JUDGMENT : K. Lakshman, J. Heard Mrs. G. Jaya Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant - accused No.1 and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent. 2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 29.11.2019 in S.C. No.56 of 2019 passed by learned Principal & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda (hereinafter referred to ‘trial Court’). 3. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court convicted the appellant - accused No.1 for the charges under Sections - 302 and 506 of IPC and accordingly sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) months for the charge under Section - 302 of IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two (02) years for the charge under Section - 506 of IPC. However, learned trial Court acquitted him and accused No.2 for charges Section - 302 read with 34 of IPC and Section - 506 read with 34 of IPC. 4. The case of the prosecution is as follows: i) Mekala Ramaswamy - deceased belongs to Mala by caste and resident of Thungathurthy Village of Kethepally Mandal. He is eking out his livelihood by doing agriculture. He is also caste elder in the village. He has two (02) wives, namely Prameela and Rakela, respectively. LW.1 - complainant is the son of first wife. ii) Accused No.1 was addicted to bad habits and used to quarrel with his wife - Kalamma, as such, his wife was living separately with her parents since last six (06) years. The deceased being caste elder conducted mediation between them. Pursuant to the mediation, accused No.1 and his wife started living together. iii) Even then, accused No.1 did not change his attitude and, therefore, his wife started living separately, whereas accused No.1 was residing at Hyderabad by doing mechanic work. iv) While so, accused No.1 approached the deceased and requested to mediate between him and his wife, for which the deceased refused by saying that he would not change his attitude. Due to such refusal, accused No.1 developed enmity towards the deceased. iv) While so, accused No.1 approached the deceased and requested to mediate between him and his wife, for which the deceased refused by saying that he would not change his attitude. Due to such refusal, accused No.1 developed enmity towards the deceased. v) In pursuance of such enmity, on 10.10.2017 at about 10.30 hours, while the deceased was at the house of Merugu Narsamma (PW.4), accused No.1 and his Aunt’s son - Mr.Nama Kotaiah (accused No.2) came on a motorcycle and called the deceased on the road. Then, accused No.1 attacked with a big knife, while accused No.2 attacked with a small knife on the deceased and inflicted injuries inhumanly on the hands, face, ribs, due to which, the deceased died on the spot. 5. On receipt of report (Ex.P15) from LW.1, son of the deceased, PW.15 - Sub-Inspector of Police, Kethepally Police Station registered a case in Crime No.144 of 2017 on 10.10.2017 for the offences under Sections - 302 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and issued Ex.P14 - FIR. i) LW.18 - the doctor conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW.12 and LW.15. On completion of investigation, PW.16 - Inspector of Police filed a charge sheet against the appellant herein and accused No.2. Since the offences are triable by Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate committed the same to the Sessions Court which was taken on file as S.C. No.56 of 2019 and proceeded with trial. 6. The trial Court framed charges for the offences under Sections - 302, 302 read with 34, 506 and 506 read with 34 of IPC against both the accused. 7. During trial, PWs.1 to 18 were examined, Exs.P1 to P17 were marked and MOs.1 to 14 were also exhibited. The accused neither let in oral evidence nor exhibited any documents on his behalf. 8. After completion of evidence on behalf of the prosecution, the accused were examined under Section - 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, upon hearing both sides, the trial Court recorded conviction against the appellant herein for the charges under Sections - 302 and 506 of IPC and accordingly imposed sentence of imprisonment upon him in the manner stated above. However, the appellant was acquitted of the charges under Section - 302 read with 34 of IPC and Section - 506 read with 34 of IPC. 9. However, the appellant was acquitted of the charges under Section - 302 read with 34 of IPC and Section - 506 read with 34 of IPC. 9. Challenging the said conviction and sentence of imprisonment, the appellant herein preferred the present appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant - accused No.1 contended as follows: i. PW.1, who gave the report to the Police, is not an eye-witness to the incident. ii. PW.2 said to be an eye witness and said to have informed with regard to the incident to PW.1, did not depose the date of incident and specific overt acts of the appellant. iii. Identification of MOs.1 and 2 - knifes by PW.2 is also doubtful for the reasons that he deposed that the same were covered with cloth. iv. PW.3 and PW.4 said to be an eye-witness and PW.7, wife of accused No.1 did not support the prosecution case, while PW.5 is not trustworthy witness. v. PW.8 is not an eye-witness and motive part is not proved through her. Thus, motive was not proved by the prosecution. vi. No weight can be given to the evidence of PW.9 and 10 and so also PW.11. vii. Evidence of PW.12 - panch witness for seizure of MOs.3 to 9 does not carry much weight. viii. Without considering all the aforesaid aspects, the trial Court convicted the accused. With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel sought to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant. 11. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit as under: i. There is clear evidence from the prosecution witnesses to connect the guilt of the accused in commission of offence. ii. There is direct evidence through PWs.1, 2 and 5 to prove the guilt of the accused. iii. There was motive on the part of the appellant and the same was proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. iv. Having considered all the aforesaid aspects, the trial Court convicted the appellant and, therefore, there is no error in it. With the aforesaid submissions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor sought to dismiss the appeal. 