JUDGMENT : Subba Reddy Satti, J. The sole accused in Sessions Case No.302 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act – cum – X Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry, is the appellant. He was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the charge under Section 302 IPC. 2. Gravamen of the charge is that on 23.01.2014 at about 12.30 p.m. near the house of Gudivada Srinivasa Rao, on the public road, the accused hacked Balagam Papa (hereinafter referred to as deceased), with a knife in the middle of the head and neck and caused multiple diffused bleeding injuries, resulting in the death of deceased on the spot. 3. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after trial, convicted the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. 4. Case of the prosecution, as seen from the evidence available on record, is: (i) The accused is the husband of the deceased. All the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Rajahmundry. The deceased had 3 elder brothers, P.Ws.1, 5 and 6 and two elder sisters, P.W.9 and another. The accused is also a resident of Rajahmundry and was living by doing painting work. The marriage of the accused with the deceased was performed about 5 years ago at Sri Satyanarayana Swamy Temple, Aryapuram, Rajahmundry. Out of wedlock, they were blessed with two daughters viz., Anitha, 4 years and Vaishnavi, 2 years. For one year, the deceased has been working as a servant in the house of P.W.8-Gudivada Srinivasa Rao, who has been carrying on an iron business at Main Road, Rajahmundry, under the name and style of Sri Srinivasa Iron Shop. (ii) The accused is addicted to consuming alcohol and frequently beating the deceased. The matter was placed before the elders, and thereafter the deceased led marital life with the accused for some time; however, the accused did not mend his attitude and continued beating the deceased. (iii) On 09.01.2014 at about 6.00 p.m., the accused went home in a drunken state and beat the deceased without any reason. The matter was placed before the elders, and thereafter the deceased led marital life with the accused for some time; however, the accused did not mend his attitude and continued beating the deceased. (iii) On 09.01.2014 at about 6.00 p.m., the accused went home in a drunken state and beat the deceased without any reason. Frightened by the behaviour of the accused, the deceased left the house and went to her brother’s house at Simhachala Nagar, Rajahmundry, along with two children and stayed there only. Four days before the offence, the accused went to the house of the brothers of the deceased at Simhachala Nagar and asked them to send the deceased; however, they refused to send the deceased and directed the accused to bring the elders. The accused went away by threatening that if the deceased failed to lead conjugal life, he would kill her. The accused developed grudge against the deceased and hatched a plan to murder her. (iv) The master of deceased P.W.8 had been to Mumbai on 09.01.2014 and returned on 22.01.2024, as such for all these days, the deceased did not leave the house. On 22.01.2014, Gudivada Naga Annapurna-P.W.20, wife of P.W.8, called the deceased, and the deceased resumed her work. On 23.01.2014, the deceased attended work in the house of P.Ws.8 and 20 at about 8.30 a.m. The accused, armed with a knife, went to the house of P.W.8 and hid himself behind the shrubs situated at a vacant site in front of the house of P.W.8. Mukurupu Apparao-P.W.2, who is doing coolie work of breaking black gravel beside the road, noticed the accused going into the shrubs. However, he thought that the accused was going to answer the call of nature. At about 12.30 noon, the deceased completed her work and left the house of P.W.8 with rice and curry bowls. The accused attacked the deceased on a public road in front of the house of P.W.8. When the deceased raised cries, P.W.8 came to the compound wall of his house and witnessed the offence. The accused grew wild and hacked the deceased with a knife, causing multiple grievous diffuse bleeding injuries, and the deceased collapsed on the road and succumbed to injuries on the spot. (v) On receipt of information through 100 calls, P.W.21, Sub Inspector of Police, III Town (L&O) Police Station, Rajahmundry, rushed to the spot. The accused grew wild and hacked the deceased with a knife, causing multiple grievous diffuse bleeding injuries, and the deceased collapsed on the road and succumbed to injuries on the spot. (v) On receipt of information through 100 calls, P.W.21, Sub Inspector of Police, III Town (L&O) Police Station, Rajahmundry, rushed to the spot. P.W.8, having witnessed the gruesome murder, was terrified and later he recouped and prepared a written report Ex.P1, came to III Town (L&O) PS, Rajahmundry and presented the same at about 3.00 p.m. P.W.21 registered the same as a case in Crime No.32 of 2014 for the offence under Section 302 IPC and issued express FIR (Ex.P21). P.W.22, the then Probation Deputy Superintendent of Police, III Town (L&O) PS, Rajahmundry, took up investigation. (vi) P.W.22 inspected the scene of the offence in the presence of P.W.16 and another and prepared a rough sketch Ex.P22. He also got the scene of the offence photographed by P.W.13, a private photographer. Ex.P9 is a bunch of photographs. He collected blood-stained earth and controlled earth M.Os.4 and 5, and seized the chappals of the