JUDGMENT : This Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 05.01.2009 in S.C.No.185 of 2008 on the file of the Court of District and Session Judge, Chittoor (for short, "the learned Sessions Judge"), where under the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant-accused guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "the IPC") as against the original charge under Section 302 of the IPC, convicted him under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Cr.P.C.") and after questioning about the quantum of sentence sentenced him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for ten (10) years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three (3) months and that remand period shall be set of against the sentence under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. 2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Sessions Judge, for the sake of convenience. 3. (i) The S.C.No.185 of 2008 arose out of committal order in P.R.C.No.19 of 2008 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class at Kuppam, pertaining to Crime No. 69 of 2007 of S.H.O., Rallabudugu for the offence under Sections 498-A and 302 IPC. (ii) The case of the prosecution as evident from the record is that, the deceased Neelamma, aged 24 years was a resident of Karlagatta Village and she was married to the accused about 10 years ago and they were blessed with two daughters and a son. The accused was addicted to liquor and used to harass the deceased by suspecting her fidelity and on 27.11.2007 morning the deceased Neelamma along with the accused went to their fields to collect ragi corns and at 08.00 AM, the accused went away from the fields leaving the deceased and after attending the work, the deceased has returned home at 06.00 PM. And after some time the accused came home in a drunken state and abused the deceased in filthy language and beat her with hands and later she slept by illuminating a kerosene lamp and at about 10.00 PM, the accused threw the said burning kerosene lamp on her saying that "Chavave Lanja", as a result of which the kerosene fell on her clothes and caught fire and she herself poured water and put off the flames and came out of the house by raising cries and on hearing her cries PW.1, Ramachandrappa and PW.2 rushed to her house and put off the flames and on seeing them the accused ran away from there. PWs. 1, 2 and Ramachandrappa shifted the deceased to the Government Hospital, Kuppam and she succumbed to those injuries on 08.12.2007, while undergoing treatment. On recording the statement of the deceased Neelamma, PW.10 has registered a case in Crime No.69 of 2007 for the offences under Sections 498-A and 307 IPC and investigated into. Subsequent to the death of the deceased Neelamma on 08.12.2007 at 06.00 PM, PW.12 has altered the section of law from Sections 498-A and 307 of the IPC to 498-A and 302 IPC and sent the copies of first information report to all the concerned. During the course of investigation, PW.10 has examined the scene of offence on 28.11.2007 at 04.00 PM, in the presence of PW.7 and Ramappa and seized the kerosene lamp, which was made with a tin, burnt saree, petticoat and blouse under a cover of mahazar and he also prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence. On 28.11.2007, PW.8 has recorded the dying declaration of the deceased Neelamma at Area Hospital, Kuppam. On 09.12.2007 from 08.30 AM to 11.30 AM, PW.11 has held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PWs.1, 2 and 5, Ramachandrappa and Venkatachalam and later sent the dead body to the Area Hospital, Kuppam for conducting autopsy. PW.9 has conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem certificate, opining that the deceased would appear to have died of septicemia and cardiac arrest due to 60% of burn injuries on 16.03.2008 at 07.00 PM, near MP Elementary School, Karlagatta Village, PW.12 has arrested the accused and remanded him to judicial custody. PW.9 has conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued postmortem certificate, opining that the deceased would appear to have died of septicemia and cardiac arrest due to 60% of burn injuries on 16.03.2008 at 07.00 PM, near MP Elementary School, Karlagatta Village, PW.12 has arrested the accused and remanded him to judicial custody. Hence, the accused is liable for punishment for the offences under Sections 498-A and 302 of the IPC. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kuppam, took the cognizance under Sections 498-A and 302 of the IPC basing on the contents of the charge sheet and registered the same as PRC No.19 of 2008. After compliance of the provisions under Sections 207 and 209 of the Cr.P.C., the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kuppam, committed the case to Sessions Court by virtue of an order, dated 22.05.2008 and there upon the case was numbered as S.C.No.185 of 2008. 5. On appearance of the accused before the learned Sessions Judge, charges under Sections 498-A and 302 of the IPC were explained to the accused in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12 and marked M.O.1 to M.O.4. 