JUDGMENT : K.Surender, J. 1. The Appeal is filed by the appellant/accused, aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.02.2018, in S.C.No.209 of 2016, on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. 2. Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State. 3. According to the case of the prosecution, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the husband and son respectively, of Sonu Bai (deceased). On 07.07.2015, around 7 a.m., while P.W.1 was on his bed and the deceased was sweeping the courtyard of the house, the appellant came there and stabbed her repeatedly with a knife. P.W.2, who is the son of the deceased, went and sought the help of P.W.13. P.W.13 went to the scene and found the appellant stabbing the deceased. On seeing him, the appellant tried to run away. P.W.13 chased the appellant and the appellant was caught around 7:15 a.m. by P.W.16. According to P.W.16, around 7:15 a.m., he found the appellant with a knife, being chased by P.W.13. P.W.16 stopped the appellant and instructed him to keep the knife aside. P.W.13 informed P.W.16 that the appellant had killed a woman with a knife at Putli Bowli. 4. P.W.15 is the police constable, and on receiving the information though VHF set from the interceptor vehicle, he immediately went to the place where P.W.16 was present and found the appellant holding a knife with blood stains on his clothes, and a cut injury on his left hand index finger. The appellant was handed over by the interceptor vehicle to P.W.15 and P.W.15 took the accused into custody along with the knife. Firstly, he was taken to Osmania General Hospital for treatment and then he was taken to the Police Station. 5. P.W.8 is the Inspector of Police. On receiving information, he went to the scene of offence. The appellant was apprehended along with M.O.11/Jambia, the weapon used to assault the deceased. At the scene, P.W.8 collected material objects and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. At the Police Station, during interrogation, the confession was recorded and M.O.11/Jambia (knife) was seized, along with bloodstained wearing apparel of the accused/M.O.12 and M.O.13. 6. The deceased’s body was sent to Osmania General Hospital, where inquest proceedings were concluded. At the scene, P.W.8 collected material objects and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. At the Police Station, during interrogation, the confession was recorded and M.O.11/Jambia (knife) was seized, along with bloodstained wearing apparel of the accused/M.O.12 and M.O.13. 6. The deceased’s body was sent to Osmania General Hospital, where inquest proceedings were concluded. The body was then sent for postmortem examination. P.W.5 is the post mortem Doctor and he found the following injuries:- “1. Cut injury 3x1.5 cm x muscle deep in front of the right ear. 2. Three abrasions 1x1 cm, 1x1cms, 1x0.5 cms on right side lower part of cheek on mandibular area. 3. Abrasion 1x0.5 cms on lower part of right side of neck. 4. Cut injury 3x1cm x skin deep on outer aspect of left forehead-obliquely placed. 5. Cut injury 2x0.5 cms x cartilage deep on outer part of left ear lobule. 6. Abrasion 1.5x0.5cms on right cheek. 7. Cut injury 7x3 cms x oesophagus deep on lower part of chin on left side of madibular area and below the chin madibular area-it cuts the left side muscles of the neck and then cuts the trachea and oesophagus at their upper part and then touches the superior part of third and fourth cervical vertebrae with the surrounding contusion and left side blood vessels of neck cut off. 8. Cut injury 2x1cm x subcutaneous tissue deep over middle part of the right colar bone area. 9. Cut injury 6x3cms x bone deep on inner aspect of right shoulder and arm. It cuts the outer 3 rd of right colar bone. 10. Contusion 3x2 cms on front of right side upper chest. 11. Stab wound 5x1cmx4cm muscle deep outer aspect and front of right side of lower chest 8cms below the breast outer end acute and inner end rounded. 12. Stab wound 5x2x2cm muscle deep on outer aspect on front of right side of upper abdomen 13 cms below the breast-obliquely placed, outer end is acute and inner end is rounded. 13. Stab wound obliquely placed 5x1x2cms muscle deep on front of right side abdomen 1cms below the 12 th rib, outer end acute and lower end rounded. 14. Contusion 4x2cms on left inguinal area. 15. Cut injury 11x6cmsx4cms muscle deep on outer aspect of upper and middle part of right arm obliquely placed. 16. 13. Stab wound obliquely placed 5x1x2cms muscle deep on front of right side abdomen 1cms below the 12 th rib, outer end acute and lower end rounded. 14. Contusion 4x2cms on left inguinal area. 15. Cut injury 11x6cmsx4cms muscle deep on outer aspect of upper and middle part of right arm obliquely placed. 16. Cut injury 9x2cms x subcutaneous tissue deep on outer aspect of front of lower one third of right fore arm. 17. Abrasion 1x2 cms on front of right wrist. 18. Contusion 4x3cms on palmar aspect of thenar eminence of right hand. 19. Cut injury 5x2cms x muscle deep on front of left shoulder. 20. Cut injury 3x2x1cm muscle deep on outer aspect of lower third of left arm above the elbow joint. 21. Cut injury 9x3x2cms muscle deep on front and out aspect of middle third of left forearm. 22. Cut injury 3x2x2 cms muscle deep on out aspect and front of left fore arm 4 cms above the wrist joint. 23. Cut injury 8x2x2cms muscle deep on back and middle third of and lower third of left fore arm. 24. Four cut injuries 1x0.5cms, 2x1cms, 2x0.1cms, 4x1cm x skin deep on front of left wrist. 25. Cut injury 4x1.5cms in between first and second metacarpal bones of left hand. 26. Cut laceration 8x2cms x muscle deep on back of left hand over third, fourth and fifth metacarpal area with fracture of upper end of fifth metacarpal bone. 27. Three cut injuries 4x1cms, 2x0.1cms x skin deep on front of right thigh and 6x1cms x skin deep on right thigh. 28. Two cut injuries 2x0.1 cms, 2x0.1 cms x skin deep on front of the right knee. 29. Cut injury 3x1x1cms muscle deep on outer aspect of upper third of right leg 8cms below the knee. 30. Cut injury 5x2xcs x3cms muscle deep on left buttock. 31. Cut injury 5x3x3cms muscle deep on back of left thigh 6cms below the injury No.30. All above injuries are red and fresh. 