JUDGMENT : (RAJESH RAI K., J.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 06.12.2022 and order of sentence dated 13.12.2022 passed in Sessions Case No.182/2018 by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge at Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Sessions Judge’), whereby the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC . 2. The abridged facts of the case are as follows: The deceased Dr.Umakant in the instant case is the father of PW.1-Rashmi Vishal Halagatti and accused-Ravi is her younger brother. The deceased-Umakant had transferred 10 guntas of land in Sambra village in the name of accused and desired to construct a commercial complex by raising loan from the Bank for the benefit of accused. However, accused was not ready to sign the loan papers. In this connection, there were frequent tussles between the deceased and the accused. Against this backdrop, on 31.01.2018 accused quarreled with deceased. The said aspect was informed by the deceased to PW.1 on the following day morning i.e., on 01.02.2018 that there is a danger to his life by accused. 3. When things stood thus, on 02.02.2018 at about 00.30 hours, accused came to the house of PW.1 and informed her that there was a theft in his house and the miscreants have done away the life of their father-deceased. When PW.1 rushed to the house, she found her father (deceased) was severely injured and lying in a pool of blood. On enquiry with neighbours, she came to know about the involvement of accused in the crime. Hence, she lodged the complaint against him before the Malmaruti Police Station as per Ex.P1. On the strength of Ex.P1, PW.32-Investigating Officer registered the FIR in Crime No.16/2018 against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC . Subsequently, PW.32 apprehended the accused on the same day and conducted further investigation in the case and recorded the statement of material witnesses and drawn the relevant mahazars. On the strength of Ex.P1, PW.32-Investigating Officer registered the FIR in Crime No.16/2018 against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC . Subsequently, PW.32 apprehended the accused on the same day and conducted further investigation in the case and recorded the statement of material witnesses and drawn the relevant mahazars. On obtaining necessary documents from the concerned authorities, handed over the same to PW.33 for further investigation, PW.33 laid the charge sheet against the accused before the committal Court for the aforementioned offence. 4. Post committal of the case before the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge after securing the presence of the accused, fram2ed the charges against him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and read over the same to him. However, he denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to prove the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 34 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.34, marked 69 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P69 and identified 23 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.23. 6. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the learned Sessions Judge read over the incriminating evidence of material witnesses to the accused as stipulated in Section 313 of Cr.P.C. However, the accused denied the same. The defence of the accused is of absolute denial and that of false implication. 7. Following the assessment of oral and documentary evidence placed before the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant/accused for the charges levelled against him and sentenced him as stated supra. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence is challenged in this appeal. 8. We have heard the learned counsel Sri Santosh Pujar for the appellant and the learned Addl. SPP Sri. M.B.Gundawadi for the respondent-State. We have also perused the records of the trial Court. 9. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused is that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Sessions Court suffers from perversity and illegality. The learned Sessions Judge has grossly erred while convicting the appellant without duly appreciating the evidence and documents placed before him. 9. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused is that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Sessions Court suffers from perversity and illegality. The learned Sessions Judge has grossly erred while convicting the appellant without duly appreciating the evidence and documents placed before him. He contended that, the learned Sessions Judge failed to take judicial note of the fact that the complainant was most interested witness and in order to grab the landed property of her father i.e., deceased, she lodged a false complaint against her brother i.e., accused. He further contended that, there are material contradictions in the evidence of PW.1-the complainant, PWs.6 and 7-the neighbors who have deposed about the presence of accused in the house of deceased at relevant time on the date of incident. According to the learned counsel, the evidence of these witnesses are contradictory to each other. Additionally, the learned counsel contended that the Investigating Officer falsely implicated the accused in the crime at the instance of PW.1. The said aspect prima facie forthcoming in the charge sheet materials. According to the learned counsel, absolutely there is no basis for apprehension of accused except the suspicion expressed by PW.1 against the accused after the incident. On the other hand, the Investigation Officer has failed to investigate in other angles with respect to commission of the murder of deceased by other culprits for gain by committing burglary/house breaking. He also contended that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the motive for the commission of crime and recovery of weapon said to have been used for the commission of crime at the instance of accused. With these submissions, he prays to allow the appeal. 