12. iii. There was motive on the part of the appellant and the same was proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. iv. Having considered all the aforesaid aspects, the trial Court convicted the appellant and, therefore, there is no error in it. With the aforesaid submissions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor sought to dismiss the appeal. 12. In the view of above rival submissions, the point that falls for consideration by this Court is: Whether the conviction and sentence of imprisonment recorded by the trial Court for the charges under Sections - 302 and 506 of IPC against the appellant herein - accused No.1 are sustainable, both on facts and in law? 13. In this case, PW.1 is the second wife of the deceased. Though PW.2 to PW.6 and PW.18 are eye-witnesses to the incident, PWs.3 and 4 turned hostile. PW.7 - wife of accused No.1 is a circumstantial witness and she did not support the prosecution case. PW.8 - first wife of the deceased is also circumstantial witness. PW.9 and PW.10 are also circumstantial witnesses. PW.11 - younger brother of the deceased is also circumstantial witness. PW.12 is a panch for scene of offence-cum-seizure and inquest panchanama. PW.13 is also panch witness for confession-cum-seizure panchanama of accused Nos.1 and 2. PW.14 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. PW.15 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who received Ex.P15 - report from LW.1 and issued Ex.P14 - FIR. PW.16 is the Investigating Officer, who examined and recorded the statements of witnesses. PW.17 is the Investigating Officer who laid charge after receipt of Ex.P17 - Forensic Science Laboratory Report. 14. In the light of the afore-stated rival contentions, it is apt to discuss the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. 15. PW.1 - second wife of the deceased, deposed that at the time of incident she was in the agricultural fields. PW.2 informed her over telephone that her husband was murdered and asked her to come quickly. By the time she reached the spot, her husband died. The deceased had hacking injuries on the side head, face, hands and waist. Upon seeing blood, she fell unconscious. Her son (LW.1) gave Ex.P15 - report with PW.15. She also deposed with regard to the matrimonial disputes between accused No.1 and his wife and the deceased acted as mediator. By the time she reached the spot, her husband died. The deceased had hacking injuries on the side head, face, hands and waist. Upon seeing blood, she fell unconscious. Her son (LW.1) gave Ex.P15 - report with PW.15. She also deposed with regard to the matrimonial disputes between accused No.1 and his wife and the deceased acted as mediator. i) She specifically deposed that accused No.1 killed her husband for refusing to accompany him to bring his wife back home. Accused No.1 is responsible for the death of her husband. ii) During cross-examination, she admitted that being community elder, her husband participated in several panchayats. In the course of the panchayat, one party will gain and the other party will lose. The persons who lose in the panchayat may feel aggrieved at her husband. She volunteered that the grievance will not be such as to kill him. 16. PW.2 - eye-witness deposed that on the date of incident he started from his village on his motorcycle to go to Nakrekal for having his motor pump repaired. While proceeding, he saw the deceased and accused No.1 fighting. He stopped his motorcycle and shouted at accused No.1 to stop. By the time he put the stand of the motorcycle; accused No.1 had taken a knife from his motorcycle, hacked three times at the deceased, got on his motorcycle and went away towards Uppalapadu. The deceased suffered injuries on the head, neck and hands. At that time, PW.3, PW.4 and PW.6 were present, who had also witnessed the incident apart from him. i) He further deposed with regard to cause of murder, accused No.1’s wife was niece of the deceased. She left accused No.1, who asked the deceased to bring her back. Earlier the deceased had brought her back, she had left accused No.1. The deceased told accused No.1 that she was not listening to him and that deceased brought her to accused No.1 twice. In this regard, accused No.1 attacked the deceased while he was alone. Accused No.1 dragged the deceased out of his house and used two knives, which were identified by PW. 2 as MOs.1 and 2. He also identified the accused in the Court Hall. He was also examined by the police, who conducted inquiry in the village. ii) During cross-examination, he admitted that MOs.1 and 2 were covered in cloth. Accused No.1 dragged the deceased out of his house and used two knives, which were identified by PW. 2 as MOs.1 and 2. He also identified the accused in the Court Hall. He was also examined by the police, who conducted inquiry in the village. ii) During cross-examination, he admitted that MOs.1 and 2 were covered in cloth. And was questioned regarding how could he identify MOs.1 and 2 when they are covered with cloth, he answered that he identified them from their handles. Except that, nothing useful was elicited from this witness. 17. PW.3 and PW.4 are also eye-witness to the incident, and deposed that the deceased had died on the road near the house of PW.4. But, they did not support the case of prosecution and, therefore, they were declared hostile and learned Additional Public Prosecutor cross-examined them. In their cross-examination also, nothing useful was elicited from them. Therefore, their evidence is not helpful to the prosecution. 