JUDGMENT : K.Suresh Reddy, J. Sole accused in Sessions Case No.367 of 2010 on the file of the Court of IX Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Krishna District at Machilipatnam is the appellant herein. He was tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge under two charges :- 1 st charge was under Section 302 IPC and the 2 nd charge was under Section 498-A IPC . 2. Substance of the charge as against the accused is that the accused harassed his wife-P.W.5 both physically and mentally demanding additional dowry and also by suspecting her fidelity and on 15.01.2010 at about 11.00 a.m., he caused the death of his son and daughter by name Keshav aged 7 years and Swathi aged 4 years (herein after referred to as 'D.1 and D.2'), in his house, bearing door No.25-2/450 situated at Daaravari Veedhi, Kojjillipet, Machilipatnam, thereby, committed offences punishable under Sections. 498-A and 302 IPC . 3. After completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge while acquitting the accused under Section 498-A IPC , convicted him under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for 'LIFE' and also to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of five months. 4. Case of prosecution, as emanated from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, is briefly as follows:- (i) The accused is none other than the father of D.1 and D.2. P.W.5 is the wife of the accused and the mother of D.1 and D.2. P.W.6 is the mother of P.W.5. P.W.7 is the relative of the accused and P.W.5. The marriage between the accused and P.W.5 was performed in the year 2001 and they were blessed with son and daughter (D.1 and D.2). After marriage, for about one year, the accused and P.W.5 led happy marital life and after the birth of D.1, the accused started harassing P.W.5 demanding her additional dowry. The couple used to stay at Circlepet, Machilipatnam. Unable to bear the harassment, P.W.5 left to her parents' house situated at Garaladibba village. She also gave a report to the police and a case in Crime No.187 of 2003 of Inaguduru Police Station was registered against the accused under Sections. 498-A and 324 IPC . Subsequently, at the intervention of the elders, P.W.5 compromised the case and the said case ended in acquittal. Thereafter, the accused and P.W.5 started living together. She also gave a report to the police and a case in Crime No.187 of 2003 of Inaguduru Police Station was registered against the accused under Sections. 498-A and 324 IPC . Subsequently, at the intervention of the elders, P.W.5 compromised the case and the said case ended in acquittal. Thereafter, the accused and P.W.5 started living together. Even thereafter, there was no change in the attitude of the accused and he continued his harassment towards P.W.5 suspecting that the children were not born to him. About one month prior to the incident, the accused beat his wife-P.W.5 indiscriminately and necked out her. Then, P.W.5 went to her parents' house and started living there along with D.1 and D.2. About three weeks prior to the date of incident, the accused took a house for rent from P.W.1. Thereafter, the accused approached P.W.5 and requested her to join him as he has taken a house for rent. Inspite of persuasion made by the accused, P.W.5 refused to join him. It is alleged that the accused decided to do away the lives of D.1 and D.2 suspecting that they were not born to him. On 13.1.2010, the accused went to Garaladibba village and met his wife (P.W.5), made her belief that he will take his daughter and return back in the evening. Accordingly, on 14.01.2010 the accused took her daughter along with him and went to his house and returned in the evening. Again on 15.01.2010 morning, he requested P.W.5 to send D.1 and D2 on the pretext of taking them to a temple. Believing the words of accused, P.W.5 sent both D.1 and D.2 along with the accused. The accused came back along with D.1 and D.2 to Machilipatnam, purchased Endosulfan pesticide tin and went to the room along with D.1 and D.2. The accused poured Endosulfan pesticide in two disposal tumblers by mixing in water and induced D.1 and D.2 to consume the same. After consuming some portion of it, both D.1 and D.2 refused to consume as it was emanating strong smell. Then, the accused took up a long knife and cut the neck of D.1. When D.2 raised hue and cries, the accused ganged her mouth and cut her neck with the same knife. On hearing cries, P.Ws.1 to 4 came out and found the accused with blood stains. Then, the accused took up a long knife and cut the neck of D.1. When D.2 raised hue and cries, the accused ganged her mouth and cut her neck with the same knife. On hearing cries, P.Ws.1 to 4 came out and found the accused with blood stains. After seeing P.Ws.1 to 4, the accused threw the knife in the house and went away from the scene. P.Ws.1 to 4 went inside the house and found both D.1 and D.2 in a pool of blood. Immediately, P.W.1 went to the police station and gave a report. (ii) On 15.01.2010 at about 11.30 a.m., P.W.11-Sub Inspector of police, Inaguduru Police Station received Ex.P1-report from P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.11 of 2010 under Section 302 IPC and issued copies of FIR to all the concerned. Ex.P7 is the FIR. Having received information from P.W.1, the Circle Inspector-P.W.12 visited the scene of offence situated at Daaravari Veedhi, Kojjillipet, Machilipatnam. He also made a request to the clues team to visit the scene of offence and collect the evidence from the scene. He secured the presence of P.W.10 and another and prepared an observation report-Ex.P4. He seized M.Os.1 and 7 to 11 at the scene of offence. He also photographed the scene by clues team and the photographs were marked as Ex.P11. He also held inquest over the dead bodies of D.1 and D.2 in the presence of P.W.19 and another. The inquest reports are marked as Exs.P3 and P5. During the course of inquest, P.W.12 examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and P.W.10 and recorded their statements. He also prepared rough sketch of scene of offence- Ex.P10. On the same day when P.W.12 was in police station, P.W.10 produced the accused who said to have confessed before him. P.W.10 handed over the accused along with his report to P.W.12. P.W.12 seized the blood stained clothes of the accused which were marked as M.Os.2 and 3. He arrested the accused, who was remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently, he sent the dead bodies for post-mortem examination. (iii) P.W.8-Civil Assistant Surgeon, District Hospital, Machilipatnam conducted autopsy over the dead body of D.1. He opined the cause of death of D.1 was due to “hemorrhage injury to the major vessels of front of the neck”. He issued post-mortem certificate- Ex.P2 pertaining to D.1. Subsequently, he sent the dead bodies for post-mortem examination. (iii) P.W.8-Civil Assistant Surgeon, District Hospital, Machilipatnam conducted autopsy over the dead body of D.1. He opined the cause of death of D.1 was due to “hemorrhage injury to the major vessels of front of the neck”. He issued post-mortem certificate- Ex.P2 pertaining to D.1. Another Civil Assistant Surgeon, District Hospital, Machilipatnam conducted autopsy over the dead body of D.2 and issued Ex.P11-post-mortem certificate. He also opined that the cause of death of D.2 was “due to injury to major vessels of front of the neck”. As the doctor who issued Ex.P11 was no more, the said post- mortem report was marked through the Investigating Officer-P.W.12. P.W.12 sent the material objects to RFSL for examination. RFSL reports are marked as Exs.P12 and P13. After collecting all the reports and after completion of investigation, P.W.12 filed the charge sheet. 5. In support of its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12, exhibited Exs.P1 to P13 besides marking M.Os.1 to 11. 6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. On behalf of defence, no oral evidence was adduced and no documents were marked. 7. The learned Sessions Judge, after appreciating the entire evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the accused as stated supra. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal is preferred. 8. Heard Sri Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Accused and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that P.Ws.1 to 4 were planted by the prosecution and they did not witness the accused running away from the scene of offence with blood stained clothes. He also contends that there are number of contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6, who are wife and mother-in-law of the accused. He further went to the extent of denying that he was not staying in the house of P.W.1 as a tenant. He further contends that there are no direct witnesses to the incident and sought for allowing the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. 10. He further went to the extent of denying that he was not staying in the house of P.W.1 as a tenant. He further contends that there are no direct witnesses to the incident and sought for allowing the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. 10. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed by contending that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 clichingly established the presence of the accused along with blood stained knife and blood stained clothes at the relevant point of time. The evidence of P.Ws.5 to 7 also clearly established the motive for the accused to kill both D.1 and D.2. He further contends that the ocular version spoken by the prosecution witnesses has been corroborated by the medical evidence adduced by P.W.8 coupled with Exs.P2 and P11. As such, he requests this Court to dismiss the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. 11. We have carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record. 12. P.W.1 is landlord in whose house the accused is staying as a tenant. P.W.2 is none other than the daughter of P.W.1. Both of them in their evidence categorically stated that the accused took the house on rent about 20 days prior to the date of incident. Both of them in their evidence have stated that on 14.01.2010 the accused came along with his daughter (D.2) and stayed there till the evening and took away the girl. On the next day i.e., on 15.01.2010, the accused came to the house along with D.1 and D.2 between 9.00 and 10.00 a.m. It is the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that at about 11.00 a.m., they heard the cries of D.2 and by hearing the cries, they came out and witnessed the accused with blood stained clothes having blood stained long knife in his hand. Immediately, P.Ws.3 and 4 who are neighbours also came there and found the accused with blood stained clothes and blood stained knife in his hand. They have also stated that after seeing them, the accused ran away by throwing the knife into house. As such, the prosecution is able to prove the presence of accused at the relevant point of time in his house. They have also stated that after seeing them, the accused ran away by throwing the knife into house. As such, the prosecution is able to prove the presence of accused at the relevant point of time in his house. It is also evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 that both the deceased met with homicidal death in the house of accused. As seen from the evidence of P:W.1, the incident took place at about 11.00 a.m., and immediately she went to the police station and gave a report-Ex.P1 at about 11.30 a.m., i.e., within half-an-hour from the time of incident. As such, P.W.1 has promptly lodged report within half-an-hour without any delay. The evidence of P.Ws.5 to 7 disclosed the motive for the accused to kill both D.1 and D.2. According to P.W.5, the accused used to harass her initially demanding an additional dowry. Basing on the report given by P.W.5, a case in Crime No.187 of 2003 of Inaguduru Police Station was registered against the accused. After compromise, the accused and P.W.5 were residing together and after some time, again the accused started harassing the deceased both physically and mentally by suspecting her fidelity and by proclaiming that both D.1 and D.2 were not born to him. As such, the evidence of P.Ws.5 to 7 clinchingly establish the motive of accused to kill both D.1 and D2. 13. As seen from the material available on record, both D.1 and D.2 met with homicidal death in the house of accused. As per the Provisions of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, it is for the accused to explain as to how both D.1 and D.2 met with homicidal death in his house. But the accused simply denied that it is not his house. But, no suggestion was given either to P.W.1 or to P.W.2 to the effect that he is not the tenant of P.W.1. As such, the accused failed to explain as to how the deceased met with homicidal death in his house. 14. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt with the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 coupled with medical evidence of P.W8 and Exs.P2 and P11. 15. As such, the accused failed to explain as to how the deceased met with homicidal death in his house. 14. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt with the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 coupled with medical evidence of P.W8 and Exs.P2 and P11. 15. In that view of the matter and on the above analyses, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment, dated 14.07.2017 passed by the learned IX Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna, (FTC), Machilipatnam in S.C.No.367 of 2010 is a well reasoned one and calls for no interference by this Court. 16. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence, dated 14.07.2017 in Sessions Case No.367 of 2010 passed by the learned IX Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna, (FTC), Machilipatnam. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.