JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Court of the III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kolar (Sitting at K.G.F.) in S.C.No.122/2015 dated 08.12.2016 whereby, the trial Court sentenced the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short). In this appeal, the appellant is seeking intervention of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, to consider the grounds urged in this appeal, to set aside the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial Court and to acquit the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. N.R. Krishnappa for the appellant and so also, learned HCGP Smt. Rashmi Jadhav for the respondent-State. Perused the judgment of conviction passed in S.C.No.122/2015 consisting the evidence of PW.1 to PW.22 and so also the documents marked as Exs.P1 to P19 including MO.1 to MO.5. 3. The factual matrix of the appeal are as under:- It transpires from the case of the prosecution that, since about 15 years i.e., prior to 26.12.2014, the accused namely Rangappa had a illicit relationship with the deceased Gowramma and they were residing together at Kannur village, Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar District. The deceased Gowramma decided to stop her illicit relationship with accused person and also she informed the same to him and by convening panchayath relating to return of Rs.25,000/- which she owed to him, in front of panchayathdars i.e., elderly persons, she returned a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the accused and in spite of that the accused person who intended to continue his illicit relationship with the deceased Gowramma and also used to quarrel with her frequently. The deceased did not agree to continue her illicit relationship with him. Therefore, on 26.12.2014 at around 3.00 p.m., the accused had came to the house of the deceased Gowramma at Kannur Village and whereby, picked up a quarrel with her and brutally assaulted her with means of crow bar on her chin, right ear, right jaw, left hand, chest and also pierced on the head of the deceased Gowramma and committed murder of the deceased. Subsequent to committing the murder of the deceased by the accused brutally, he ran away from the scene of crime i.e., house of the deceased Gowramma. Subsequent to committing the murder of the deceased by the accused brutally, he ran away from the scene of crime i.e., house of the deceased Gowramma. In pursuance of act of the accused and so also on receipt of a compliant made by PW.1-Smt.Malathi, who is none other than the daughter of the deceased Gowramma and based upon her complaint, criminal law was set into motion by recording FIR as per Ex.P18. 4. Subsequent to registration of the crime, case in C.C.No.269/2015 has been registered in the committal Court and whereby, the Investigating Officer has taken up the case for investigation and during investigation has recorded the statement of witnesses and so also drew the spot mahazar, seizure mahazar and also inquest mahazar of the dead body of Gowramma and secured the post mortem report at Ex.P15 inclusive of FSL report at Ex.P16 and thereafter, laid the charge sheet against the accused before the committal Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Subsequent to committing the case by the committal Court by passing the order by following the requisite provision under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., the case has been committed to the Court of Session for trial and whereby, the case in S.C.No.122/2015 came to be registered and wherein, the accused was required to face a trial. 5. The accused has engaged a service of a counsel to defence his case. 6. The trial Court has heard all charges by the public prosecutor and the defence counsel and on prima facie case against the accused, framed the charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, moreover, the accused was not pleaded guilty but claims to be tried. Accordingly, the plea of the accused was recorded separately. 7. Subsequently, the prosecution let in the evidence by subjecting to examination in all PW.1 to PW.22 and got marked several documents as Exs.P1 to P19 and so also got marked MO.1 to MO.5. Subsequent to closure of the evidence on the part of the prosecution, whereby, the incriminating statement as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded and wherein, the accused has denied the truth of the evidence of prosecution appeared against him. Accordingly, the statement of the accused has been recorded. Subsequent to closure of the evidence on the part of the prosecution, whereby, the incriminating statement as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded and wherein, the accused has denied the truth of the evidence of prosecution appeared against him. Accordingly, the statement of the accused has been recorded. Subsequently, the trial Court called upon the accused to adduce defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 Cr.P.C. But the accused did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence on his side. Accordingly, it was recorded. 8. Subsequent to closure of the evidence on the part of the prosecution and so also on the defence side and whereby, the trial Court has heard arguments of both the sides and appreciated the evidence of PW.1 namely Smt. Malathi who is the daughter of the deceased Gowramma and based upon her complaint at Ex.P1, criminal law was set into motion by recording FIR as per Ex.P18. 9. PW.2-Jayappa Naidu who has given his evidence on the part of the prosecution and moreover, the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 has been find corroborated with the evidence of PW.19-Dr.Kiran who conducted autopsy of the dead body and issued post mortem report at Ex.P15 and so also indicates the injuries inflicted on the vital parts of the deceased Gowramma. Their evidence has been got corroborated with the evidence of PW.20-Venkatachalapathi being an Investigating Officer and whereby, he laid the charge sheet against the accused by securing the inquest mahazar at Ex.P11 and seizure mahazar at Ex.P13 and spot mahazar at Ex.P14 prepared in the presence of pancha witnesses and also secured the FSL report at Ex.P16 whereby, the trial Court has heard the arguments of the learned public prosecutor and so also the arguments advanced by the defence counsel relating to the murder of the deceased Gowramma by the accused, who had some illicit relationship with her for several years. But entire case of the prosecution even though rest upon the circumstantial material in terms of the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, there is no eyewitness to the incident according to the prosecution. But PW.2, who reached to the scene of crime i.e., house of the deceased Gowramma and in his evidence, it reveals the involvement of the accused. But PW.1-Smt.Malathi has got information from PW.2 regarding the death of the deceased Gowramma. 