JUDGMENT : 1. This criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused against the respondent-complainant, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, at Shivamogga (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’) in S.C.No.198/2014 dated 29.01.2016 for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 506 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned HCGP for the respondent – State. 3. The ranks of the parties before the trial Court is retained for the convenience. 4. The facts of the case as per the prosecution is that Agumbe police filed charge sheet against the accused on the basis of the complaint lodged by Smt. Shakuntala kom Neelaram alleging that on 08.06.2014, she had been to her parents house at Shiruru village on the occasion of Maari festival. Her son who is the deceased had also accompanied her. When they were having food in their house at about 9.30 p.m., there was galata in front of the house of the accused, who was their neighbour and accused was quarrelling with his wife Veena and also assaulting her. The son of the complainant, deceased Sachin rushed to the spot to rescue the wife of the accused Veena, from the hands of the accused. The accused being enraged by the act of the deceased, intentionally to cause the death of Sachin, kicked and assaulted him with an axe on his neck, chest and other parts of the body. It resulted in the death of the said Sachin. On seeing this incident, CW1 – Smt. Shakunthala, CW2 – Lohith and CW19 – Krishnappa Gowda came to pacify the quarrel. At that time, the accused committed criminal intimidation by threatening them by stating that he would murder them with the same Axe with an intention to cause alarm to them and thereby, the accused has committed offences punishable under Sections 302 and 506 of IPC. 5. PW.1 filed a complaint in this regard before Agumbe Police Station. A case was registered in Crime No.63 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 506 of IPC. Investigation was taken up. The accused was arrested. Charge sheet was filed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and produced 11 exhibits and 6 material objects. 6. A case was registered in Crime No.63 of 2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 506 of IPC. Investigation was taken up. The accused was arrested. Charge sheet was filed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and produced 11 exhibits and 6 material objects. 6. By the impugned order, the accused was convicted and sentenced as follows: “Acting U/s.235 (2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 506 of IPC. For the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, the accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and he shall pay fine of Rs.50,000/, in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 12 months. For the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC, the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and he shall pay fine of Rs.5,000/, in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 months. Acting under the provision of Section 357(3) of Cr.P.C. out of the fine amount recovered, Rs.40,000/shall be paid to PW.1, who is the mother of the deceased. xxx xxx The accused is entitled for set off which he already undergone in JC.” 7. Aggrieved by the same, the accused has filed this appeal. 8. PW1 is the complainant and mother of the deceased Sachin. She has stated that the deceased is her son. He has been murdered. When she had been to Shiruru village for Maari festival, the accused who happened to be their neighbour was quarrelling in front of their house with his wife and beating her. Her son went to the spot and tried to pacify the quarrel. At that time, the accused scolded the deceased in vulgar language and kicked him. The deceased fell down. Then the accused kept his foot on the chest of the deceased and assaulted him on the chest and the right side of the neck of the deceased from an axe. Consequently, the deceased suffered severe injuries and because of severance of nerves of the neck, the deceased screamed. PW1 immediately by hearing the said scream of the deceased in order to rescue the deceased, she pushed the accused and took her son on her lap. Consequently, the deceased suffered severe injuries and because of severance of nerves of the neck, the deceased screamed. PW1 immediately by hearing the said scream of the deceased in order to rescue the deceased, she pushed the accused and took her son on her lap. One Shanthamma and Krishnappa came to pacify the quarrel. The accused shouted that he would kill them also. Hence, they all went back. That PW.1 put her son on her lap and tried to make him drink water, by that time, her son died on her lap. Thereafter, the accused shouted in vulgar language and went inside the house. PW.1 has identified the axe used for the assault and marked as M.O.1, her clothes which were soaked in blood when she had taken the deceased on her lap as M.O.2, the blood stained shirt of the deceased as M.O.3 and the blood stained dhothi (lungi) of the deceased as M.O.4. She has further deposed that the accused is responsible for the murder of her son. In the cross examination, she has stated by the time she came out of the house, the accused had assaulted and the deceased had fallen on the ground. Her testimony is not otherwise impeached. 