32. On reflection of scalp contusion 2x2cms on left frontal, 3x2cms on right frontal area of head.” 7. P.W.5 found that the death was on account of multiple cut and stab wounds. P.W.5 further deposed that the injuries on the deceased were possible with the weapon shown to him during the trial. 8. All above injuries are red and fresh. 32. On reflection of scalp contusion 2x2cms on left frontal, 3x2cms on right frontal area of head.” 7. P.W.5 found that the death was on account of multiple cut and stab wounds. P.W.5 further deposed that the injuries on the deceased were possible with the weapon shown to him during the trial. 8. The Investigating Officer concluded the investigation and filed a charge sheet for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. 9. Learned Sessions Judge found favour with the prosecution’s version and convicted the appellant, though P.W.1 and P.W.2 turned hostile to the prosecution case. 10. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the husband and son of the deceased respectively, turned hostile to the prosecution’s case and did not speak about any assault by the appellant. The prosecution is banking on the evidence of P.W.13, who was the eyewitness to the incident. However, he was not present when the incident took place. Even according to him, on information given by P.W.2, he went to the scene. However, on account of P.W.2’s hostility, it cannot be said that P.W.13 was present at the scene. 11. Learned senior counsel further submitted that P.W.16 was the constable, who allegedly apprehended the appellant when he was being followed by P.W.13. However, P.W.16 was examined two days after the incident. The knife/M.O.11 was seized by P.W.8 and the said recovery is of no consequence, since it was not seized at the instance of the appellant. The prosecution has not projected any motive, and further, FIR that was registered was sent to the Court with a delay. The injury on the hand of the accused was not explained by the prosecution. Further, the blood group on M.O.11 could not be determined. 12. The prosecution has not projected any motive, and further, FIR that was registered was sent to the Court with a delay. The injury on the hand of the accused was not explained by the prosecution. Further, the blood group on M.O.11 could not be determined. 12. Learned senior counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harbeer Singh v. Sheespal And Others with State of Rajashthan vs. Sheeshpal And Others , [ (2016) 16 SCC 418 ] The said judgment was cited in support of his argument that there was a delay in recording the statement of P.W.16 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. He also relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parshuram vs. State of M.P. , [ 2023 INSC 973 (SlpCrl.No.1718 of 2022)] wherein it was held that when there is no explanation for an injury on the accused, an adverse inference has to be drawn. He also relied on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balwan Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh And Another , [ (2019) 7 SCC 781 ] wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that not determining the blood group on the weapon that was seized would also have an impact on the prosecution’s case. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would submit that P.W.13 is the crucial witness to the prosecution and the hostility of P.Ws.1 and 2 is of no consequence. P.W.13 stated that he chased the appellant for a considerable distance, where he was caught hold of by P.W.16 and handed over to P.W.15. The sequence of events would clearly go to show that it was the appellant who had caused multiple injuries on the deceased, resulting in her death. 14. The argument of the learned senior counsel for the appellant is that no motive was suggested by the prosecution, which is fatal to the prosecution case. In a case where there is an eyewitness account, the motive is of no consequence. Though P.Ws.1 and 2 turned hostile to the prosecution case, there is no reason as to why P.W.13 would speak falsely against the appellant. 15. P.W.13 was informed about the incident by P.W.2, who stated that it was the appellant who was attacking the deceased. As seen from the post mortem examination, nearly 32 stab and cut wounds were found on the body of the deceased. 15. P.W.13 was informed about the incident by P.W.2, who stated that it was the appellant who was attacking the deceased. As seen from the post mortem examination, nearly 32 stab and cut wounds were found on the body of the deceased. To inflict such injuries, time would have been taken. P.W.13 clearly narrated that on information being given by P.W.2, he immediately rushed to the scene and found the appellant inflicting injuries on the deceased. P.W.13 tried to apprehend the appellant, who ran from the place. He was chased for a distance and upon seeing the appellant being chased by P.W.13, P.W16 intervened and caught hold of the appellant. According to P.W.16, the appellant was holding a knife, which is M.O.11. Then, on information given by P.W.16, P.W.15 went to the scene, along with the Inspector of Police/P.W.8. 16. The sequence of events narrated by the prosecution cannot be doubted. In fact, after the incident, the appellant was chased and caught hold of by the Police and was taken to the Police Station. 17. The argument of the learned senior counsel that the Police did not conduct a Test Identification Parade and that this would be fatal to the case cannot be accepted. As seen from the injuries caused, it can be determined that it would have taken considerable time to inflict such injuries. The appellant was chased by P.W.13 and caught hold of by the Police. The incident went on for quite some time. The manner in which the incident took place, with the appellant being chased and caught hold of by the Police, would have a lasting impact on the mind of P.W.13. In the present facts of the case, the Police not holding a Test Identification Parade for the purpose of P.W.13 identifying the appellant is of no consequence. 18. The manner in which the injuries were inflicted by the appellant would go to show that the murder was intentional and premeditated. There are no grounds to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. 19. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.