10. But PW.2, who reached to the scene of crime i.e., house of the deceased Gowramma and in his evidence, it reveals the involvement of the accused. But PW.1-Smt.Malathi has got information from PW.2 regarding the death of the deceased Gowramma. 10. The prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused even though it rest upon the circumstance. But the circumstances, taken cumulatively, relating to formation of a chain for complete circumstance that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. Even the case has been rest upon the circumstance relating to theory of ‘last seen together’ i.e., the deceased Gowramma and also the accused who is none other than having some illicit relationship with her. 11. But PW.19-Dr.Kiran, who subjected to conduct autopsy of the dead body of deceased Gowramma, issued the post-mortem report as per Ex.P15. The post-mortem report indicates the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased are : (1) Wedge shaped stab injury 2.5 cm X 1 cm., just 3 cm below the chin and 1 cm to right of midline, 5 cm deep with facture of mandible. It is directed upwards, backwards and medially), (2) Wedge shaped stab injury 1 cm X 0.5 cm over right mandible, 5 cm from the chin on right side, 3 cm in depth, muscle deep, directed upwards, backwards and outwards, (3) Stab injury, (4) Laceration injury, (5) Laceration, (6) 3 abrasion, (7) Multiple finger nail abrasion over front of chest, (8) Contusion measuring 3 X 2 cm over middle of chest at the level of 5th rib and (9) Contusion over left shoulder of the deceased Gowramma. These are all the injuries have been noted in the post-mortem report at Ex.P15 and that injuries have been noticed by PW.19 being a doctor who conducted autopsy of the dead body of the deceased Gowramma. 12. PW.1-Smt.Malathi who is the daughter of the deceased Gowramma and being an author of the complaint-Ex.P1, has specifically stated in her evidence that her mother deceased Gowramma and the accused person had illicit relationship and the accused used to stay with the deceased in her house situated at Kannu Village, Bangarpet Taluk after the death of her father name Venkatachari, who died about 13 years back. But PW.1-Smt.Malathi being a daughter of deceased Gowramma had given in marriage with CW.8-Muniswamachari, being cited as charge sheeted witness. Subsequent to her marriage, she is residing with her husband situated at Yelesandra Village. But previously both deceased Gowramma and also accused togetherly had used to visit her house at Yelesandra village whereby, she was residing with her husband being cited as CW.8 in charge sheet column. But PW.1 has specifically stated in her evidence that about 15 days prior to death of her mother Gowramma, the accused through telephonic correspondence stated that the deceased Gowramma told him not to stay in her house and at that time he further told her that deceased was due to a debt of Rs.25,000/- payable to him. These are all the evidence has been let in on the part of the prosecution by subjecting PW.1-Smt.Malathi. Thereafter, PW.1-Smt.Malathi who had secured Rs.10,000/- by selling her cow to one Venkateshappa in order to clear the debt of her mother Gowramma and she went to her mother and one cow belongs to her mother was also sold and thereby Rs.16,000/- was secured and accordingly, they called panchayathdars i.e., in terms of the panchayath has been constituted by consisting the persons namely Jayappa Naidu, Thippaya Naidu and Bhaskara Naidu, to the house of Jayappa Naidu and also PW.1-Smt.Malathi and also her mother deceased Gowramma. In the presence of elderly persons, in the panchayath has been constituted, had cleared the debt of Rs.25,000/- to the accused person, at the time of the panchayath as held in the presence of the elderly persons given advised to him to return back and join his family members consisting of his wife and also children and stay with them only and also advised him not to visit the house of deceased Gowramma at Kannur Village. These are all the evidence has been let in on the part of the prosecution by subjecting PW.1. 13. Further, PW.1 in her evidence specifically reveals that after 8 days of the panchayath, which has been constituted relating to some illicit relationship as well as deceased Gowramma had been in a mind to stop the illicit relationship with the accused person, the accused person talked with her i.e., PW.1-Smt.Malathi through telephone and told her to bring some flower garland since he would kill her mother. These are all the evidence which has been let in by the prosecution to proven the guilt against the accused. 14. PW.1 even though has been stated in her evidence that her mother Gowramma was sustained with severe injuries to the head, hand, neck and her mother was not in a condition to talk relating to infliction of injures on her. But the injured was shifted to Government Hospital, KGF and from there shifted her to Jalappa Hospital at Kolar to provide better treatment. But on the same day, her mother Gowramma died at around 6.00 p.m. in the said hospital at Kolar. These are all the evidence which finds place on the part of the prosecution to prove the guilt against the accused person. 15. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 has been find corroborated with each other and also further corroborated with the evidence of PW.19 being the doctor who conducted autopsy of the dead body and issued post mortem report at Ex.P15. 16. PW.20 being the Investigating Officer who laid the charge sheet against the accused even conducted inquest of the dead body as per Ex.P11 and spot mahazar at Ex.P14 and also for having seized MO.1-crow bar which allegedly used by the accused for causing injuries over the person of the deceased i.e., on the vital parts which indicated in Ex.P15-the post-mortem report. The spot mahazar-Ex.P12 and also another spot mahazar at Ex.P14 has been drawn by PW.20 being the Investigating Officer whereby the spot has been shown by the accused person, apart from recording the statement of witnesses. 