of the prosecution. 25. Though the counsel appearing for the accused would contend that if this Court does not accept the contention of accused, it is fit case to bring the case within the purview of 304(A) or 304(II) and we did not find any such ground to bring the case within the purview of 304(A) or 304(II) of Indian Penal Code. The intention was very clear to cause death of victim. The intention was very clear to cause death of victim. The prosecution has also proved the motive for killing the deceased and also proved the facts that accused screened the evidence after shifting the injured near bush. Hence, there are no ground to modify the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Accordingly, we pass the following: ORDER The Appeal is dismissed. The Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in S.C.No.53/2011 dated 28.01.2013 by the Fast Track Court, Tiptur for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code is confirmed.