JUDGMENT: K.Suresh Reddy, J. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence recorded by judgment dated 14-12-2016 in Sessions Case No. 179 of 2014 on the file of the Court of learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Markapur (for short, 'the trial Court'), the accused therein filed the present criminal appeal before this Court. The appellant-accused was tried by the trial Court under the following two charges: I charge was under Section 452 IPC; and II charge was under Section 302 IPC. 2. Substance of the charges is that on 06-06-2013 at about 7 p.m., the accused trespassed into the house of one Sirimella Lakshmeswari (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), caught hold of her tuft and dragged her onto road from the house and slashed her throat with a knife causing her death, thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 452 and 302 IPC. 3. After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted the appellant- accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him 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 three months. The trial Court also convicted the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 452 IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. The accused, the deceased and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Nagampalli Village, Konakanamitla Mandal. P.W.1 is sister-in-law, P.W.2 is husband, P.W.3 is mother, P.W.4 is father, P.W.5 is sister, P.W.6 is brother and P.Ws.11 and 12 are daughters of the deceased. Marriage of the deceased was performed with P.W.2 in the year 2002 and they were blessed with P.Ws.11 and 12 and one male child. The accused used to harass the deceased demanding to fulfil his lust. The deceased refused for the same and complained to her husband-P.W.2 who warned the accused. While so, on 06-06-2013 at about 7 p.m., the accused trespassed into the house of the deceased, caught hold of her tuft, dragged her outside onto road and slashed her throat with a knife causing her instantaneous death. On seeing the attack, P.Ws.11 and 12 raised hue and cry. While so, on 06-06-2013 at about 7 p.m., the accused trespassed into the house of the deceased, caught hold of her tuft, dragged her outside onto road and slashed her throat with a knife causing her instantaneous death. On seeing the attack, P.Ws.11 and 12 raised hue and cry. Immediately, P.W.1 came out and found the accused slashing the throat of the deceased and running away from the scene holding a knife. P.W.1 observed the neck of the deceased was slashed. Hearing hue and cry, P.Ws.7, 13 and others came to the scene of offence. Immediately, the injured was taken to P.W.8-Registered Medical Practitioner who found the deceased died. P.W.26-the then Sub Inspector of Police, Konakanamitla Police Station, having received telephonic information about the incident at about 8.30 p.m., went to Nagampalli Village. P.W.1 gave a report-Ex.P1 to P.W.26. P.W.26 posted a guard at the scene of offence, returned to police station and registered a case in crime No. 54 of 2013 of Konakanamitla Police Station under Sections 452 and 302 IPC and issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. FIR was marked as Ex.P14. On the next day, P.W.27-the then Inspector of Police, Podili Circle, took up investigation, proceeded to the scene of offence and prepared an observation report-Ex.P16 in the presence of P.Ws.21 and 22. P.W.27 also prepared a rough sketch-Ex.P15 at the scene of offence. P.W.27 seized M.Os.1 to 4 at the scene of offence in the presence of P.Ws.20 and 21. P.W.27 got the scene photographed through P.W.16. Photographs and C.D. were marked as Ex.P3. P.W.27 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P.Ws.21 and 23. Inquest report was marked as Ex.P17. Thereafter, P.W.27 sent the dead body for conducting post mortem examination. P.W.25-Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Podili, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. He opined the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage leading to haemorrhagic shock due to damage of left carotid vasculature and anterior neck parts caused by heavy blunt object with sharp edges. Accordingly, P.W.25 issued Ex.P13-post mortem certificate. On 12-06-2013, P.W.27 arrested the accused at about 10.30 a.m. and recorded confessional statement of the accused under Ex.P18. P.W.27 seized one shirt and one pant of the deceased, which were marked as M.Os.5 and 6 respectively, in the presence of P.Ws.22 and 24 under Ex.P18. Accordingly, P.W.25 issued Ex.P13-post mortem certificate. On 12-06-2013, P.W.27 arrested the accused at about 10.30 a.m. and recorded confessional statement of the accused under Ex.P18. P.W.27 seized one shirt and one pant of the deceased, which were marked as M.Os.5 and 6 respectively, in the presence of P.Ws.22 and 24 under Ex.P18. In pursuance of the confession made by the accused, P.W.27 seized M.O.7-knife in the presence of P.Ws.22 and 24 under Ex.P19. Thereafter, the accused was remanded to judicial custody. Material objects were sent to A.P.F.S.L., Hyderabad, on 29-06-2013 under Ex.P20. F.S.L. Report was marked as Ex.P21. After completion of investigation, P.W.27 filed charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 27 and got marked Exs.P1 to P25 apart from exhibiting M.Os.1 to 7. 