17. PW.22-Dr. Shahnaz Fathima, being a FSL authority, chemically examined the objects i.e., MO.1 to MO.5 and issued FSL report as per Ex.P16 to the effect that presence of ‘B’ group human blood was detected in material objects at MO.1 to MO.5. PW.22, being a FSL authority, has stated in her evidence to the same effect and in her cross-examination, it is stated that she does not know to whom the said detected ‘B’ group human blood relates to. 18. PW.22, being a FSL authority, has stated in her evidence to the same effect and in her cross-examination, it is stated that she does not know to whom the said detected ‘B’ group human blood relates to. 18. The evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and so also the evidence of PW.19 being the doctor who conducted the autopsy of the dead body has been find corroborated to each other and whereby, the trial Court had appreciated evidence of prosecution even though the case rest upon the circumstantial evidence, which discloses that the accused had illicit relationship with the deceased Gowramma for considerable period but, later on, the deceased Gowramma made a mind to stop such kind of illicit relationship with the accused. When she refused to continue her illicit relationship with the accused, being unhappy with that, the accused demanded her for repayment of money which was paid by him to her. These are all the evidence finds place on the part of the prosecution. 19. But PW.1-Smt. Malathi who went to police station and lodged a compliant as per Ex.P1 at around 7.45 p.m. Based upon her complaint, criminal law was set into motion and whereby her evidence has been finds corroborated with the contents at Ex.P1-complaint. Therefore, the trial Court recorded the findings for conviction that there was no chance or time to PW.1-Smt.Malathi to think to falsely implicate accused person in connection with the brutally murder of her mother Gowramma and convicted the accused person by giving conscious consideration to the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and their evidence on the part of the prosecution is natural, even spontaneous, even truthful and also unimpeachable and the same can be seen in their evidence itself and all these evidence which has considered by the trial Court. 20. Even though, the case has been rest upon the circumstance and materials on record which clearly indicates an unerringly point out towards accused person who has done the death of deceased Gowramma and also assaulted with means of MO.1-crow bar and infliction of injuries over the person of the deceased on vital parts as indicated at Ex.P15-postmortem issued by PW.19 being a doctor, the trial Court had convincing evidence to render the conviction judgment relating to the offence under Section 302 of IPC and so also considered the arguments advanced by the defence counsel relating to the aforesaid evidence of the prosecution. But the trial Court has convinced the evidence relating to causing of homicidal death of the deceased towards the accused only and none else. Thus, the prosecution has proved the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and brutally murder of deceased Gowramma, who is none other than the mother of PW.1-Smt.Malathi. It is this judgment which is challenged under this appeal by urging various grounds. 21. Whereas, learned counsel Sri. N.R. Krishnappa has taken us through the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and contended that there is no eyewitness to the incident as narrated in the complaint at Ex.P1 filed by PW.1-Smt.Malathi though she being the daughter of deceased Gowramma. The trial Court had given more credentiality to the medical evidence i.e., the injuries sustained over the person of the deceased Gowramma when the quarrel took place in between the accused and so also the deceased Gowramma instead of giving more credentiality to the evidence of PW.2-Jayappa Naidu, even though he clearly admitting in his evidence that he did not seen the accused present inside the house of the deceased Gowramma but, he only saw the dead body of the deceased Gowramma. Therefore, he cannot be considered as an eyewitness to the incident as narrated in the complaint at Ex.P1. The theory of prosecution that MO.1-crow bar was not seized immediately and not sealed the same in the presence of pancha witnesses. But MO.1-crow bar was created by the investigating agency for the purpose of case of the prosecution. On this count alone also, it requires intervention in the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial Court and the accused is entitled for acquittal of the offence. 22. The second limb of the argument even relating to the motive factors and even other factors as narrated in the complaint at Ex.P1 lodged by PW.1-Smt.Malathi who is none other than the daughter of the deceased Gowramma but, the trial Court did not give more credentiality to the evidence of PW.15 and PW.16, who are cited as witnesses for seizure mahazar at Ex.P.13 relating to seizure of blood stained cloths of deceased but, they turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution in entirety for securing the conviction Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 has quite natural to deviate the theory of prosecution. But Ex.P16, the FSL report issued by PW.22 being the FSL authority does not support the case of the prosecution. The abnormal delay in recording the statement of the witnesses citied in the charge sheeted material was also not considered by the trial Court while convicting the appellant that to the heinous offence of Section 302 of IPC. Even the inquest of the dead body of Gowramma and the pancha witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. Therefore, as per Section 174(2) of the Cr.P.C., it requires intervention of the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial Court and the accused in entitled for acquittal of the offence under Section 302 of IPC. 23. In support of his contention, learned counsel has facilitated the reliance to the judgment reported in (2018) 15 SCC 161 [State of Maharastra vs. Dinesh] whereby, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been addressed to the issue and scope of sole/solitary witness, even the evidence of, when may form basis of conviction, principles summarised, in the present case, held, was not one where such testimony could be relied on. Hence, acquittal