JUDGMENT K.Suresh Reddy, J. - Heard the arguments of Sri.Posani Venkateswarlu, learned counsel representing Sri.N.Narasimha Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.K.Srinivas Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State through Video Conference operating in Blue-jeans App. 2. The sole accused in S.C.No. 65 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the learned XV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nuzvid, Krishna District is the appellant herein. 3. He was tried and convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred only) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for period of three months. 4. Substance of the charge is that on 09.09.2008 at about 2.00 p.m. the accused hacked one Chennu Simhadriraju (herein after referred as 'deceased') with pota knife in the mango garden of Tumu Nagireddy situated in Kokilampadu village, Tiruvuru Mandal causing his death thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 5. Case of the prosecution is that the accused as well as the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Kokilampadu village, Tiruvuru Mandal. The deceased was also a resident of the same village. P.W.1 is the son and P.W.4 is the wife of the deceased. P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 to 7 are distantly related to the deceased. The accused and the deceased are co-brothers. As such, the accused and the prosecution party are inter-related. 6. Prior to the date of incident, the accused drove his cattle into the mango garden of the deceased for grazing. The deceased questioned the same and reported the matter to P.W.7-Chennu Narasimha Rao and another. On that, the said persons called the accused and admonished him, for which, he bore grudge against the deceased. While so, on 09.09.2008 at about 2.00 p.m. taking advantage of the loneliness of the deceased, the accused went there armed him with a pota knife, a deadly weapon and hacked him indiscriminately in the mango garden of Tumu Nagireddy. P.W.2-Chennu Veladri and others witnessed the same and rushed to the spot. At that time it was raining. When P.W.2 intervened and tried to rescue the injured, the accused threatened him and left the place. Then, they brought the injured to the village and when they reached near Rajiv Gandhi Centre the injured died. P.W.2-Chennu Veladri and others witnessed the same and rushed to the spot. At that time it was raining. When P.W.2 intervened and tried to rescue the injured, the accused threatened him and left the place. Then, they brought the injured to the village and when they reached near Rajiv Gandhi Centre the injured died. At about 6.30 p.m., 108 ambulance came there and the ambulance personnel declared him dead. P.W.1-Chennu Nagaraju, who is the son of the deceased, came to know about the incident through P.W.2 and others went to Tiruvuru police station and gave Ex.P.1 report. P.W.10 the then Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.102 of 2008 and issued Ex.P7 FIR and sent FIR copies to all the concerned. Later, on 10.09.2008 P.W.11-Inspector of police took up investigation, secured mediators i.e., P.W.9 and another and went to the scene of offence and prepared Ex.P.4 scene observation report. He also prepared Ex.P.8 rough sketch at the scene of offence and also prepared another rough sketch i.e., Ex.P.9 where the dead body was lying in the village. Thereafter, he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.W.9 and another and prepared Ex.P5 inquest report. At the inquest, he recorded statements of prosecution witnesses. On 12.09.2008 he arrested the accused at his house in the presence of P.W.9 and another and recovered M.O.4-knife under the cover of Ex.P6 mediatornama. 7. On 10.09.2008 at about 10.00 a.m. as per the requisition of P.W.11, P.W.8-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Tiruvuru conducted autopsy over the dead body and issued Ex.P2 postmortem certificate by opining that the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of head injury. After completion of investigation, P.W.11 laid charge sheet. 8. On appearance of the accused documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were furnished to the accused and since the case is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, the same was committed to the Court of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam. Later, it was transferred to XV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nuzvid. 9. On appearance of the accused, charges as stated earlier came to be framed against him, read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 10. Later, it was transferred to XV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nuzvid. 9. On appearance of the accused, charges as stated earlier came to be framed against him, read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 10. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.11 and M.Os.1 to 7. 11. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, to which, he denied the prosecution evidence. D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D1 to D5 got marked on behalf of the defence side. 12. After completion of trial, accepting the evidence of eye-witness/P.W.2, the learned XV Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as aforementioned. 13. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused filed the present Criminal Appeal before this Court. 14. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W.2 is not a reliable witness and no reliance can be placed on his testimony. According to him P.W.2 and others carried the injured from mango garden to the village. If they really carried the injured to the village they ought to have received blood stains on their clothes, but the police did not seized their blood stained clothes and in the above circumstance, it is elicited that P.W.2 is not an eye witness. At this stature, a close look at the evidence of P.W.2 show that there are no blood stains on the clothes of P.W.2 in fact in the cross examination of P.W.2 the defence itself elicited that there are no blood stains on the clothes of P.W.2. Even if there are blood stains on the clothes they might have cleared because it was heavily raining at that point of time. In fact, it was also elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.2 that the rain water was flowing over the body of the deceased. Though P.W.2 was cross examined at length, nothing has been elicited to discredit his evidence. In such circumstances, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. In fact, it was also elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.2 that the rain water was flowing over the body of the deceased. Though P.W.2 was cross examined at length, nothing has been elicited to discredit his evidence. In such circumstances, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. The reading of the entire evidence of P.W.2 would indicate that he is a natural witness and he narrated the incident in a very clear manner and there is nothing to disbelieve his evidence. 15. The next ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the alleged arrest and recovery of M.O.4 is a myth and no reliance can be placed on the same. The learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that P.W.9- D.Satyanarayan, the then Village Revenue Officer, in whose presence the accused was arrested and weapon M.O.4 was recovered is an independent witness and he has nothing to do either with the accused or with the deceased. A close scrutiny of evidence of P.W.9 indicates that he is a reliable witness, though he was cross-examined at length, nothing has been elicited to discredit his veracity. 16. Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the motive suggested by the prosecution is very weak and he sought for acquitting the accused by disbelieving the case of the prosecution. It is well known fact that when the evidence of direct witness is there on record and inspired confidence of the court, motive loses its importance. Viewed from the evidence, the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that there are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 18. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence of the accused passed dated 30.10.2014 in S.C.No.65 of 2009 on the file of the Court of learned XV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nuzvid, Krishna District. 19. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand disposed of as infructuous.