6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating material appearing against him and reported no defence evidence, however got marked Ex.D1. 7. Accepting the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the trial Court convicted the appellant-accused as afore-stated. 8. Heard Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused, and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 9. Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused, strenuously contends that the incident took place at about 7 p.m. on 06-06-2013 but Ex.P1-report was lodged at about 10 p.m.; that though the crime was registered at about 10 p.m. and FIR was despatched at about 11 p.m., it reached the Court concerned on 07-06-2013 at about 10.30 a.m. and that the distance between police station and Court is about 15 K.Ms. and as such, there is any amount of delay in reaching FIR to the Court concerned. Learned counsel submits that FIR must have been registered on the early hours of 07-06-2013 and it is only for that reason, FIR reached the Court on 07-06-2013 at about 10.30 a.m. Learned counsel also contends that the deceased was taken to P.W.8-Registered Medical Practitioner in the auto of P.W.9 but P.W.9 did not support the case of prosecution; that P.Ws.7, 13 and 14 shifted the deceased from the scene of offence to P.W.8 but no bloodstains were found on their clothes and that the investigating officer-P.W.27 did not find any bloodstains at the scene of offence. Learned counsel submits that the deceased was killed somewhere else and shifted the scene of offence near the house of the deceased. Learned counsel submits that the deceased was killed somewhere else and shifted the scene of offence near the house of the deceased. He therefore requests this Court to allow the criminal appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. 10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the appeal contending that the report was promptly given by P.W.1 and there was absolutely no delay in lodging the report and that merely because FIR reached the Court at about 10.30 a.m. on 07-06-2013, the evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be brushed aside. He further contends that merely because P.W.9-auto driver did not support the case of prosecution and the clothes of P.Ws.7, 13 and 14 were not stained with blood, their evidence cannot be disbelieved. He also contends that merely because P.W.27 did not find any bloodstains on road, the evidence of prosecution witnesses cannot be discarded. He submits that the evidence of prosecution witnesses, particularly the evidence of P.Ws.11 and 12, clinchingly establishes the guilt of the appellant-accused beyond reasonable doubt. He therefore requests this Court to dismiss the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court. 11. This Court perused the entire material available on record. P.W.1 in her evidence categorically stated that on the fateful day at about 7 or 7.30 p.m. when she went to fetch water and while returning home, she heard hue and cry of P.Ws.11 and 12 and witnessed the accused holding neck of the deceased and slashing her throat with a knife. P.W.1 also stated in her evidence that immediately, the accused ran away holding the bloodstained knife. On hearing hue and cry, P.Ws.7, 13 and 14 came to the scene of offence. P.Ws.11 and 12, who are crucial eyewitnesses, in their evidence categorically stated that on the fateful day at about 7 or 7.30 p.m., the accused trespassed into the house, caught hold of tuft of the deceased, dragged her out of the house onto road and slashed her throat with a knife and ran away from the scene of offence. P.Ws.11 and 12 are none other than daughters of the deceased. Their presence at the time of offence cannot be doubted as the incident took place at about 7 or 7.30 p.m. Though these two witnesses were cross-examined by the defence, nothing adverse has been elicited from their evidence. P.Ws.11 and 12 are none other than daughters of the deceased. Their presence at the time of offence cannot be doubted as the incident took place at about 7 or 7.30 p.m. Though these two witnesses were cross-examined by the defence, nothing adverse has been elicited from their evidence. Merely because P.Ws.11 and 12 are child witnesses, their evidence cannot be disbelieved. The evidence of P.Ws.11 and 12 is consistent and inspires confidence of this Court. Apart from the evidence