7. After the closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances in the evidence let in for which he denied the incriminating circumstances and stated that a false case foisted against him. 8. The learned Sessions Judge, on hearing both sides and after considering the evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC as against the original charge under Section 302 of the IPC, convicted him under Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C. and after questioning him about the quantum of sentence sentenced him as above. Insofar as the charge under Section 498-A of the IPC is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge made a finding that there is no evidence on record to establish the harassment caused by the accused prior to the incident, as such it was held that prosecution failed to establish the charge under Section 498-A of the IPC. Insofar as the charge under Section 498-A of the IPC is concerned, the learned Sessions Judge made a finding that there is no evidence on record to establish the harassment caused by the accused prior to the incident, as such it was held that prosecution failed to establish the charge under Section 498-A of the IPC. Felt aggrieved of the conviction and sentence under Section 302 Part-II of the IPC, the unsuccessful accused filed the present criminal appeal. 9. Now in deciding this criminal appeal, the points that arise for consideration are as follows : “1. Whether the prosecution proved that the accused on 27.11.2007 at 10.00 PM at his house, thrown a kerosene lantern on his wife (deceased) and caused burn injuries to her, which resulted ultimately to her death? 2. Whether the judgment, dated 05.01.2009 in S.C.No.185 of 2008 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor is sustainable under law and whether there are grounds to interfere of the same?” 10. Point Nos. 1 and 2 : The sum and substance of the allegations in the case of the prosecution is that on the date of incident, when the deceased returned back to her home by 06.00 PM, after attending the work, accused abused her filthy language in a drunken state and after she slept by illuminating a kerosene lamp, at 10.00 PM, accused came to the house and thrown kerosene lamp on her saying to die and that she was caught with fire and sustained burn injuries. She herself poured water and came out by raising cries. This is the substance of the allegations and the case of the prosecution. Prosecution projected PWs.1 to 4 and further PW.5 as direct witnesses to the occurrence. 11. According to the evidence of PW.1 with regard to the incident in question, the house of the accused is third house to their house on Eastern side. In the year 2007 11th month at 10.00 PM, while he was sleeping in his house, he heard cries of his sister Neelamma. Then he and his father and mother gone to the house of the accused and found his sister was in flames. They poured water on her and put off the flames. On seeing them accused ran away from the house. Then he and his father and mother gone to the house of the accused and found his sister was in flames. They poured water on her and put off the flames. On seeing them accused ran away from the house. On enquiry, his sister disclosed that there are differences in between his sister and accused and accused thrown kerosene lamp on her and she was caught with fire. This is the manner in which PW.1 claimed to have learnt about occurrence. 12. PW.2 the mother of PW.1 supported the version of PW.1 about hearing cries of their daughter and going to the house of her daughter, and that they found the deceased with burn injuries and that she told them that her husband thrown kerosene lamp on her etc., She deposed that on seeing them accused ran away from the house. 13. The evidence of PW.3 is also similar as that of the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. PW.3 also testified about hearing the cries from Neelamma and arrival of PWs.1 and 2 and their father to the house and that they found Neelamma in flames and they poured the water, extinguishing the fire. She also testified that accused ran away at that time. She testified that Neelamma disclosed that accused thrown kerosene lamp on her made to her burn. 14. PW.4 is no other than the daughter of the deceased and accused and she deposed that her mother returned to home at 06.00 PM. Accused beat her mother for coming later to the house. She kept kerosene lamp and was sleeping. Her father came there and beat them and made them to leave. At 10.00 PM, on hearing the cries of her mother, she has gone to house along with PWs.1 and 2 and her grandfather and found her mother with fire and her father ran away from the place. Her uncle enquired her mother and she disclosed that the accused thrown kerosene lamp on her, due to which she got fire on her. 15. PW.5 is another witness, who testified that one year back, he heard that Neelamma was set fire by the accused. Then, he went there. He found PW.1 and 2 and deceased and 10 to 15 people were there. He found Neelamma was in flames. They poured water and extinguished fire. They enquired Neelamma how she sustained fire. 15. PW.5 is another witness, who testified that one year back, he heard that Neelamma was set fire by the accused. Then, he went there. He found PW.1 and 2 and deceased and 10 to 15 people were there. He found Neelamma was in flames. They poured water and extinguished fire. They enquired Neelamma how she sustained fire. She disclosed that the accused thrown kerosene lamp by coming house in drunken condition. 16. PW.6 is the inquest panchayatdar who testified about conducting of inquest over the dead body of the deceased on 29.12.2007. According to him Ex.P12 is the inquest report. 17. PW.7 is the mahazar witness to the observation of the scene of offence by police and seizure of certain things. He supported the case of the prosecution. According to him, Ex.P3 is observation mahazar. M.O.1 to M.O.3 are the saree, lunga and jocket. M.O.4 is the kerosene lamp. 18. PW.8 the then Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kuppam and according to the case of the prosecution, he recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. According to him, on 28.11.2007 at about 08.50 AM, he received requisition from Medical Officer, Kuppam for recording the dying declaration of Smt. Neelamma wife of Ramakrishnappa who was admitted in Government Area Hospital, Kuppam. Ex.P4 is requisition received by him. Immediately, he proceeded to the said hospital and met the medical officer and visited the burns ward of the said hospital and he shown the patient by name Neelamma. No one was present near the patient except the staff of the hospital. He requested the medical officer to examine the mental condition of the said patient. On examination, he declared that the patient is in good mental condition. He (PW.8) also put some preliminary questions to the patient to know her mental condition. Thereafter, he recorded her statement. Ex.P5, is the statement of the Neelamma recorded by him. He obtained the thumb impressions of the patient. He read over the contents and found her to be correct. Again, he asked the medical officer to examined mental condition of the patient. 19. PW.9 is the medical officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 09.12.2007, at 12.40 PM. He obtained the thumb impressions of the patient. He read over the contents and found her to be correct. Again, he asked the medical officer to examined mental condition of the patient. 19. PW.9 is the medical officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on 09.12.2007, at 12.40 PM. He spoke about the injuries in detail and further the body condition and his opinion is that the cause of death is septicemia and cardiac arrest due to 60% of the burning injuries.Ex.P6 is the P.M.Report. 20. Prosecution examined PW.10 the Head Constable of Rallabudugur Police Station, who recorded the statement from the injured (deceased) and he testified that on 28.01.2007 having received medical intimation from Government Hospital, Kuppam, at 07.15 AM that Neelamma got admitted with burn injuries. He went to Government Hospital, Kuppam, at 08.00 AM, recorded her statement under Ex.P7. He went back to police station and registered a case in Crime No. 69 of 2007 under Sections 498-A and 307 of the IPC, issued F.I.R. Ex.P8 is the F.I.R. During investigation also he recorded her statement again. He examined PWs.1 to 4. He visited the scene of offence and in the presence of panchayatdars, prepared observation report and drawn rough sketch. Ex.P3 is observation report Ex.P9 is the rough sketch. He seized born clothes and kerosene lamp. M.O.1 to M.O.3 are the saree, lunga, jocket and M.O.4 is the kerosene lamp. 21. PW.11 is the Inspector of Police, who took up the investigation from PW.10 and he spoke of conducting of inquest and forwarding the dead body and examining of the witnesses. 22. PW.12 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who altered the section of law, basing on the death of the deceased to Sections 498-A and 302 of the IPC. 23. PW.13 is the Inspector of Police who continued the investigation and after the arrest of the accused and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet. 24. Sri B. Parameswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that though the offence in question was occurred on 27.11.2007 at 10.00 PM, the prosecution pressed into service Ex.P7, the statement of injured (deceased) recorded by PW.10 on 28.11.2007. The contention of the accused is that on 27.11.2007 itself PW.1 went to hospital and made a complaint that his sister received accidental burn injuries. That report was suppressed by the prosecution. The contention of the accused is that on 27.11.2007 itself PW.1 went to hospital and made a complaint that his sister received accidental burn injuries. That report was suppressed by the prosecution. PW.2 admitted the factum of a report by PW.1 during the night of 27.11.2007, but due to tutoring, the deceased was made to gave a statement under Ex.P7 attributing culpability against the accused. She was also tutored to give Ex.P5 dying declaration before PW.8, the