confirmed. This judgment is squarely applicable to the present case on hand relating to the conviction held by the trial Court against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 24. Learned counsel for the appellant has facilitated another reliance to the judgment reported in (2006) 12 SCC 306 [Vikramjit Singh alias Vicky vs. State of Punjab]. In this reliance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been addressed the scope of Sections 374 and 386 of Cr.P.C. in respect of appeal against conviction whereby held that where two views of a story appear to be probable, the one that was contended by the accused should be accepted, Trial Court as well as the High Court, after weighing the probability of both, erred in convicting the appellant opining that the appellant having not been able to prove his case, the prosecution case should be accepted. In this reliance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court addressed the issues in paragraphs 13 and 27 by referring the judgment of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharastra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 and various judgments. 25. In this reliance, the Hon’ble Supreme Court addressed the issues in paragraphs 13 and 27 by referring the judgment of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharastra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 and various judgments. 25. In so far as Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, burden of proving fact especially within knowledge-Held, does not relieve the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, Only when the prosecution case has been proved the burden in regard to such facts which was within the special knowledge of the accused may be shifted to the accused for explaining the same subject to certain statutory exceptions, On facts held, strong suspicion legitimately arises that in all probabilities the accused was guilty of commission of heinous offence, but suspicion however grave cannot be substitute for proof-Prosecution having not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, appellant entitled to acquittal. The same has been observed at paragraphs 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the judgment. 26. Learned counsel for the appellant has facilitated one more reliance to the judgment reported in 2020 (4) KCCR 3189 [Harijanara Kumara vs. State by Circle Police Inspector, Gonikoppa] whereby, in this reliance given credentiality to the scope of Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., the appeal against conviction for the offence under Section 302 of IPC whereby, in paragraph 22, the evidence based upon the prosecution is eyewitnesses but not on the circumstance evidence. The trial Court just held that the evidence of the witnesses are not impeached and without any proper and appreciation of the evidence held the accused guilty which is not correct. 27. Though the trial Court has given more credentiality to the evidence of Investigation Officer but, the Investigation Officer has not produced any material before the Court and he was not examined to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, benefit of doubt shall be extended to the accused. Therefore, learned counsel in the present case on hand based upon these reliances contending and also submitting forcefully that these reliances are squarely applicable to the present case on hand. 28. But in the instant case, PW.20-Venkatachalapathi being an investigating Officer who investigated the case thoroughly had laid the charge sheet against the accused person. Therefore, learned counsel in the present case on hand based upon these reliances contending and also submitting forcefully that these reliances are squarely applicable to the present case on hand. 28. But in the instant case, PW.20-Venkatachalapathi being an investigating Officer who investigated the case thoroughly had laid the charge sheet against the accused person. Despite of which, learned counsel for the appellant has given more credentiality to the reliances which are facilitated by him for intervention of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. On all these premises, learned counsel seeking intervention and if not, the accused, who is a gravamen of the accusation would be the sufferer and also there shall be some miscarriage of justice which would arise. On these premises, learned counsel seeking to consider the grounds as urged in this appeal and consequently, setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence in S.C.No.122/2015 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Consequent upon consideration, acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. 29. On contravention of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and so also learned HCGP Smt. Rashmi Jadhav for the respondent-State whereby has taken us to the contents made in the complaint at Ex.P1 made by PW.1-Smt.Malathi. But Smt. Malathi who is none other than the daughter of the deceased Gowramma and she has narrated in her complaint relating to the incident and also brutally murder of her mother Gowramma by the accused who had some illicit relationship with her after the death of her husband. But this accused had frequently visited the house of the deceased Gowramma situated at Kannur village, Bangarpet Taluk. 30. The entire case revolves around the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and so also PW.19 being the doctor i.e., theory of ‘last seen together’ and the proposition of law laid down in various cases such as citations: (a) 2007 (2) Crimes 294 (SC) [State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran & Anr.], (b) 2010 (1) Crimes 723 (Del) [Pradeep Gandhi vs. State] and (c) AIR 2016 SC 2381 [Rambraksh @ Jalim Vs. State of Chhattisgarh]. State of Chhattisgarh]. There are all the citations which have been referred by the trial Court while rendering the conviction judgment and also given more credentiality to the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and so also the evidence of PW.19 being the doctor inclusive of the evidence of PW.20 being an I.O., who laid the charge sheet against the accused person. 31. No doubt PW.3 to PW.10 have been subjected to examination and they did not withstood the version of their statement. The contradictory statement of those witnesses were got marked as Ex.P3 to P10. But the fulcrum of mahazar contained at Ex.P11-inquest mahazar held on the dead body of the deceased and it is in the presence of the pancha witnesses. PW.19 who being a doctor conducted autopsy of the dead body and noticed the injuries inflicted over the person of the deceased on her vital parts as indicated at Ex.P15, the post mortem report. 