9. PW2 states that the deceased was his cousin. He has stated that he was present at the time of the incident. He witnessed the accused quarreling with his wife and that the deceased interfered and enraged by the same the accused assaulted the deceased by an axe on the neck and the chest and that the mother of the deceased came out and held the deceased on her lap and the deceased expired on her lap. When he along with others tried to pacify the quarrel, the accused threatened them of killing them also. PW2 has also identified the axe produced as M.O.1 which was used for killing the deceased. The defence has not been able to impeach the statement of PW2 in any manner whatsoever. 10. PW3 is also an eyewitness and relative of the deceased, she has also spoken as to she being present at the time of the incident and the fact of accused quarrelling with his wife, the deceased trying to stop him, the accused assaulting the deceased by an axe resulting in severe injuries to the chest and neck and consequently the death of the deceased. She has also stated that the accused threatened others also of killing them when they tried to pacify the quarrel. In the crossexamination, she has stated that at the time of the incident electricity was very much there and electricity was switched off after the assault on the deceased was over. The defence has not been able to impeach the evidence of PW3 in any manner. 11. PW4 is a hearsay witness and the evidence of this witness has no much consequences. 12. PW5 is one of the panch witnesses. He has admitted signing the mahazar produced as Ex.P4 and his signature on the same as Ex.P4(a). He has identified the blood stained soil from the spot as M.O.5 and the regular soil as M.O.6. 13. PW6 has spoken to about the inquest panchanama and that he has signed it. His signature is marked as Ex.P5(a). 14. PW7 is a seizure mahazar witness. Seizure mahazar has been marked as Ex.P6 and signature of PW7 as Ex.P6(a). In the crossexamination, he states that he do not know anything about the axe which has been seized. 15. PW8 is also a seizure mahazar witness and identifies M.O.1 i.e., the axe which was used to kill the deceased. 16. PW9 is an eyewitness and a relative of the deceased. He states that the accused was hitting his wife. The deceased interfered and asked him why he is sitting. At that time, the accused kicked the deceased. The deceased fell down. The accused assaulted the deceased with an axe on the chest and the neck. At that time, the mother of the deceased took the deceased on her lap. The deceased expired on her lap. He has identified the axe used for the assault (M.O.1). He has further stated that the accused threatened others of killing them also when they tried to pacify the quarrel. The defence has not been able to impeach the evidence of this witness. 17. PW10 is the Engineer who prepared the sketch of the spot where the incident took place. 18. PW.11 is the Doctor who prepared the post mortem report. Ex.P8 is the post mortem report. It states that the death is due to haemorrhagic shock due to traumatic severing of left Common Carotid Artery and internal Jugular Vein. 17. PW10 is the Engineer who prepared the sketch of the spot where the incident took place. 18. PW.11 is the Doctor who prepared the post mortem report. Ex.P8 is the post mortem report. It states that the death is due to haemorrhagic shock due to traumatic severing of left Common Carotid Artery and internal Jugular Vein. The details of the injury as recorded in the post mortem report is as follows: (i) Single deep lacerated wound of 2.5” X 1.5” over left lateral neck just above the level of cricoid cartilage; Left SternoMastoid muscle is torn. Left Common carotid artery and Internal Jugular vein are severed. Trachea is lacerated on the left side. ii) Single lacerated wound of 3” X 1” over right upper chest. P.W11 has stated about the injuries as mentioned in the post mortem report to be the reason for the death of the deceased. 19. PW12 is a Station House Officer who registered FIR. The same has been marked as Ex.P1. 20. PW13 is none other than the wife of the accused. She has stated that the accused was beating her. At that time, the deceased came and hit the accused. At that time, the accused had an axe in his hand and the deceased who had come to pacify the quarrel was hit by the axe on the left side of the neck and the leg by the accused. The deceased fell down and died. The accused assaulted the deceased because of the deceased tried to prevent the accused from hitting PW13. She has identified the axe. In the cross examination, her evidence has also not been impeached. 21. PW14 is the Investigating Officer who conducted the investigation, recorded the statements of the witnesses and submitted the FSL report to the Court. 22. PW15 is also an Investigation Officer who has partly investigated the witnesses and has spoken as to it. He states as to he visiting the spot of the incident and that the deceased was murdered and his body was lying on the spot and his clothes were blood stained. Thereafter, he prepared the spot panchanama and that the dead body of the deceased had injuries on the left side of the neck and on the chest. That he seized the blood stained clothes on the dead body, blood stained clothes of PW1, blood stained mud and ordinary mud. Thereafter, he prepared the spot panchanama and that the dead body of the deceased had injuries on the left side of the neck and on the chest. That he seized the blood stained clothes on the dead body, blood stained clothes of PW1, blood stained mud and ordinary mud. He sent the body of the deceased to post mortem and recorded the statements of the witnesses. That he arrested the accused and recorded his voluntary statement. He has seized the axe used for killing the deceased. He has identified M.O.1. The voluntary statement of the accused is also marked as Ex.P11. His evidence has also not been impeached by the defence. 