deceased and accused M.Os.2 and 3 under the cover of the scene observation report Ex.P14. P.W.22 also examined P.Ws.1 to 4, 8 & 20 and recorded their statements. P.W.17, Tahsildar, Rajahmundry and P.W.22 decided to shift the dead body to the mortuary of District Hospital, Rajahmundry, as it was already dark. Thereafter, the dead body was shifted to the mortuary of the District Hospital, Rajahmundry. On 24.01.2014, an inquest was conducted in the presence of blood relatives, P.W.16 and others. Ex.P15 is the inquest report. (vii) Thereafter, P.W.7 Civil Assistant Surgeon, District Hospital, Rajahmundry, along with Dr.D.Kalyani Rama conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued a post-mortem certificate Ex.P5. They opined the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries, especially to major neck vessels. (ix) On 29.01.2014 at about 5.15 a.m., on credible information, the accused was apprehended at the bus stop, Housing Board Colony, Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry, in the presence of P.Ws.16 and 18. The accused voluntarily confessed to the commission of the offence, and the same was recorded under the cover of a mediator's report, Ex.P17. (ix) On 29.01.2014 at about 5.15 a.m., on credible information, the accused was apprehended at the bus stop, Housing Board Colony, Lalacheruvu, Rajahmundry, in the presence of P.Ws.16 and 18. The accused voluntarily confessed to the commission of the offence, and the same was recorded under the cover of a mediator's report, Ex.P17. The accused led P.W.22 and mediators to the road at Sivalayam in Anand Nagar, Rajahmundry, where crime weapon M.O.1 was recovered from the shrubs under the cover of mediators' report Ex.P18. P.W.22 also recorded the statements of P.W.11 and 12, neighbours to the house of the accused and P.W.13, private photographer. P.W.22 also got the crime weapon photographed. Ex.P10 is two photographs, and Ex.P11 is a compact disc. (x) P.W.23, the then Inspector of Police, III Town L&O PS, Rajahmundry took up further investigation. He seized the material objects from the scene of offence, blood-stained clothes of the deceased and the crime weapon and forwarded the same to the RFSL, Vijayawada, for analysis under the cover of a letter of request and advice, Exs.P25 and P26. Ex.P24 is the RFSL report. After completion of the investigation, P.W.23 filed the final report/charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 24, marked Exs.P1 to P27 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 9. 6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. 7. Accepting both ocular and documentary evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused as aforesaid. 8. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Ganja, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. He would submit that the deposition of P.W.8 and the RFSL report Ex.P24 run contrary to each other. He would also submit that the height of the compound wall is 5 feet, and hence, P.W.8 could not have witnessed the incident. He would submit that the learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to consider the improvements in the evidence of P.W.8. The prosecution failed to ascertain the blood group available on M.O.1. He would submit that M.O.1 was not sent to the fingerprint expert. 10. He would submit that the learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to consider the improvements in the evidence of P.W.8. The prosecution failed to ascertain the blood group available on M.O.1. He would submit that M.O.1 was not sent to the fingerprint expert. 10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would submit that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence of P.W.8, a direct witness to the incident, is trustworthy and inspires confidence and nothing contrary was elicited in his cross- examination. He would also submit that, as per Ex.P24 RFSL report, blood is detected on item Nos 1, 3 to 7, and the blood is of human origin. He would submit that M.O.1 was recovered based on the confession made by the accused and eventually prayed to dismiss the appeal, as the same lacks merit. 11. We have carefully scrutinised the entire evidence on record. 12. The entire case of the prosecution rests on the solitary testimony of P.W.8, an eyewitness to the incident. P.W.8 categorically deposed about the cries of the deceased and his witnessing of the ghastly incident. The evidence of P.W.8 inspires confidence in this Court, and in fact, nothing contrary was elicited during his cross-examination to disbelieve his evidence. In fact, P.W.20, the wife of P.W.8, stated that immediately after hearing the hue and cry, she went out and found the deceased lying nearby a tree at her house with bleeding injuries. 13. In Satish Kumar and another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , 2008 (2) ALD (Crl.) 804 (AP) , the Division Bench of the composite High Court, while considering the testimony of a solitary witness, observed thus: “13. The entire case of the prosecution rests upon the solitary testimony of P.W.1. So long as the evidence of a single eye-witness is wholly reliable, there will not be any difficulty in basing a conviction on his testimony alone. However, where the evidence of single eye-witness is not found to be wholly reliable, in the sense that there are some circumstances which may show that he could have interest in the prosecution, then the Court has to look for independent corroboration of his testimony on material particulars, before recording conviction. It is not the quantity, but quality, that matters”. 