32. Though the case on the part of the prosecution rest upon the circumstantial evidence, it discloses that the accused had illicit relationship with the deceased for several years. But the deceased Gowramma had a mind to stop such kind of illicit relationship with him, that the accused being unhappy towards her, he demanded her for repayment of his money i.e., debt which was paid by him to the deceased Gowramma. As such, there is an evidence on the part of the prosecution which could be seen in the evidence of PW.1-Smt.Malathi. She has specifically stated in her evidence that her mother deceased Gowramma owed some amount from the accused and if the said amount is repaid to him, he would stop his relationship with her otherwise he would kill her. She further stated that she enquired with her mother deceased Gowramma relating to debt payable to the accused and at that time, she told to P.W.1-Smt.Malathi that she owed Rs.25,000/- to the accused. She further stated that she enquired with her mother deceased Gowramma relating to debt payable to the accused and at that time, she told to P.W.1-Smt.Malathi that she owed Rs.25,000/- to the accused. Therefore, the deceased Gowramma and also her daughter Smt.Malathi having sold her cows to Venkateshappa who was examined as PW.9, got a sum of Rs.10,000/- and went to her mother Gowramma’s house and sold one more cow belongs to her mother for Rs.16,000/- and gave Rs,25,000/- to the accused person in the presence of elderly persons being the Panchayathdars i.e., PW.2 to PW.4, who have participated in the panchyath convened relating to some illicit relationship in between the accused and the deceased. 33. But the accused who assaulted the deceased with means of MO.1-crow bar and caused injuries on the vital parts of her head, neck and hand which indicates at Ex.P15-the post mortem report issued by the doctor. PW.2 who heard the screaming sound from the house of the deceased Gowramma, rushed to the scene of crime i.e., house of Gowramma, at that time, PW.3 and others were also came their and when they saw, the accused person was running away from the house of deceased Gowramma and subsequently, he went inside the house of deceased Gowramma and saw that the deceased Gowramma was lying in the pool of blood and there was a crow bar lying in the blood pond and he saw some injuries on her head, hand and also neck part. When that PW.2 reached the scene of crime after hearing screaming sound from the house of the deceased Gowramma, he tried to caught hold the accused and at that time, he escaped from his clutches. There are all the evidence has been found place on the part of the prosecution. 34. The injured Gowramma was lying in the pool of blood in her house with such severe injuries on her vital part of the body. The accused who was running out from the house of deceased is the important circumstance to be considered. Accordingly, the trial Court has appreciated the evidence of PW.1 equally the evidence of PW.2. Thereby, these are the circumstances relating to the accused had some illicit relationship with the deceased Gowramma for several years. 35. The accused who was running out from the house of deceased is the important circumstance to be considered. Accordingly, the trial Court has appreciated the evidence of PW.1 equally the evidence of PW.2. Thereby, these are the circumstances relating to the accused had some illicit relationship with the deceased Gowramma for several years. 35. But PW.1 who is none other than the daughter of the deceased and she had given a complaint as per Ex.P1 relating to the brutally murder of her mother and also brutally assaulted by the accused who had some illicit relationship with her. There was no chance to PW.1-Smt.Malathi being the daughter of the deceased Gowramma to think it over to implicate the accused falsely in connection with death of her mother Gowramma. However, the evidence of PW.1 an PW.2 on the part of the prosecution are founds to be natural one, genuine one and also spontaneous, truthful facts and also impeachable evidence which has been let in by the prosecution. The evidence has been rightly appreciated by the trial Court and come to the conclusion relating to the cause of death of the deceased and also unerringly pointing out towards accused person and none else for causing homicidal death of the deceased Gowramma. Then, the trial Court held convincing evidence of the prosecution that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and rendered the conviction judgment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 36. On all these premises, learned HCGP for the respondent-State emphatically submitting that there are no substance in the contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant for seeking intervention and also placing certain reliances relating to intervention and also applicability of the present case on hand. But the entire case revolves around the evidence of PW.1, PW.2 inclusive of PW.19 being a doctor who conducted autopsy of the dead body. Mere because PW.3 to PW.7 have been turned hostile of their statement, still there is a material in their evidence to the effect that the accused person is also resident of the same village. But the entire case revolves around the evidence of PW.1, PW.2 inclusive of PW.19 being a doctor who conducted autopsy of the dead body. Mere because PW.3 to PW.7 have been turned hostile of their statement, still there is a material in their evidence to the effect that the accused person is also resident of the same village. In totality of the evidence of prosecution and even the evidence of PW.1 and 2, the prudent man can inferred that the accused had some illicit relationship with the deceased Gowramma and he insisted her to continue her illicit relationship with him even she had repaid Rs.25,000/- to him in the presence of the elderly person whereby constituting the panchayath. The accused who assaulted with means of MO.1-crow bar and caused injuries on the vital part of the head, ear and neck and the same has been indicated in the post mortem report at Ex.P15. Therefore, in this appeal it does not arise for call for any interference, no warranting circumstances would raise for intervention as sought for in this appeal by urging various grounds. On these premises seeking dismissal of this appeal being devoid of merits. 