23. Based on the above evidences, the trial court was of the view that there is sufficient material and that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt insofar as the guilt of the accused is concerned for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 506 of IPC and convicted and sentenced him accordingly. 24. Aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Court, the accused has preferred this appeal. 25. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, that he has committed the offence and thereby he is liable to be acquitted. The accused has taken specific contention that when the incident took place, there was a power cut and nobody could have witnessed the incident or the accused committing the alleged offences in the darkness and has also contended that the doctor – PW11 has stated that there are possibilities of the injuries sustained by the deceased could be found if a person fall on the sharp edged stone. He has further contended that there being no motive for murder and that the prosecution has failed to prove the same. It is the further contention of the accused that none of the panch witnesses in the crossexamination have stated about the incriminating object M.O.1, the Axe alleged to have been used to commit the murder of the deceased which was seized in their presence and the police took the signature on the mahazar elsewhere. It is further contended that the witnesses who have spoken against the accused are all interested witnesses and the deposition are contradictory in nature. It is further contended that the witnesses who have spoken against the accused are all interested witnesses and the deposition are contradictory in nature. The appellant has also contended that the complainant has not only complained against the accused but also against another person called Boja and no investigation has been done against the said Boja in respect of the incident. For the aforementioned grounds, the accused has sought for an acquittal. 26. On the contrary, the prosecution has contended that the evidence of the eye witnesses are sufficient to convict the accused herein and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 27. Ex.P8 is the post mortem report. PW.11 is the Doctor who conducted the post mortem of the body of the deceased. The deposition of PW11 and the post mortem report clearly establishes the cause of the death was due to an injury to the neck and chest of the deceased. It also establishes that the said injury can happen by an assault from an axe. It clearly shows that this is a case of homicide. 28. PW2, 3, 9 and 13 are the eye witnesses to the incident. In no uncertain terms, they have stated that the accused was quarrelling and beating his wife PW13. The deceased tried to interfere and stop the same. Being enraged by it, the accused kicked the deceased who fell on the ground. Then the accused assaulted the deceased on the neck and also on the chest which resulted in injuries leading to death of the deceased. They have also stated that when others tried to interfere, the accused threatened them of killing them also. There are minor variations in their deposition as to the description of the incident and the surroundings. But they are not so contradictory to disbelieve their versions. The deposition of PW15 who was the Investigation Officer has also not been impeached by the defence. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidences. 29. The evidence on record clearly proves that the accused was quarrelling with his wife. The deceased interfered and tried to pacify the quarrel. Enraged by the same, the accused assaulted the deceased, from an axe, on his neck and chest because of which the deceased got injured and died. When others tried to interfere and stop the quarrel, the accused threatened them also of killing. The deceased interfered and tried to pacify the quarrel. Enraged by the same, the accused assaulted the deceased, from an axe, on his neck and chest because of which the deceased got injured and died. When others tried to interfere and stop the quarrel, the accused threatened them also of killing. The act of the accused in injuring the deceased shows that the accused did the act with the intention of causing such bodily injury as he knew to be likely to cause the death of the deceased. This satisfies the ingredients of Section 300 of IPC. For which, the accused is punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Further, when people tried to stop the accused from assaulting the deceased he threatened them of killing them also. This amounts to criminal intimidation punishable under Section 506 of IPC. 30. Under the said circumstances, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the well considered judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.01.2016 passed in S.C. No.198/2014 by the trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.