14. It is not the quantity, but quality, that matters”. 14. In the case at hand, the evidence of P.W.8, an independent eyewitness, is totally believable, and there is no reason to discard his testimony. The evidence of P.W.20 corroborates the evidence of P.W.8. In fact, after the incident, P.W.8 dialled 100, reported the incident to the police, and thereafter set the criminal law into motion by giving a report. Though there are minor variations in the evidence of P.Ws.8 and 20, the same had not materially shaken the prosecution's case. P.W.20 is a housewife, and P.W.8 is a businessman. 15. It is a cardinal principle that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness, read as a whole, appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, the Court must scrutinise the evidence to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the prosecution's case. 16. In Jagroop Singh Vs. State of Punjab , (2012) 11 SCC 768 : AIR 2012 SC 2600 , the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the effect of minor contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and held thus: “24. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant basically is that there are omissions and improvements in the versions of the witnesses and of such magnitude that they affect the prosecution's case. 25. In State Vs. Saravanan [ (2008) 17 SCC 587 :(2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 580: AIR 2009 SC 152 ] it has been stated that the contradictions/omissions must be of such nature which materially affect the trial. The minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements which do not affect the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the evidence of the witness in entirety. In Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta v. State of Maharashtra [ (2010) 13 SCC 657 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 375] it has been laid down that the omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited. 17. The RFSL report Ex.P24 would disclose that blood is detected on M.Os.1, 3 to 7, which is of human origin. The prosecution established that the accused attacked the deceased with M.O.1 and caused multiple lacerated injuries. 17. The RFSL report Ex.P24 would disclose that blood is detected on M.Os.1, 3 to 7, which is of human origin. The prosecution established that the accused attacked the deceased with M.O.1 and caused multiple lacerated injuries. Further, the prosecution could prove recovery of M.O.1 at the behest of the accused, which is one of the circumstances to connect the accused with the crime. P.Ws.16 and 18, V.R.Os of Rajahmundry, acted as mediators at the time of the arrest of the accused and nothing contra was elicited during their cross-examination. 18. The prosecution also proved the motive of the accused to kill the deceased by examining P.Ws.1, 5, 6 & 9, who categorically stated about the earlier harassment meted out by the deceased at the hands of the accused and also settling the matrimonial disputes before the elders. 19. Though the incriminating circumstances pointing out the guilt of the accused had been put to the accused during Section 313 Cr.P.C examination, he has chosen the mode of denial, without offering any proper explanation.The accused also did not adduce any defence evidence. 20. In Jagroop Singh ’s case (supra-2), the Hon’ble Apex Court, while considering the conduct of the accused during 313 Cr.P.C examination, held thus: “36. Another aspect is to be taken note of. Though the incriminating circumstances which point to the guilt of the accused had been put to the accused, yet he could not give any explanation under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure except choosing the mode of denial. In State of Maharashtra v. Suresh [ (2000) 1 SCC 471 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 263] , it has been held that when the attention of the accused is drawn to such circumstances that inculpated him in the crime and he fails to offer appropriate explanation or gives a false answer, the same can be counted as providing a missing link for completing the chain of circumstances. We may hasten to add that we have referred to the said decision only to highlight that the accused has not given any explanation whatsoever as regards the circumstances put to him under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.” 21. On careful analysis of the ocular and documentary evidence available on record, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. On careful analysis of the ocular and documentary evidence available on record, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, after scrutiny of the entire evidence, rightly convicted the accused and imposed the sentence. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. 22. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is hereby dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant by the learned Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act – cum – X Additional District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry, in S.C.No.302 of 2014 dated 28.09.2016. Needless to state that the period already undergone by the appellant/Accused shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.