of P.Ws.11 and 12, the evidence of P.W.1 lends support to the case of prosecution. Further, P.W.2-husband of the deceased categorically stated about the harassment of the accused towards the deceased and he admonishing the accused for misbehaving with the deceased. P.Ws.3 and 4 are none other than parents of the deceased. Their evidence is only to the extent of going to hospital and coming to know about the incident through P.Ws.1, 11 and 12. Similarly, the evidence of P.Ws.5 to 7, 10, 13 and 14 is also only to the extent of they came to know about the incident through P.Ws.1, 11 and 12. Of course, all of them in their evidence stated that the dead body of the deceased was found on road and thereafter, they shifted the deceased to the clinic of P.W.8 who declared the deceased brought dead. P.Ws.20 to 24 are none other than mediators for observation report, inquest, arrest and recovery. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused contends that though the deceased was dragged from her house onto road, P.W.25-Civil Assistant Surgeon, who conducted post mortem examination, did not find any scratch injuries on the body of the deceased and that P.Ws.11 and 12 are child witnesses and therefore no reliance can be placed on their evidence. Learned counsel also contends that though the incident took place on 06-06-2013, it is highly improbable to accept that the accused wore bloodstained clothes- M.Os.5 and 6 at the time of his arrest on 12-06-2013. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence available on record. Merely because the deceased did not receive scratch injuries, the evidence of eyewitnesses cannot be disbelieved. It is not the case of the prosecution that the deceased fell down in the house and the accused dragged her from the house onto road. We have carefully analyzed the entire evidence available on record. Merely because the deceased did not receive scratch injuries, the evidence of eyewitnesses cannot be disbelieved. It is not the case of the prosecution that the deceased fell down in the house and the accused dragged her from the house onto road. Case of the prosecution from the beginning is that the accused trespassed into the house, caught hold of tuft of the deceased and dragged her out of the house onto road. As such, there is no possibility of receiving scratch injuries by the deceased. So far as the evidence of eyewitnesses P.Ws.11 and 12 is concerned, they were aged about 11 and 12 years respectively at the time of giving evidence. Both these witnesses categorically narrated the events that took place on the fateful day at about 7 or 7.30 p.m. Though these two witnesses were cross-examined by the defence, nothing adverse could be elicited from their evidence so as to make the prosecution case doubtful. The evidence of P.Ws.11 and 12 is crystal clear that it is the accused who trespassed into the house of the deceased, caught hold of tuft of the deceased, dragged her onto road and slashed her throat with a knife and ran away from the scene of offence. The motive for the accused to kill the deceased has also been elicited from the evidence of P.W.2. Merely because P.Ws.11 and 12 are child witnesses, their evidence cannot be disbelieved. The evidence of P.Ws.11 and 12 is consistent and inspires confidence of this Court. Apart from the evidence of P.Ws.11 and 12, the evidence of P.W.1 lends support to the case of prosecution. 13. Having carefully examined the case in its entirety and for the reasons recorded hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the appellant-accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the judgment under appeal needs no interference of this Court. 14. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant-accused by judgment dated 14-12-2016 in S.C.No. 179 of 2014 on the file of the Court of learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Markapur. Therefore, the judgment under appeal needs no interference of this Court. 14. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant-accused by judgment dated 14-12-2016 in S.C.No. 179 of 2014 on the file of the Court of learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Markapur. As the appellant-accused has been released on bail by this Court by order dated 30-12-2021 in I.A.No. 1 of 2021 in terms of the order passed by a Division Bench of the Composite High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Batchu Ranga Rao and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Public Prosecutor (Order dated 02-11-2016 in Crl.A.M.P.No. 1687 of 2016 in Crl.A.No. 607 of 2011) , he is directed to surrender before the Superintendent, Central Prison, Nellore, to serve out the remaining part of sentence, failing which learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Markapur, shall take necessary steps in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence.