JUDGMENT : K.Suresh Reddy, J. Sole Accused in Sessions Case No.309 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasapur, West Godavari District, is the appellant in the present Criminal Appeal. He was tried and convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for “ LIFE” and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one (01) year. 2. Substance of the charge is that on 05.10.2013 at about 4.30 P.M, the accused brutally attacked one Goruganthu Srivalli Gayathri (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) with a kitchen knife in her parents’ house situated at Sripada Vari Street, Achanta Village and Mandal, causing her instantaneous death, thereby committed offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 3. Case of the prosecution, as per the evidence of prosecution witnesses, is as follows:- All the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Achanta Village and Mandal. Pw-1 is the father of the deceased, Pw-2 is the mother of the deceased, Pw-3 is the paternal aunt of the deceased, Pw-4 is the sister of the deceased, Pw-5 is the husband of Pw-4, Pw-6 is the nephew of Pw-1, Pws-7 and 10 are the neighbours, Pw-8 is the owner of the house, where Pw-1 is residing on rent and Pw-9 is the brother’s son of Pw-1. Pws-1 and 2 performed the marriage of the deceased with the accused about fifteen (15) years back and they were blessed with a son aged about 13 years. Pw-1, at the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.45,000/- cash, 3 sovereigns of gold articles and ¼ kg silver articles were given to the accused. The couple lived for some time at Marteru Village. The couple lead happy marital life for a period of five (05) months. Thereafter, the accused started ill-treating and harassing the deceased suspecting her fidelity. Pws-1 and 2 used to pacify the disputes. On 05.10.2013 between 12.00 and 12.30 Noon, the accused went to the house of Pws-1 and 2 and requested to arrange an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for purchasing a house site at Vanampalli Village. He also requested Pws-1 and 2 to sell away the gold articles of the deceased and pay the amount. Subsequently, Pw-2 went to Marteru Village to her sister’s house whereas Pw-1 went to the temple to perform pooja. He also requested Pws-1 and 2 to sell away the gold articles of the deceased and pay the amount. Subsequently, Pw-2 went to Marteru Village to her sister’s house whereas Pw-1 went to the temple to perform pooja. While leaving, Pws-1and 2 found the deceased along with the accused in the house. At about 5.30 P.M or 6.00 P.M, there ensued an altercation between the accused and the deceased, which was heard by the prosecution witnesses i.e., Pws-3, 6, 9 and 10. Shortly thereafter, the accused came out of the house of Pw-1, abusing the deceased and left the place along with a kitchen knife on his motor cycle. Immediately, Pw-3 and other workers working in the fields went inside the house and found the deceased lying in a pool of blood. Having seen the incident, Pw-3 sent Pw-10 to inform the same to Pw-1. Immediately, Pw-10 went to Pw-1 and informed about the incident. Immediately, Pw-1 returned home and found the deceased in a pool of blood. On the same day, at about 10.00 P.M, Pw-1 went to the Police Station and gave a report-Ex.P-1. Pw-14-Head Constable, Achanta Police Station received Ex.P-1 from Pw-1 and registered a case in Cr.No.75 of 2013 under Section 302 IPC and issued copies of FIRs to all the concerned. Ex.P-6 is the copy of FIR. On the same day, having received the information from Pw-14 about the incident, Pw-15-Inspector of Police went to the scene of offence. As all the blood relatives of the deceased were in shock on that night, he could not examine them. On the next day i.e., 06.10.2013 at about 7.00 A.M, Pw-15 went to the scene of offence and started investigation. He got the scene photographed through Pw-16 and he also prepared rough sketch-Ex.P-7 at the scene of offence. He prepared observation report-Ex.P-3 at the scene of offence in the presence of Pw-13 and another. He also seized blood stained earth, controlled earth, which is marked as M.O-1 at the scene of offence. He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of Pw-13 and another. Ex.P-4 is the inquest report. After inquest, he recorded statements of Pws-1 to 7 and 9. He sent the dead body to the Government Hospital, Palakol, through Pw-17-Corpus Constable. 4. Pw-11-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Palakol conducted autopsy over the dead body at about 9.00 A.M on 07.10.2013. Ex.P-4 is the inquest report. After inquest, he recorded statements of Pws-1 to 7 and 9. He sent the dead body to the Government Hospital, Palakol, through Pw-17-Corpus Constable. 4. Pw-11-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Palakol conducted autopsy over the dead body at about 9.00 A.M on 07.10.2013. He found as many as twenty two (22) injuries on the dead body. He opined the cause of death was due to “multiple injuries including injury to neck involving major blood vessels leading to sever shock and death”. He issued Post-Mortem Certificate-Ex.P-2. On 11.10.2013 at about 8.00 A.M, Pw-15 arrested the accused at Cattorn bridge, Marteru Center in the presence of Pw-13 and another. The accused said to have confessed about the commission of offence. On the confession made by the accused, M.O-5-wooden kitchen knife was seized from his house under the cover of panchanama-Ex.P-5. On the same day, he recorded statements of Pws-8 and 12. On 09.01.2014 he filed a preliminary charge sheet. Subsequently, as he was transferred, his successor, Pw-18 took up further investigation on 15.02.2014. Pw-18, after receipt of report from RFSL under Ex.P-9, filed charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 18 and marked Exs.P-1 to 9 and also exhibited M.Os-1 to 6. 6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material found against him. 7. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant/accused as aforesaid. 8. We have heard Sri. Gandham S.R. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that there are no eye witnesses to the alleged incident. He further contended that even there is no circumstantial evidence to connect the accused with the alleged offence. He states that Pws-1 and 2 are not at all eye witnesses to the incident. Even according to the prosecution, Pws-1 and 2 were not present in the house on that day. So far as Pw-3 is concerned, the learned counsel states that she only stated in her evidence that after the incident, she saw the accused going away hurriedly along with a kitchen knife. But, in the Cross-Examination, she stated that she did not inform the police about the said fact. So far as Pw-3 is concerned, the learned counsel states that she only stated in her evidence that after the incident, she saw the accused going away hurriedly along with a kitchen knife. But, in the Cross-Examination, she stated that she did not inform the police about the said fact. He further contended that though all the prosecution witnesses have stated that the accused used to harass the deceased, demanding an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for the purpose of purchasing a house site, the same is conspicuously absent in the earliest report-Ex.P-1 given by Pw-1. He further contended that the motive alleged by the prosecution in Ex.P-1 is that the accused used to suspect the character of the deceased, but in the evidence, prosecution witnesses have stated that the accused used to harass the deceased demanding money. He further contended that no witness has seen the accused in the company of the deceased at the relevant point of time. The evidence of Pws-3, 6, 9 and 10 only show that after the incident, the accused left the house of Pws-1 and 2 hurriedly along with a knife. On that mere circumstance alone, it cannot be held that it is the accused, who killed the deceased. As such, the learned counsel for the appellant requests this Court to allow the Criminal Appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence. 10. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor strenuously opposed contending that the accused attacked the deceased in a very gruesome manner, causing as many as twenty two (22) injuries on her body. He further contended that the prosecution witnesses have consistently stated about the harassment of the accused towards the deceased demanding an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for purchasing a house site. He further contended that the evidence of Pws-3, 6, 9 and 10 is consistent and all the witnesses have specifically stated that immediately after the attack, they saw the accused going away along with a knife. He further contended that neighbours, who were examined as Pws-7 and 10, have also stated about the harassment of the accused towards the deceased. Pw-10 has also stated in the Chief-Examination that immediately after the incident, the accused went on his motor cycle with a polythene cover. Apart from the above evidence, the conduct of the accused in absconding from the house from 05.10.2013 can also be taken into consideration. Pw-10 has also stated in the Chief-Examination that immediately after the incident, the accused went on his motor cycle with a polythene cover. Apart from the above evidence, the conduct of the accused in absconding from the house from 05.10.2013 can also be taken into consideration. As such, the learned Special Public Prosecutor sought for dismissal of the Criminal Appeal by confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bodhraj Alias Bodha and Others Vs State of Jammu and Kashmir , (2002) 8 SCC 45 . 11. We have gone through the entire material available on record. 12. All the prosecution witnesses have specifically stated that the accused used to harass the deceased initially suspecting her fidelity. It is only for that reason, the deceased was brought back by her parents’ Pws-1 and 2, where she was residing. Though in Ex.P-1 the demand of an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was absent, but in the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses, it was specifically stated that the accused used to harass the deceased demanding an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for purchasing a house site. But on the fateful day, it is the evidence of Pws-3, 6, 9 and 10, that there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased at the relevant point of time. It is also the evidence of Pws-3, 6, 9 and 10 that immediately after the incident, the accused left the house of Pws-1 and 2 along with a knife on his motor cycle. Further, the accused also absconded from the house from 05.10.2013 to 11.10.2013. This conduct also shows that it is the accused, who caused the murder of the deceased. The defence could not put any suggestions to these prosecution witnesses suggesting that there is any scope for the other persons to kill the deceased. Further, in the Judgment relied on by the prosecution in Bodhraj Alias Bodha and Others Vs State of Jammu and Kashmir , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:- “The last-seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases. In this case there is positive evidence that the deceased, A-1 and A-2 were seen together by witnesses i.e., Pws-14, 15 and 18: in addition to the evidence of Pws-1 and 2”. 13. In the case on hand also, the prosecution is able to prove that the deceased was living in the house of Pws-1 and 2 on the relevant date. It is further established by the evidence of Pws-3, 6, 9 and 10 that the accused was present in the house along with the deceased at relevant point of time. It is also established that Pws-1 and 2 are not in the house at the relevant point of time. It is further established that immediately after the incident, the accused going away with a knife by shouting at the deceased. All these circumstances would indicate that it is the accused alone, who killed the deceased. These circumstances would indicate that it is for the accused and no other person to cause the death of the deceased. Further, there is no explanation from the accused as to how the deceased met with homicidal death as he was present along with the deceased at that time. 14. Viewed from any angle, all the circumstances and the evidence of prosecution witnesses, point out the guilt towards Accused alone. Except the Accused, no other person has got any opportunity to kill the deceased. 15. On the above analyses and having carefully examined the case in its entirety, in the considered opinion of this court, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court needs no interference. Hence, there are no merits in the present Criminal Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 16. Therefore, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court needs no interference. Hence, there are no merits in the present Criminal Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 16. In the result, the present Criminal Appeal is dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Narasapur, West Godavari District, in Sessions Case No.309 of 2014, dated 15.02.2016 Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.