37. It is in this context, the learned counsel for the appellant and so also learned HCGP namely Smt. Rashmi Jadhav for the respondent-State made the aforesaid contentions. But the offence under Section 302 of IPC has been lugged against the accused relating to the brutally murder of the deceased Gowramma by assaulting with MO.1-crow bar. 38. Even the definition of Section 300 of IPC, the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death. But in the instant case, the accused had some illicit relationship with the deceased Gowramma and even though she paid debt of Rs.25,000/- by selling her cow and also one of the cow belongs to her daughter PW.1-Smt.Malathi, the accused was insisting the deceased Gowramma to continue her illicit relationship with him. But when she was refused to continue her illicit relationship with him and on the fateful day, the accused entered into her house and picked up quarrel with her and assaulted her with means of MO.1-crow bar by choosing the vital parts of the deceased Gowramma which indicates in the post-mortem report at Ex.P15. But when she was refused to continue her illicit relationship with him and on the fateful day, the accused entered into her house and picked up quarrel with her and assaulted her with means of MO.1-crow bar by choosing the vital parts of the deceased Gowramma which indicates in the post-mortem report at Ex.P15. The totality of the injuries caused over the body of the deceased Gowramma which clearly supports the finding of the trial Court relating to the accused and the accused alone caused the injuries and also committed the murder of the deceased and it cannot be deviate even for some sought of an explanation which indicates in the provision of Section 300 of IPC. 39. The contention that the essential ingredients of murder having regard to number of injures which inflicted over the person of deceased cannot be uphold. Even there was no intention to kill as according to the contention made by learned counsel for the appellant but, the cursory glance of evidence of PW.19 being a doctor who conducted autopsy of the dead body and whereby noticed the injuries inflicted over the vital parts of the deceased and the accused alone entered into the house of the deceased Gowramma and there was some quarrel took place in between the deceased Gowramma and the accused and also hearing the screaming sound from the house of the deceased Gowramma that PW.2 rushed to the scene of crime. In the meanwhile, the accused who had ran away from the house of the deceased. The same can be seen in the evidence of PW.2 and also further corroborating with the evidence of PW.1-Smt.Malathi who is none other than the daughter of the deceased. 40. The intention and knowledge These two elements are important relating to heinous offences of Section 302 of IPC i.e., when the death is caused by a single blow. But In the instant case assaulted with means of MO.1-crow bar which is a dangerous weapon and the same has been used by the accused over the person of the deceased Gowramma mere because she was refused to continue her illicit relationship with him and the same could be seen even in the evidence of PW.1-Smt.Malathi who is none other than the daughter of the deceased Gowramma. 41. 41. Whereas, learned counsel for the appellant taken contention that there was no eyewitness regarding assault over the deceased Gowramma by the accused person. But at a cursory glance of the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, their evidence which finds corroborated with the evidence of PW.19 being a doctor who conducted autopsy of the dead body wherein the evidence of eyewitnesses regarding assault on the deceased by the accused person was even truthful, even reliable and even clearly corroborated by the medical evidence and common intention of accused person in committing the murder of the deceased. 42. In the instant case, the accused who is a sole person who entered into the house of the deceased Gowramma. It can be noticed from the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and whereby PW.2 rushed to the scene of crime after hearing screaming sound from the house of Gowramma at Kannur village, Bangarpet Taluk in Kolar District. Even PW.2 had given information about the incident i.e., the deceased Gowramma who had sustained with some injures over the person and shifted her in 108 Ambulance to KGF Government Hospital in order to provide treatment. Soon after receipt of a information about the incident i.e., the injuries inflicted over Gowramma who is none other than the mother of PW.1-Smt. Malathi, she rushed to the Government Hospital, KGF and even the mother Gowramma was not in a position to speak with her because she had sustained with some severe injuries on her vital parts which indicates in Ex.P15-postmortem report issued by PW.19 being a doctor. 43. It is a settled principles of law even though two views are possible but one in favour of the accused and other adversely against him. On that point the learned counsel facilitated some reliance for consideration. But that the accused is likely by such act to causing the death of the deceased. The deceased Gowramma had some illicit relationship with the accused person for several years. The same can be seen in the evidence of PW.1-Smt.Malathi. Even that PW.1 had been subjected to cross-examination at length and even though in the cross-examination of PW.1 and PW.2, nothing worthwhile has been elicited to disbelieve the theory of prosecution to let in to securing the conviction. But appreciation of the evidence, it is a domain vested with the trial Court. The conviction can be based on testimony of a witness. 44. But appreciation of the evidence, it is a domain vested with the trial Court. The conviction can be based on testimony of a witness. 44. In the instant case, when PW.2 rushed to the scene of crime i.e., house of the deceased after having been heard screaming sound, the accused ran away from the scene of crime. The same can be seen in his evidence and also his evidence has been find corroborated with the evidence of PW.1-Smt.Malathi who is an author of the complaint at Ex.P1 and further corroborated with the evidence of PW.19 being a doctor who conducted autopsy of the dead body and noticed the injuries inflicted over the person. 