10. Per contra, the learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State contended that, judgment under this appeal neither suffers from perversity nor illegality as the learned Sessions Judge has meticulously examined the evidence on record and passed a well-reasoned judgment which does not call for any interference. According to the learned Addl. SPP, the homicidal death of deceased in his house is not disputed by the accused. It is also undisputed fact that the accused was residing along with deceased at the time of incident and prior to the incident. According to the learned Addl. SPP, the homicidal death of deceased in his house is not disputed by the accused. It is also undisputed fact that the accused was residing along with deceased at the time of incident and prior to the incident. Further, the evidence of PWs.12 and 13-the relatives of the deceased and accused and PW.14 clearly establishes that, prior to the incident, the accused was quarrelling with the deceased regarding raising loan for construction of a commercial complex. Further, the evidence of PWs.6, 7 and 9 also establishes the presence of the accused in the house and accused leaving the house soon thereafter. In such circumstance, the homicidal death of the deceased was well within the special knowledge of accused and he is duty bound to explain that, if he has not committed the murder of his father, who else committed the same as contemplated under the provision of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Addl. SPP also contended that the prosecution has proved the recovery of M.Os.19, 21 and 22 i.e., the weapon used for commission of crime by the accused i.e., M.O.19, shirt and pant of the accused worn at the time of incident as per M.Os.21 and 22 under Ex.P 11. The recovery mahazar witness-PW.3 has supported the case of prosecution. Further, M.Os.21 and 22 were sent for FSL and on chemical examination, the presence of chilli powder on M.Os.21 and 22 was detected. The said aspect was clearly deposed by PW.31- the Scientific Officer along with his report as per Ex.P57. In such circumstance, the oral testimony of the material witnesses corroborated the medical and scientific evidence. Hence, according to the learned Addl. SPP, the prosecution has successfully proved each and every circumstance against the accused by pointing out the guilt of the accused. In that view of the matter, the learned Sessions Judge rightly convicted the accused in a well reasoned judgment which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and after perusing the entire evidence on record, the points that would arise for our consideration are: i. “Whether the judgment under this appeal suffers from any perversity or illegality and interference in the order passed by the Sessions Court is called for by this Court?” ii. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and after perusing the entire evidence on record, the points that would arise for our consideration are: i. “Whether the judgment under this appeal suffers from any perversity or illegality and interference in the order passed by the Sessions Court is called for by this Court?” ii. Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC ?” 12. Before analyzing the evidence on record, this case rests upon circumstantial evidence. As per the settled position of law in the case of Sarbir Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 41 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held in Paragraph No.6 as under: “ 6 . It is said that men lie but circumstances do not. Under the circumstances prevailing in the society today, it is not true in many cases. Sometimes the circumstances which are sought to be proved against the accused for purpose of establishing the charge are planted by the elements hostile to the accused who find out witnesses to fill up the gaps in the chain of circumstances. In countries having sophisticated modes of investigation, every trace left behind by the culprit can be followed and pursued immediately. Unfortunately it is not available in many parts of this country. That is why courts have insisted (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established; (ii) all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilty of the accused and should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one sought to be proved; (iii) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature; and (iv) the chain of evidence should not have any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused”. 13. The principles enunciated in the above case was also reiterated in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 which laid the golden principles to prove the case based on circumstantial evidence. 13. The principles enunciated in the above case was also reiterated in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 which laid the golden principles to prove the case based on circumstantial evidence. The said principles also reiterated in the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shankar v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 268 , wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has summarized the guidelines to convict the accused in cases which are based on circumstantial evidences. 14. Keeping in mind the above enunciated principles, when we analyze the evidence on record, so also the congregate of circumstances, the following aspects stand out for our consideration:- Homicidal death of deceased Dr. Umakant. 