JUDGMENT : The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant–accused challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Koppal (herein after referred to as the trial court), in Sessions Case No.44/2014 dated 07.05.2014. 2. We have heard the learned counsel Smt. Anuradha Deshpande, the Panel Advocate, Legal Services Committee, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad for the appellant and the learned Additional S.P.P. Sri V.M. Banakar for the respondent-State. 3. The genesis of the complaint is that the complainant-wife of the accused got married him about one year back and started residing with her father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law. About four days prior to the incident, her mother-in-law and brother-in-law had been to B-Hosahalli village to meet their relatives. Accused used to pick up quarrel with the deceased and he used to insist him to leave the house as he wanted to reside with the complainant alone and he used to threaten him to take away his life. 4. On 16/8/2014, the complainant and the accused went to attend the coolie work at about 10:00 a.m. and complainant returned to the house at about 6:00 p.m. She cooked the food. The father of the accused was there in the house. At about 8:30 p.m., the complainant was about to serve the meal to her father-in-law. In the meanwhile, accused gave his entry and asked the complainant to serve the food to him. But, the complainant went to serve the food to her father-in-law. This irked the accused and he started quarreling with the complainant and caught hold of her hairs and dragged her. In the meanwhile, the deceased intervened and advised the accused not to quarrel with the complainant. At that time, the accused picked up quarrel with the deceased and abused him in filthy language and caught hold of him and by quarrelling, they came out of the house. When the complainant intervened to pacify the scuffle, accused pushed the complainant. On hearing the quarrel, the neighbourers also came there and at that time, the accused pushed the deceased on the ground and put his leg on the neck, picked up the boulder (a big size stone) which was lying nearby and threw it on the head of the deceased. On hearing the quarrel, the neighbourers also came there and at that time, the accused pushed the deceased on the ground and put his leg on the neck, picked up the boulder (a big size stone) which was lying nearby and threw it on the head of the deceased. Though the complainant and neighbourers rushed towards the injured, he had already sustained heavy bleeding injuries and died on the spot. Accused after the incident, fled away from that place. 5. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered in Crime No.148/2014 of Koppal Rural PS. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer investigated the case and filed the charge sheet. 6. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and after compliance of the provisions of Section 207, he committed the case to the Sessions Court. The trial Court secured the presence of the accused and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, the charge was prepared, read over and explained to the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty. He claims to be tried and as such, the trial was fixed. 7. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution got examined 10 witnesses and got marked 19 documents and 13 material objects. Accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by putting incriminating material as against him. He denied the said incriminating materials, but he has not led any evidence nor got marked any documents. After hearing both the sides, the trial court passed the impugned order of conviction and sentence. Challenging the legality and correctness of the said judgment, the appellant–accused is before this Court. 8. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant–accused are that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge is contrary to law and materials placed on record. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on probability and the circumstances. It is her further submission that neighbourers were also present, but, they have not tried to pacify the quarrel. Under such circumstances, their presence at the place of incident itself appears to be doubtful. It is her further submission that the evidence of PW2 is totally baseless and her evidence is interested testimony and the trial Court ought to have rejected the evidence and should have given the benefit of doubt to the accused. Under such circumstances, their presence at the place of incident itself appears to be doubtful. It is her further submission that the evidence of PW2 is totally baseless and her evidence is interested testimony and the trial Court ought to have rejected the evidence and should have given the benefit of doubt to the accused. It is her further submission that even according to the case of the prosecution; the accused was not having any intention to cause death of the deceased. On the other hand, when he saw his wife serving the food in spite of his request, to her father-in-law, all of a sudden the alleged incident had taken place and he took up a boulder stone which was lying there itself and assaulted. Under such circumstances, it indicates that there is no preparation, motive, intention to commit the offence. Under such circumstances, the trial Court ought to have convicted and sentenced under Section 304 part II of IPC instead of convicting under Section 302 of IPC, in that regard she prays to allow the appeal. It is her further submission that the trial Court without properly appreciating the evidence of eye-witnesses and other witnesses has came to a wrong conclusion and had wrongly convicted the accused. On these grounds, she prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 9. Per contra, the learned Additional S.P.P. vehemently argued and contended that the evidence produced by the prosecution clearly goes to show that earlier to the alleged incident, the accused used to quarrel with the deceased and he was intending to oust the deceased from the house and even he has