45. In the instant case, it is relevant to refer Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is relating to prove, a fact is said to be proved when, after considering the material before it, the Court either believes that it exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does exist. Similarly disproved and so also not proved. But in the instant case, the counsel has taken us to the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and to the contention relating to no eyewitness are found that the last scene theory, it requires corroboration. 46. But in the instant case, PW.2 who had rushed to the scene of crime after having been heard the screaming sound from the house of the deceased Gowramma, in the meanwhile, the accused who ran out from her house. Then the prudent man can inferred that the accused was entered into the house of the deceased Gowramma because the accused had frequently visiting her house and also having some illicit relationship with her for several years. 47. Though there are minor contradictions and even inconsistency in testimony of the prosecution witnesses but the chop from the grain/marshalling of the evidence and sorting of the evidence, it is a domain vested with the trial Court to appreciate the evidence relating to the involvement of the accused and also committing an offences as narrated in the complaint. Equally there is a domain vested with the trial Court relating to the scrutinizing the evidence. Equally there is a domain vested with the trial Court relating to the scrutinizing the evidence. It is the domain vested with the trial Court to scrutinizing the evidence pre-cautiously and judiciously and also acceptable evidence in case finds on the parts of the prosecution, it has to be accepted. When there are material contradiction even creating some reasonable doubt in a mind but it cannot be precise mentality of the evidence. when there is a brutality relating to the committing of the offences, one can inferred that, it is to be prudent man. Therefore, counting of evidence is to be quality of evidence and not counting of witnesses. 48. Therefore, it is relevant to refer Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is well settled principles of law that reliance can be based on the solitary statement of an witness, if the court comes to the conclusion that the statement is the true version and also correct version of the case of the prosecution, the same has been addressed in the judgment of Raja vs. State reported in 1997 (2) Crime 175. The Law of Evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. However, faced with the testimony of a single witness, the Court may classify the oral testimony into three categories, namely (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first two categories there may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon testimony of a single witness. This issue has been widely addressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lallu Manjhi & another vs. State of Jharkhand reported in AIR 2003 SC 854 . 49. In most criminal cases involvement of heinous offences or otherwise of say some kinds of elements of mens rea it may be intent. This is the explicit and also the conscious desire to commit a dangerous or illegal act. For example if a person targets and assault someone with goal of inflicting harm on the victim, he is displaying a criminal act. But mens rea is a guilty mind. This is the explicit and also the conscious desire to commit a dangerous or illegal act. For example if a person targets and assault someone with goal of inflicting harm on the victim, he is displaying a criminal act. But mens rea is a guilty mind. The term used to describe the mental element or mental equipment required to constitute a crime. Generally it requires that the accused meant or intended to do wrong or at least knew he was doing wrong. However, precise mental element various from crime to crime. 50. Even in the testimony of the present case on hand relating to brutally murder of deceased Gowramma by the accused who had some illicit relationship with her for several years, the counsel who has mainly taking contention relating to the last seen theory. In so far as the last seen theory, it is to be termed as a doctrine of a last scene theory. It is one in which two people are seen together and one is found alive after an interval of time and another is dead. The last seen theory by itself be a poor kind of evidence establishing conviction on the same. The last seen together principle is one of the latest principle which is taken into consideration in establishing the guilt of the accused. The doctrine of last scene theory, if proved, shifts the burned of prove onto the accused, placing on him that onus to explain how the incident has occurred and what happened to the victim who was last scene with him. If there is a failure on the part of the accused to furnish any explanation in this regard, as in the case in hand, or furnishing false explanation would give rise to a strong presumption against him, and in favour of the guilt, and would provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances. 51. Whereas in the instant case, learned counsel for the appellant has given more credentality to the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 coupled with the evidence of PW.19 being a doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body even infliction of injuries over the parts of the deceased Gowramma i.e., on the vital parts that to be infliction of injuries with means of MO.1-crow bar. The crow bar has been used by this accused over the person of the deceased Gowramma and that itself indicates that this accused had an intention to eliminating her for the reasons that she would make a mind to disconnect her illicit relationship with him. Therefore, he had a mind to eliminate her. Accordingly, on the fateful day, this accused who entered into her house and picked up the quarrel and the accused assaulted her brutally with means of MO.1-crow bar by choosing the vital parts and done to her death. The same could be seen in the testimony of the evidence of prosecution witnesses. It is the evidence of PW.1 and also the evidence of PW.2 who had given an information to PW.1-Smt. Malathi relating to the incident occurred by this accused over the person of the deceased Gowramma. 