15. To prove the homicidal death of deceased in the instant case, the prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW.16-the Medical Officer who conducted the autopsy on the body of the deceased and issued postmortem report as per Ex.P26. On careful examination of Ex.P26, PW.16 has opined that the cause of death is due to “Brain injury sustained by blunt force impact”. He further stated that all the injuries are ante-mortem in nature. Nevertheless, the weapon seized at the instance of accused, which was used for the commission of offence as per MO.19 was examined by the Doctor who opined that the injuries found on the body could be caused if assaulted with MO.19. Additionally, the prosecution also relied on inquest panchanama conducted on the body of deceased by PW.32. PW.2 is the Panch witness for the same. Both these witnesses have identified the injuries on the body of deceased and deposed that those injuries are ante-mortem in nature. On a collective reading of the above evidence, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has proved the homicidal death of deceased beyond reasonable doubt. The accused was residing along with the deceased at the time of incident. 16. The accused is the son of deceased and brother of PW.1. This relationship is not disputed by the accused. The accused also not disputed that he was residing along with the deceased. The wife of deceased had expired much prior to the incident. The accused was residing along with the deceased at the time of incident. 16. The accused is the son of deceased and brother of PW.1. This relationship is not disputed by the accused. The accused also not disputed that he was residing along with the deceased. The wife of deceased had expired much prior to the incident. The accused after discontinuing his MBBS Course, had become an Archaka/priest in a Durga Temple situated in the ground floor of the house where he and the deceased were residing. Hence, it is proved that, prior to the incident and at the time of incident only the accused and deceased were residing together. (Motive for the incident) Prior to the incident, the relationship between the accused and deceased was strained, as the deceased was forcing accused to sign papers to raise a loan to construct a commercial complex on a plot that stood in the name of accused. 17. PW.1 being the sister of accused and daughter of deceased has categorically stated in her evidence that the deceased and accused were not on good terms due to disputes in connection with obtaining a loan for construction of a commercial complex on the landed property that stood in the name of accused. She further deposed that, on 01.02.2018 i.e., the date of incident in the morning hours at about 9:00 a.m., the deceased met her on the way to his clinic. At that time, he informed her that the accused was threatening him in the house and there is a serious threat to him by the accused. This version of PW.1 corroborated the evidence of PWs.12, 13 and 14. All these witnesses have categorically stated that the accused was not in good terms with deceased and was quarrelling with regard to obtaining loan for construction of complex. Admittedly, there is no ill-will between the accused, PWs.1, 12 to 14 to depose falsely against him. In such circumstance, the prosecution has proved this circumstance beyond reasonable doubt. Soon before the incident, the accused was present in the house and nobody else visited/entered the house of deceased at the relevant date and time and there was no sign of burglary/house breaking witnessed by the Police. 18. As discussed supra, the prosecution has proved that the accused and deceased were residing together. Soon before the incident, the accused was present in the house and nobody else visited/entered the house of deceased at the relevant date and time and there was no sign of burglary/house breaking witnessed by the Police. 18. As discussed supra, the prosecution has proved that the accused and deceased were residing together. Additionally, the prosecution also proved that, soon before the incident i.e., at about 7:45 p.m. on 01.02.2018 the accused was seen at his house by PWs.6 and 7. Both these witnesses are the immediate neighbors of the deceased and accused. According to them, on 01.02.2018 at about 7:45 p.m. they both saw the accused standing on the terrace of his house, while they were coming out from their respective houses for a evening walk. Thereafter, while they were returning, they saw the accused leaving the house in his car at high speed and the scooter of the deceased was parked in front of his house. Though the defence counsel cross-examined these witnesses at length, nothing worthwhile was elicited from them to discard their testimony. It is pertinent to mention at this juncture, PW.6 the immediate neighbour of the deceased has stated in his evidence, on the day of the incident at about 12:00 midnight, the accused visited his house and informed him that somebody has committed the murder of his father and robbed valuables from his house. The Investigation Officer recovered the footage of CCTV recording in the house of PW.11 and the same was marked at Ex.P49. This footage revealed that the deceased entered the house at 08:22 p.m. and thereafter the accused left at 08:57 p.m. and returned back to house at 11:29 p.m. He again left the house at 11:44 p.m. to inform PW.1 about the incident. Except the movement of the accused, no one else entered the house of deceased from 8:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight. Further, during the course of investigation, the Police did not see any sign of theft or burglary in the house of deceased. In such circumstance, the evidence of PWs.6 and 7 clearly establishes that the accused was alone in the house at the time of incident and none else had entered the house. Further, during the course of investigation, the Police did not see any sign of theft or burglary in the house of deceased. In such circumstance, the evidence of PWs.6 and 7 clearly establishes that the accused was alone in the house at the time of incident and none else had entered the house. Recovery of weapon used for commission of crime and cloths of accused worn at the time of commission of crime based on his voluntary statement and matching of origin of blood stains and chilli powder found on weapon and cloths of the accused by scientific examination. 