JUDGMENT : (C. Praveen Kumar, J.) 1. Heard Sri Tata Singaiah Goud, learned Legal-Aid Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Sri. Y. Nagi Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. The Sole Accused in Sessions Case No. 148 of 2012 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam, is the Appellant herein. He was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498A of Indian Penal Code [‘I.P.C.’] for causing the death of his wife Basa Eswaramma [‘Deceased’]. By its Judgment, dated 08.04.2013, the learned Sessions Judge, while acquitting the Accused of the offence punishable under Section 498A I.P.C., convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Assailing the said conviction and sentence imposed, the present Appeal is preferred. 3. The facts, in issue, are as under : (i) PW1 and PW2 are the Sons of the deceased, while the Accused is the Husband of the deceased. Initially, the Accused, deceased and their three children were living at L.B. Nagar at Gajuwaka. The deceased was eking out her livelihood by doing Mason work while the Accused was a Mason by profession. (ii) It is said that, the Accused used to harass the deceased and always used to quarrel with her under the influence of alcohol. The house owner asked them to vacate the premises. Unable to bear the harassment, in the hands of the accused, the deceased took her two sons and PW1 and started living separately in a rented house in L.B. Nagar. The Accused who was living separately used to visit the house of the deceased and quarrel with her, apart from threatening her with dire consequences. (iii) While things stood thus, on 13.02.2012 at about 8.00 P.M., the deceased and PW2 went to a tailor shop to collect blouses. While returning to their house and when they were almost at their house, the Accused came from behind and beat the deceased with wooden cot side frame on the head and all over body of the deceased. As a result of which, the deceased sustained injury and fell down. PW2 informed about the incident to PW1 on phone. While returning to their house and when they were almost at their house, the Accused came from behind and beat the deceased with wooden cot side frame on the head and all over body of the deceased. As a result of which, the deceased sustained injury and fell down. PW2 informed about the incident to PW1 on phone. Pursuant to which, PW1 came there and, thereafter, shifted the injured [deceased] to the hospital with the help of 108 ambulance, where the doctor declared the deceased as brought dead. (iv) On the next day morning at about 7.00 A.M., a report was given by PW1, which lead to registration of case in Crime No. 67 of 2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 I.P.C. After registering the crime, PW7 [Inspector of Police] visited the scene of offence, prepared an observation report, which is marked as Ex.P2. He also prepared a rough sketch of the scene, which is marked as Ex.P8. He then conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of PW4 and others. Ex.P3 is the inquest report. He also took photographs of the dead body of the deceased. PW5 [Doctor] deposed that on 14.02.2012, he received requisition from S.I of Police, Gajuwaka Police Station to conduct post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. Accordingly he conducted at 3.15 p.m. and opined that the cause of death due to head injury. Approximate time of death is 12 to 24 hours prior to post-mortem examination, he issued post-mortem certificate under Ex.P5. On 30.03.2012, he arrested the Accused and after collecting all the necessary documents, a chargesheet came to be filed, which was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 25 of 2012 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. 4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., came to be furnished. Since the case is triable by Court of Sessions, the same was committed to Court of Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Basing on the material available on record, charge as referred to above came to be framed, read over and explained to the Accused, to which, the Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11, beside marking M.Os.1 to M.O.4. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11, beside marking M.Os.1 to M.O.4. After completion 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 prosecution witnesses, to which he denied, however, no evidence was adduced in support of his plea except marking Ex.D1. 6. Relying upon the evidence of PW1 and PW2 coupled with medical evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the Accused. Challenging the same, the present Appeal is filed. 7. Sri. Tata Singaiah Goud, learned Legal-Aid Counsel appearing for the Appellant, vehemently submits that, the evidence of PW2, which is pressed into service by the prosecution to speak about the incident in question, cannot be believed. He would submit that the death of the deceased was because of scalt holding, falling on head while she was working at a particular site along with other Masons. According to him, the medical evidence corroborates the same. 8. Sri. Y. Nagi Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the same contending that the evidence of PW2 is sufficient to convict the Accused. 9. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt? 10. As seen from the record, PW1 and PW2 are the crucial witnesses to speak about the incident in question. They are none other than the sons of the Accused and the deceased. It is also not in dispute that, initially the entire family was living at one place, but because of constant harassment in the hands of the Accused and the nuisance created, in the locality, their house owner asked them to vacate the house, pursuant to which the deceased along with her three children started living separately in L.B.Nagar, Gajuwaka on the advice of the elders. The Accused was living separately but used to go regularly go to the house of deceased and put her in trouble. While so, on the date of incident at about 8.30 P.M. while PW2 and deceased were returning from the tailor shop, the incident in question took place. 11. The learned Counsel tried to contend that there is sufficient ‘motive’ for PW1 and PW2 to speak falsehood. While so, on the date of incident at about 8.30 P.M. while PW2 and deceased were returning from the tailor shop, the incident in question took place. 11. The learned Counsel tried to contend that there is sufficient ‘motive’ for PW1 and PW2 to speak falsehood. It is to be noted that, both of them are children of the deceased and Accused and their evidence, in our view, inspires the confidence of the Court and the same can be believed, more so, when there evidence gets corroboration from the medical evidence. 12. PW1, who is the brother of PW2 and son of the Accused and the deceased in his evidence categorically speaks about receiving information from PW2 on phone, about the Accused beating the deceased. It is his evidence that, on receiving the said information, he proceeded to scene of offence, enquired with PW2 and, thereafter, shifted the injured to the Hospital. 13. PW2 is none other than another son of the Accused and deceased. He in his evidence categorically speaks about he informing PW1 immediately after the incident. In-fact, his evidence shows that, while he along with his mother were returning home, the Accused beat his mother [deceased] on the head with wooden cot and also other parts of the body. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 gets fortified by the evidence of PW3 who is the resident of the said colony. According to him, on the fateful day, on hearing the cries of PW2, he came out from his house and noticed the wife of the Accused on the ground, with bleeding injury. He enquired with PW2, who informed him that his father beat his mother with wooden cot side frame on her head and all over the body. It has also come on record that the Accused left wooden cot and ran away. M.O.1 is the said cot, which is identified by all the witnesses. Though PW3 was cross-examined at length, nothing useful came to be elicited to discredit his testimony. The suggestion that he was not present at the scene was denied by him. Therefore, the evidence of PW2 coupled with PW1 and PW3, in our view, establishes the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 14. At this stage, it would also be useful to refer to the evidence of the Doctor [PW5] to disbelieve the theory set-up by the Accused. Therefore, the evidence of PW2 coupled with PW1 and PW3, in our view, establishes the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 14. At this stage, it would also be useful to refer to the evidence of the Doctor [PW5] to disbelieve the theory set-up by the Accused. If really the death of the deceased was due to fall of scaf holding at the work site, the injuries could not have been all over the body, more particularly, the fracture of ribs. 15. A perusal of the post-mortem report, which is placed on record as Ex.P5 would show that, there are two [02] external and six [06] internal injuries on the body of the deceased, which are as under: “External: 1. Contusion at the back of the left thigh of 5 x 4 cm. 2. Laceration at left parietal area of 8 x 4 cm x bone deep Internal: 1. Contusion over the skull valult 30 x 25 cm 2. coronal sutured fractured measuring 16 cm which is transversely situated. 3. subdural haemorrhage present on both cerebral lemispheres of brain. 4. a contusion present on the left cheek of 5 x 4 cms. 5. contusion at the right side of back of abdomen 5 x 4 cm. 6. 7th 8th 9th ribs of right side fractured at the paravertebral region. 16. The cause of death was due to head injury. Though, the Doctor was cross-examined, but no suggestions were given with regard to deceased sustaining injuries in the manner suggested by the Accused. Therefore, the plea set-up by the Accused that the death was due to fall of scaffolding at the work site cannot be accepted. 17. Having regard to the above, we feel that the evidence of PW1 who reached the scene of offence on receiving information from PW2 and the evidence of PW3 who rushed to the scene on hearing the cries of PW2, would corroborate the evidence of PW2 and establish the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 18. In the result the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the Appellant/Accused in the Judgment, dated 08.04.2013, in Sessions Case No. 148 of 2012 on the file of Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Visakhapatnam. 19. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.