uttered many a times that he will take away the life of the deceased and in that context, by taking an opportunity on the date of the alleged incident, he took up a boulder stone, put it on his head and caused the death of the deceased. That itself shows that he was having an intention to cause the death of the deceased and the provisions of Section 304 part II of IPC is not attracted. It is further submitted that there are eye-witnesses to the incident. PWs. That itself shows that he was having an intention to cause the death of the deceased and the provisions of Section 304 part II of IPC is not attracted. It is further submitted that there are eye-witnesses to the incident. PWs. 2, 5 and 6 are the eye-witnesses and they have categorically deposed with regard to the quarrel between the deceased and the accused and the accused assaulting with the stone and causing death. There is no reason to discard their evidence. It is further submitted that the FSL report Ex.P9 clearly goes to show that the shirt of the accused was stained with B+ve blood group of the deceased and how that stains were found over the shirt of the accused has not explained by him. Taking into consideration the evidence and material placed on record, the trial Court has came to the right conclusion and has rightly convicted the accused. The appellant-accused has not made out any grounds so as to give him the benefit of doubt. On these grounds, he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 10. We have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant–accused and the learned Additional S.P.P. for the respondent–State. Perused the records including the Trial Court records. 11. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, prosecution got examined 10 witnesses. P.W.1 is the Doctor who had conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased and issued the post mortem report as per Ex.P1. In his evidence he has deposed that he found the external injuries viz., left black eye present, bone deep split laceration present over the forehead with under lying fracture of frontal bone, abrasion over outer aspect of right eye, two abrasions, one above and one below present over outer aspect of left knee joint and he has opined that the death is due to intracranial hemorrhage, as a result of head injury associated with skull fracture and he has issued PM report as per Ex.P1. He has also deposed that if anybody throws a stone like MO.1 on the head, the injuries shown in Ex.P1 may be caused. During the course of cross-examination, nothing has been elucidated so as to discard his evidence. 12. PW-2 is the wife of the accused and the complainant. In her evidence she has deposed that the accused is her husband. During the course of cross-examination, nothing has been elucidated so as to discard his evidence. 12. PW-2 is the wife of the accused and the complainant. In her evidence she has deposed that the accused is her husband. The deceased is her father-in-law and her marriage was performed about one year eight months earlier to the incident and she started to live with the accused in his house at Kinnal village along with her father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law. She has further deposed that the accused used to demand the deceased for money and he used to insist the deceased to leave the house and in that connection, he used to quarrel with the deceased and she has further deposed that he used to threaten the deceased to take away his life in case he did not leave the house. She has further deposed that she left the house in the morning for doing coolie work and on the same day, she returned to the house in the evening. At that time, the deceased was in the house. After a little while, the accused came to the house and apart from herself, the deceased and the accused nobody else was there in the house. CW-5 and Sameer have gone to Hosahalli village to see their relatives. At about 8.00 p.m., the deceased asked her to serve food. At that time, the accused picked up quarrel with her, abusing her for providing the food to the deceased instead of serving him. He caught hold of her tuft and dragged her here and there and assaulted with hands. Seeing the same, the deceased advised the accused not to assault her and accused started abusing him for having advised him and dragged the deceased out. Witness stated that she intervened to rescue the deceased but the accused pushed her away and caught hold of the deceased and pushed him as well. When the deceased fell on the ground, the accused put his leg on the neck of the deceased and picked up the stone which was lying there and hit the deceased with the said stone on his head. As a result of the same, the deceased died on the spot. She has further deposed that at the time of scuffle between the deceased and the accused, CWs.9 to 12 were present and they have also witnessed the incident. As a result of the same, the deceased died on the spot. She has further deposed that at the time of scuffle between the deceased and the accused, CWs.9 to 12 were present and they have also witnessed the incident. During the course of cross-examination of this witness, nothing has been elicited so as to discard the presence of the said witness at the place of incident. 13. PW-3 is the inquest Pancha who signed Ex.P5 Inquest Panchanama and Ex.P6-Spot Mahazar and he is also a witness to the seizure of the cloths of the deceased as per Ex.P9. PW-4 is the brother of the deceased and he has deposed that the accused used to quarrel with the deceased often, making efforts to oust him from the house and the accused used to threaten the deceased to take away the life and he had advised the accused not to quarrel with the deceased. But, in spite of that he used to quarrel with the deceased. During the course of cross-examination nothing has been elicited so as to discard the evidence of this witness. PW-5 is the neighbor he has also deposed that about 8 months back, at about 8.00-8.30 p.m., he was sitting outside the house along with his wife-CW-14 and the quarrel was going on in the house of the accused. While quarreling so, the deceased and accused came out of the house. The accused pushed the deceased and as a result, the deceased had fallen on the ground and immediately, the accused picked up a stone and hit with it on his head, as a result of it his head was broken, blood stared oozing and he died on the spot. During the course of the cross-examination of this witness also nothing has been elicited so as to discard his evidence. PW-6 is also a neighbourer and he has also reiterated the evidence of PW-5 and nothing has been brought on record so as to disbelieve the evidence of this witness. PW-7 is the P.C., who had carried the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate as per Ex.P12. PW8 is the PSI, who apprehend the accused and produced before the Court. PW-9 is the P.S.I. who received the compliant as per Ex.P4 and issued the FIR as per Ex.P11 and handed over the further investigation to PW-10-C.P.I. who completed the investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused. 14. PW8 is the PSI, who apprehend the accused and produced before the Court. PW-9 is the P.S.I. who received the compliant as per Ex.P4 and issued the FIR as per Ex.P11 and handed over the further investigation to PW-10-C.P.I. who completed the investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused. 14. During the course of argument the learned counsel for the appellant-accused contended that the accused had no intention, preparation or motive to commit the offence and the alleged offence had taken place in a spur of moment. Under such circumstances, the trial Court could have given the benefit under Section 304 part II of IPC. But on perusal of the evidence of the material witnesses it is found that they have categorically deposed that the accused used to quarrel with the deceased and he used to threaten the deceased to take away the life and that many a times they have also advised the accused as not to quarrel with the deceased. Even as could be seen from the evidence of PWs-2, 5 and 6, that they have categorically deposed before the Court that when the complainant was serving the food to the deceased, the accused entered the house, questioned the complainant and started quarreling with her. When the deceased advised him, in that connection, he dragged the deceased from inside the house and pushed him. When the deceased fell down on the ground, accused put his leg on the neck of the deceased and picked up a stone which was lying there and hit the deceased with the said stone on his head and because of the said assault, the deceased died on the spot. The evidence of PWs.2, 5 and 6 is corroborated with each other, so also the evidence of PW-1-the doctor who conducted the post-mortem over the body of the deceased. When all the witnesses have categorically deposed before the Court that earlier also the accused used to quarrel with the deceased and on the date of alleged incident, accused also started quarrelling with the deceased and immediately, thereafter, he took up a boulder stone and assaulted on the head and thereby caused the injury, there is nothing on record so as to discard the evidence of these witnesses. The evidence of PWs.-2, 5 and 6 is creditworthy and that they are not artificial or unnatural witnesses. The evidence of PWs.-2, 5 and 6 is creditworthy and that they are not artificial or unnatural witnesses. Though during the course of argument, the learned counsel for the appellant-accused contended that PW5 and PW6 though neighbourers and have witnessed the alleged incident that they have not come up for rescuing. But it is natural that the deceased and accused used to quarrel everyday and it is a day to day affair. Under such circumstances, nobody will bother and in that light, if the evidence of PW5 and PW6 is seen, it appears to be quite natural and probable. 15. It is well settled preposition of law that when there are eye-witnesses to the alleged incident and they have seen the accused assaulting with the boulder stone and causing the head injury and due to head injury the deceased died, under such circumstances the motive will be having very less importance. But in the instant case on hand, the motive is also there to the alleged incident. Even as could be seen from report Ex.P19 it has been clearly stated that the shirt MO.6 which has been sent as item Nos.9 and 10 to RFSL, they were stained with human blood of B+ve group. The accused has not explained under what circumstances his shirt and cloths were stained with blood. In the absence of any such material or evidence, it can be inferred that it is only because of assault with a boulder stone the deceased sustained the fatal injuries. 16. Looking from any angle the evidence which has been produced before the Court is acceptable and nothing is there to discard these evidence. Further there is no evidence so as to bring the case under Section 304 part II of IPC. Even during cross-examination nothing has been brought on record so as to come to the conclusion that the alleged incident has taken place in a spur of moment and without there being any premeditation or intention that he had assaulted the deceased and caused the injury. In the absence of any such material, it is not acceptable that the alleged incident has taken place without there being any intention, in a spur of moment. 17. We have carefully and cautiously gone though the judgment of the Trial Court. In the absence of any such material, it is not acceptable that the alleged incident has taken place without there being any intention, in a spur of moment. 17. We have carefully and cautiously gone though the judgment of the Trial Court. The judgment of the trial Court indicates that the trial Court after taking into consideration the materials placed on record came to the right conclusion and there is no perversity or illegality in passing the impugned order. Therefore the appeal is devoid of merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. Hence appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits. 18. However, we appreciate the legal assistance given by the learned counsel for the appellant. The legal Service Authority is hereby directed to pay whatever the legal remuneration she is entitled.