concerned Magistrate. PWs. 1 to 5 were interested witnesses. Even according to the case of prosecution, they did not actually witness that accused throwing away the burning kerosene lamp on the deceased. Their evidence that they came to know about the occurrence from the deceased. It cannot be taken as direct evidence and it is hearsay evidence, which is irrelevant. He would further contend that if really the incident was occurred in the manner as alleged. PW.1 would have not kept quite without lodging any report against the accused. So, the unexplained delay in setting the criminal law in motion is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The learned Sessions judge did not appreciate the evidence properly. Even the dying declaration under Ex.P5 by the learned Magistrate was also not recorded properly. There was no question posed to the injured by the Magistrate as to whether she was capable of giving a statement. The learned Sessions Judge did not appreciate the decisions cited by the defence counsel properly. With the above contentions, he would contend that the accused is entitled for an acquittal, as such the appeal is liable to be allowed. 25. Mr. Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned Special Assistant representing learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-state would contend that PW.1 denied that he lodged any report with police on the date of incident. PW.2, the mother of PW.1 though deposed that PW.1 went to the police station to lodge a complaint, but she was not a witness to the lodging of complaint. It was not elicited from the Investigating officers that PW.1 lodged any report on the date of incident. As it was night without proper conveyance, even injured could not be shifted to the Hospital. On the next day morning, injured was taken to Kuppam Government Hospital, from where medico legal intimation was sent to police, which resulted in to recording of statement under Ex.P7 by PW.10. As it was night without proper conveyance, even injured could not be shifted to the Hospital. On the next day morning, injured was taken to Kuppam Government Hospital, from where medico legal intimation was sent to police, which resulted in to recording of statement under Ex.P7 by PW.10. Hence, there is no question of suppressing any report. The basis for registration of F.I.R. under Sections 498-A and 302 was Ex.P7. After the death of the deceased section of law was altered duly. Though PWs.1 to 5 actually did not witness the act of accused in hurling kerosene lamp on the deceased, but they witnessed when the victim was caught with fire and the accused absconded. The dying declaration under Ex.P5 recorded by PW.8 Magistrate and further the statement under Ex.P7 recorded by PW.10 are consistent with regard to the allegation against the accused. The evidence of PWs.1 to 5 is also consistent with the version mentioned in Ex.P5 and Ex.P7. The learned Sessions Judge with sound reasons, found accused guilty of the charge under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC and as such, the appeal is devoid on merits and is fit to be dismissed. 26. It is to be noted that according to the evidence of PW.1 the brother of the deceased, PW.2 the mother of the deceased, PW.3 and PW.4, on hearing the cries from the house of the Neelamma, they rushed there and found Neelamma in flames and the accused ran away and when they questioned as to how she received injuries, she disclosed that accused has thrown kerosene lamp on her and made her burn. It is to be noted that the act of the these witness rushing to the house of the deceased and seeing the deceased caught with burn and immediately coming to know about the act of the accused throwing kerosene lantern on the deceased, absolutely comes under the purview of Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short "the Act") i.e., principle of res gestea i.e., "relevancy of the facts forming some part of same transaction". So, the incidents as spoken of by PWs.1 to 4 were all happened in quick succession. Section 6 of the Act is an exception to the rule of hearsay evidence. Absolutely there was no interval at all for the injured to put forth any fabricated version before PWs.1 to 4. So, the incidents as spoken of by PWs.1 to 4 were all happened in quick succession. Section 6 of the Act is an exception to the rule of hearsay evidence. Absolutely there was no interval at all for the injured to put forth any fabricated version before PWs.1 to 4. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered view that evidence of PWs.1 to 4 falls under the purview of Section 6 of the Act and it is quietly relevant and their evidence cannot be disregarded as hearsay evidence. 