19. After apprehending the accused, the Investigation Officer recorded the voluntary statement of the accused as per Ex.P61. Based on the same, the weapon used for the commission of the crime i.e., MO. 19 and the blood stained cloths of the accused worn at the time of incident i.e., MOs.21 and 22 have been seized under Ex.P11. PW.3 is the witness for the same and he supported the case of prosecution and deposed that the accused took the Police and him to a place near Dhanaamma Devi Gudi, Mahatma Phule Road and shown the shirt, pant and the crowbar in a bush and the same were seized under mahazar Ex.P11. The learned counsel for the accused vehemently contended that the recovery of material objects have not been proved as per law. Be that as it may, the Investigation Officer sent these material objects for chemical examination along with the blood drawn from the body of the deceased. On examination, the Scientific Officer opined that the blood stains found on these articles matches with the blood of deceased. It is equally important to note that the Doctor who conducted the autopsy has opined that the injuries found on the body of deceased could be possible if the assault is made by MO.19–crowbar. In such circumstance, the recovery of these articles at the instance of the accused clearly connects the accused in the crime. The contention urged by the accused to discredit the recovery are all believed by the evidence of PW.2 who deposed that it was the accused who led the investigation team to the place where M.Os.19, 21 and 22 were discarded and from where they were recovered. The contention urged by the accused to discredit the recovery are all believed by the evidence of PW.2 who deposed that it was the accused who led the investigation team to the place where M.Os.19, 21 and 22 were discarded and from where they were recovered. It is important to note that, it is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused before assaulting the deceased, threw chilli powder on his face. On chemical examination of M.Os.21 and 22 i.e., the shirt and pant, the presence of chilli powder was detected by FSL Officer- PW.31. Hence, in our considered opinion the prosecution also proved this circumstance. 20. On careful analysis of the above circumstance, the accused failed to explain the homicidal death of the deceased in the house where he and the deceased were residing. In our view, these circumstances establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the instant case, the evidence placed by the prosecution completes the chain of circumstance without leaving any suspicion by proving beyond reasonable doubt that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 21. Learned counsel for the accused vehemently contended that the evidence of PW.1 cannot be relied since she is the daughter of deceased and in order to inherit all the properties of the deceased, she foisted a false case against the accused. We are afraid and unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the simple reason that PW.1 had given her no objection to transfer 10 guntas of land to the accused. Nevertheless, the evidence of PW.1 cannot be discarded solely on the ground that she is the daughter of deceased. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravasahebgouda Alias Ravasahebgouda v. State of Karnataka reported in (2023) 5 SCC 391 , held that the evidence of sole related eyewitness can be the basis for conviction, particularly when there is no vagueness in his/her testimony with respect to the act committed by the accused. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Paragraph No.17 of the said judgment held that: “ 17 . It is clear that it is the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses that matters. Further in Paragraph No.25 of the said judgment, it is stated that “a witness being a close relative is not a ground enough to reject his/her testimony. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Paragraph No.17 of the said judgment held that: “ 17 . It is clear that it is the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses that matters. Further in Paragraph No.25 of the said judgment, it is stated that “a witness being a close relative is not a ground enough to reject his/her testimony. Mechanical rejection of an even “partisan” or “interested” witness may lead to failure of justice. The principle of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” is not one of the general applications”. 22. The learned counsel for the accused also raised a contention that there are discrepancies in the evidence of the material witnesses i.e., PWs.1, 6, 7, 9 and 12 to 14 which goes to the root of the prosecution case. However, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mallikarjun and Ors. v. State of Karnataka reported in (2019) 8 SCC 359 has held that the minor contradictions in the evidence of material witnesses itself is not a ground to discard their testimony. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be to assess whether the evidence of a witness read as a whole appears to be truthful. Once the impression is formed, it is necessary for the Court to evaluate the evidence and the alleged discrepancies and then, to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the prosecution case. If the evidence of witness is found to be credible and trustworthy, minor discrepancies which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, cannot be made a ground to doubt the trustworthiness of the witness. 23. On overall appreciation of the evidence on record, in our considered view, the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In that view of the matter, interference in the impugned judgment is not called for. Accordingly, we answer point No.1 in the negative and point No.2 in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER Criminal Appeal No.100131/2023 is hereby dismissed.