52. In so far as the evidence of material witnesses and it found that the weapon recovered as at the instance of the accused i.e., MO.1-crow bar. Even the human blood and it was detected by PW.22 being a FSL authority who has been subjected to examination and issued the FSL report. But the evidence which is clinching and clearly indicates that the accused persons are causing for infliction of injuries over the vital parts of the deceased. But the eye-witnesses counts had corroborated with the medial evidence. But the material witnesses even sharply contradicted with each other. With regard to the identifying of the person who dealt with means of MO.1-crow bar on the vital parts of the deceased Gowramma, it was held that the same should be brushed aside because the very accused who had illicit relationship with the deceased Gowramma and brutally assaulted on her with means of MO.1-crow bar and infliction of injuries, resultant in her death. 53. PW.1-Smt.Malathi who is the author of a complaint Ex.P1 and made a complaint relating to the incident occurred by this accused on her mother and also she has stated in her evidence that her mother Gowramma had borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- and the same has been repaid to the accused in the presence of the elderly person who have been constituted the panchayath. But PW.1 has been stood with cross examination wherein the house of Jayappa Naidu and Thippaya Naidu i.e., PW.2 and PW.3 was situated in the middle part of the village at about half furlong away from the house of the deceased Gowramma and in the presence of these two persons and one Bhaskar Naidu, who was also an elderly person and in their presence, the amount was returned to the accused persons in the house of Jayappa Naid. At that time, they did not get any receipt from the accused person. The same has been seen in the cross-examination of PW.1. But PW.1-Smt. Malathi after receipt of a information about the brutally causing some injuries over the person of deceased Gowramma by the accused and that information had given by one Jayappa Naid and then only the PW.1-Smt Malathi who had rushed to the Government Hospital, KGF and from there the injured Gowramma was shifted to RL Jalappa Hospital, Kolar and whereby she has last her breath due to the sustaining some dangerous injuries on her vital parts. 54. The entire case even though revolving around circumstantial evidence i.e., the accused had some illicit relationship with the deceased Gowramma for some considerable period and later the deceased Gowramma has decided to discontinue her illicit relationship with the accused when she refused to continue her illicit relationship with the accused, then the person being an accused become unhappy then he demanded her to repay all his debt amount which was paid by him to her. Due to the insistence by the accused, the deceased Gowramma and also her daughter Smt. Malathi having been paid the amount of Rs.25,000/- by sold out their cow. The same has been seen in the evidence of PW.1-Smt. Malathi. But there was no chance or time to PW.1-Smt. Malathi to think to falsely implicate accused person in connection with the brutally murder of her mother Gowramma. Therefore, the prudent man can infer the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 are naturally and also genuine and even truthful and also unimpeachable. Therefore, it is said that the prosecution has prove the guilt of the accused with beyond all reasonable doubt and consequently, the trial court has rendered the conviction judgment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 55. Therefore, it is said that the prosecution has prove the guilt of the accused with beyond all reasonable doubt and consequently, the trial court has rendered the conviction judgment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 55. Even it is relevant to refer reliance to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1991 SC 1220 [Muniappan vs. state of Tamil Nadu], it is held that the obligation to hear the accused on the question of sentence which is imposed by the trial Court. The Judge must make a genuine effort to elicit from the accused all information which will eventually bear on the question of sentence. This reliance is also referred by the trial Court even for completion of the sentencing policy. Even referring to the judgment of Sri. Prem Sagar vs. Dharmbir and other reported in (2002) 1 SCC 113 whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been rendering a judgment relating to imposition of punishment for life is the rule and awarding of death sentence is an exception. 56. But in the instant case, the trial court has taken more conscious and consciously rendering the judgment of conviction by considering the material and all the circumstances relating to the involvement of the accused and also prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 57. However, in this appeal, we have scanned all the entire evidence of the prosecution. It is to be termed as a testimony of the prosecution has been facilitated and arrival of the conclusion but there is no perversity and there is no illegality has been noticed in the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial Court in relating to the intervention as sought for by urging various grounds in this appeal. 58. Consequently, we are of the considered opinion that that the accused do not deserve for seeking any intervention for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Even the nature of offence, the involvement of the accused that brutally murder of the deceased Gowramma even she had some illicit relationship with him for several years. The same could be seen in the evidence of PW.1-Smt.Malathi itself. Even the nature of offence, the involvement of the accused that brutally murder of the deceased Gowramma even she had some illicit relationship with him for several years. The same could be seen in the evidence of PW.1-Smt.Malathi itself. Therefore, the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial Court does not suffer with any perversity or illegality for seeking intervention and no warranting circumstance would arise for any interference of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court. Consequently, the appeal deserves to be rejected being devoid of merits. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following : ORDER (i) The appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected. (ii) Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court in S.C.No.122/2015 dated 08.12.2016 is hereby confirmed.