27. Now this Court would like to delve into the defence of the accused. Firstly, the contention of the accused during the course of cross examination of PW.1 is that his sister sustained burn injuries while sleeping in the house accidentally by contacting with the kerosene lamp burning in the house. He denied the above said suggestion. He also put forth such theory before PWs.3 and 4. They denied the defence of the accused. PW.5 also denied this theory. So, PWs.1 to 5 denied the defence theory that by the accident deceased came into contact with kerosene lamp, as such she was caught with burning injuries. Accused did not elicit any probabilities from the mouth of PWs.1 to 5 in support of such a theory. There is consistent evidence from PWs.1 to 4 that when the deceased was caught with fire and PWs.1 to 4 rushed there, accused absconded. It is to be noted that when the deceased was caught with fire, according to the defence of the accused by accident, accused would not have absconded. As a dutiful husband, his duty was to try to protect the deceased. Under the circumstances, the contention of the accused that the deceased met with burning injuries by accidentally cannot stands to any reason. 28. PW.1 denied the defence theory that on the date of incident itself, he went to police station and lodged complaint stating that his sister sustained burn injuries accidentally. He denied the same. The accused got answer during the court of cross examination of PW.2 that her son gone to police station that day and gave a complaint about receipt of injuries by her daughter. It is basing on this answer from PW.2, accused canvassed a contention that the complaint lodged by PW.1 to police was suppressed. He denied the same. The accused got answer during the court of cross examination of PW.2 that her son gone to police station that day and gave a complaint about receipt of injuries by her daughter. It is basing on this answer from PW.2, accused canvassed a contention that the complaint lodged by PW.1 to police was suppressed. Firstly, I would like to make it clear that, if the receipt injuries by the deceased were by way of any accident, there was no occasion for PW.1 to bring those facts to the notice of the police. There is no need or necessity to lodge a complaint with police intimating that the deceased received burn injuries by accident. It is to be noted that the deceased received injuries at 10.00 PM, according to the case of the prosecution. There is categorical evidence of PW.1 that as it was night, there were not able to shift the deceased to any Hospital. On the next day, they shifted her to Kuppam Government Hospital. It is to be noted that when the deceased received injuries at odd hours i.e., at 10.00 PM in the manner as stated by PWs.1 to 5, admittedly it is very difficult to get her to Kuppam Hospital, by allowing her to travel in autos. In my considered view nothing abnormal can be seen in the act of PW.1 and PW.2 and family members in taking the deceased in the morning to the hospital. It is to be noted that the providing necessary medical aid to the sister of PW.1 was of prime concern. Under the circumstances, one would not think over to lodge a report with police by keeping the injured at home. In my considered view, soon after the injured was brought to Kuppam Hospital, on medical intimation, PW.10 recorded Ex.P7, which was the basis for registration of original F.I.R. under Section 498-A and 307 IPC. In my considered view the contention of the accused that so called complaint lodged by PW.1 on 27.11.2007 was suppressed deserves no merits. Apart from this, the delay in setting the criminal law in motion is not at all fatal to the case of the prosecution. The delay was happened because the deceased could be taken to the hospital on the next day only. 29. Apart from this, the delay in setting the criminal law in motion is not at all fatal to the case of the prosecution. The delay was happened because the deceased could be taken to the hospital on the next day only. 29. As seen from the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, the learned defence counsel sought to rely upon several decisions about the delay in Ex.P1 i.e., Public Prosecutor Vs. Vendala Somaiah @ Medicherla Somaiah and other, reported in 2001 (2) ALT (Criminal) page 94, Dumpala Muralidhar Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2006 (2) ALD (Criminal) page 413 and G. Narasamma Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2007 (3) ALT (Criminal) page 116. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge shows that the learned Sessions Judge rightly distinguished those in the decisions with the facts on hand. It cannot be held by any stretch of imagination that those decisions were not considered by the learned Sessions Judge properly. 30. To sum up to this extent, PWs. 1 to 5 the direct witnesses to the occurrence supported the case of the prosecution. Their evidence quietly establishes the fact that accused absconded from the house when the deceased was with burn injuries. Absolutely there was no time for the deceased to put up a fabricated version before PWs.1 to 4, when she was suffering with burn injuries on the account of the act of the accused. 31. As seen from the evidence of PW.8, he recorded Ex.P5 the dying declaration from the deceased. Ex.P5 dying declaration, runs to the effect that accused thrown kerosene burning lamp on her on 27.11.2007 during night, as such she was caught with burn injuries. As seen from Ex.P5 dying declaration learned Magistrate after putting preliminary questions to the patient and after coming up to satisfaction that she is conscious and coherent and in fit condition to give the statement and after disclosing her that he is a Magistrate recorded her statement. Further he also obtained a statement of the medical officer about her mental condition of the injured. A contention was raised before the learned Sessions Judge that the Magistrate did not ask injured as to whether she is fit to give dying declaration. Further he also obtained a statement of the medical officer about her mental condition of the injured. A contention was raised before the learned Sessions Judge that the Magistrate did not ask injured as to whether she is fit to give dying declaration. It is to be noted that according to Ex.P5, Magistrate arrived at conclusion that patient is in conscious and coherent in fit condition mentally to give the statement. He also obtained an endorsement from the duty doctor to that effect. He disclosed to the patient that he is a Magistrate. Having regard to the above, learned Sessions Judge, uphold the value of the Ex.P5 dying declaration. It is to be noticed that Ex.P5 the dying declaration was recorded by the Magistrate by following due process. Though he deposed in the cross examination that he did not remember whether any persons present there or not, but it is not going to the very root of the case. Apart from this, as seen from Ex.P7, it was recorded by PW.10. Ex.P7 can also be termed as a dying declaration. So, the contents of Ex.P5 and Ex.P7 are consistent throughout. They runs to the effect that accused thrown kerosene light on the deceased, which fell on her clothes, as such she caught with fire. So, the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 that immediately after the occurrence, the deceased told them that the accused thrown away kerosene lamp and she sustained burn injuries is consistent with the version of the deceased in Ex.P5 and Ex.P7. 32. Having regard to the above, I am of the considered view that absolutely there is nothing on record to disbelieve the theory of the deceased in Ex.P5 dying declaration and also Ex.P7 the statement to police. As Ex.P5 as well as Ex.P7 were recorded explaining the circumstances in which the deceased received injuries, they are nothing but dying declarations. Absolutely, there is no conflict with regard to role attributed against the accused in Ex.P5 and Ex.P7. 33. As Ex.P5 as well as Ex.P7 were recorded explaining the circumstances in which the deceased received injuries, they are nothing but dying declarations. Absolutely, there is no conflict with regard to role attributed against the accused in Ex.P5 and Ex.P7. 33. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Sessions Judge on thorough appreciation of the evidence on record and on analyzing evidence on record carefully came to a conclusion that the accused was responsible for the death of the deceased by throwing burning kerosene lamp and that the evidence on record would prove the offence under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC instead of Section 302 of the IPC. There is no appeal filed by the prosecution as against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge finding the accused guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC as against the original charge. However, the evidence as on record categorically proves that fact while throwing away the kerosene lamp on the deceased, accused might not have any intention to cause her death directly, but he must have knowledge that such an act is likely to cause death of the deceased. The learned Sessions judge on thorough appreciation of the evidence on record, believed the case of the prosecution. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge is a well reasoned one. 34. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that the judgment, dated 05.01.2009 in S.C.No.185 of 2008 on the file of the District and Session Judge, Chittoor, is sustainable under law and facts and the prosecution proved the offence under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, as such, absolutely there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. 35. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant in judgment, dated 05.01.2009 in S.C.No.185 of 2008 on the file of the District and Session Judge, Chittoor. 36. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the judgment of this Court to the trial Court on or before 27.12.2023 and on such certificate, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the appellant/accused and to report compliance to this Court. 37. 36. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the judgment of this Court to the trial Court on or before 27.12.2023 and on such certificate, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the appellant/accused and to report compliance to this Court. 37. The Registry is directed to forward copy of the judgment along with record to the trial Court on or before 27.12.2023. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.