18. PW.5, one of the eye-witnesses deposed that her house is abutting the road near the house of PW.10 and four houses away from the house of PW.4. On the date of incident i.e., 10.10.2017 at about 9.30 A.M., she had gone to collect ration rice and returned home. The deceased came to her house and asked him to lend Rs.1,000/- and she told him that she did not have money. Then he went to the house of PW.10. She heard a quarrel. She went outside the house and saw that the deceased died. Quarrel was over by the time she reached the place. She saw accused No.1 giving the last blow with a knife. Upon seeing that, she went back to her house. i) During cross-examination, PW.5 specifically admitted that she saw the last blow. Nothing useful was elicited from her. 19. PW.6, one of the eye-witnesses, also deposed that her house is in New Colony. PW.3’s house is abutting the road, beside the house of PW.4. The house of PW.5 is about 50 feet away from her house. The distance between her house and house of PW.4 is about 10 or 20 feet. She identified the accused in the Court Hall. 20. PW.6 further deposed that the deceased died on the road in front of the house of PW.4 at about 10.00 A.M. At that time, she was standing near the house of PW.4. The distance between her house and house of PW.4 is about 10 or 20 feet. She identified the accused in the Court Hall. 20. PW.6 further deposed that the deceased died on the road in front of the house of PW.4 at about 10.00 A.M. At that time, she was standing near the house of PW.4. She and PW.4 alone were present there talking. The deceased came out of the house of PW.4. Accused Nos.1 and 2 came there. The deceased and accused No.1 greeted each other and were talking. Then, accused No.1 started quarreling with deceased. On seeing that, she became afraid and ran away from that place. While running away, she fell down and caused injury to her knees. She returned to that place after the deceased died. The deceased had injuries on his neck. i) During cross-examination, she admitted that the police told her to depose as above. She did not know anything about this case. She has not seen anything on that day. 21. PW.7, wife of accused No.1, deposed that there were no marital disputes between her and accused No.1 and on the date of incident, accused No.1 was in Hyderabad. i) Since this witness did not support the case of prosecution, learned Additional Public Prosecutor declared her hostile and cross-examined her. 22. PW.8, wife of the deceased, deposed that her house is at a distance of 2 or 3 furlongs from the house of PW.4. The house of PW.5 is separated from the house of PW.3 by one house. The house of PW.6 is beside the house of PW.5. She also identified the accused in the Court Hall. Accused No.1 is the son of her Father in law’s younger brother. The deceased is the maternal uncle of accused No.1’s wife. The deceased arranged the marriage between her and accused No.1. She also deposed with regard to marital disputes between accused No.1 and his wife on account of accused No.1 developing illicit intimacy with some other woman. 23. PW.8 further deposed that on the date of incident, accused No.1 came to her house and insisted the deceased to help him (accused No.1) to get his wife back, for which the deceased told accused No.1 to bring some caste elders, but accused No.1 did not respond. 23. PW.8 further deposed that on the date of incident, accused No.1 came to her house and insisted the deceased to help him (accused No.1) to get his wife back, for which the deceased told accused No.1 to bring some caste elders, but accused No.1 did not respond. Then, the deceased chastised him saying that he should not remain sitting in the house and he should go and get the elders. Then, accused No.1 left the house by saying that he would see the end of the deceased. Thereafter she became ill and she went to Hyderabad for treatment. Nine (09) days thereafter, she received a phone call from Laxmaiah that her husband died and asked her to come to the village. She reached the village by night and there she was informed that both the accused had hacked down her husband and killed him. Accused No.1 is responsible for the death of her husband as he killed the deceased out of grudge. i) During cross-examination, nothing useful was elicited from PW.8. 24. PW.9 is a circumstantial witness. He deposed that his house is beside the house of deceased. He saw accused No.1 going into the house of deceased some days prior to the death of the deceased. The dead body was lying on the road in front of the house of PW.4. He informed the same to LW.1 over phone. i) During cross-examination nothing useful was elicited from PW.9. 25. PW.10 deposed that the house of deceased is one bazaar away from her house. On 10.10.2017, the deceased came to her house at about 10.00 A.M. and borrowed Rs.1,000/- from her and then he went away. Later, she came to know that the deceased died near the house of PW.4. i) During cross-examination, nothing useful was elicited from PW.10. 26. PW.11, younger brother of the deceased, also deposed with regard to the marital disputes between accused No.1 and his wife on account of accused No.1 developed illicit intimacy with another woman. The deceased died in front of house of PW.4. i) During cross-examination, nothing useful was elicited from PW.11. 27. PW18, villager of Thungathurty village identified accused No.1 in the Court hall. On the date of incident, when he reached near the house of PW.4, he saw many people gathered there. The deceased died in front of house of PW.4. i) During cross-examination, nothing useful was elicited from PW.11. 27. PW18, villager of Thungathurty village identified accused No.1 in the Court hall. On the date of incident, when he reached near the house of PW.4, he saw many people gathered there. On his enquiry, they informed him that accused No.1 and one other person attacked the deceased and went away. 28. PW.12, Village Revenue Officer is the panch witness, deposed with regard to preparing the scene of observation and seizure panchanama as in Ex.P5, drawing of rough sketch as in Ex.P6 and seizure of clothes of the deceased panchanama as in Ex.P7. MO.3 is a white coloured empty plastic tin, MO.4 is the blood stained earth, 1 6 MO.5 is control earth, MO.6 is blood stained towel, MO.7 is a blood stained shirt, MO.8 is Lungi, MO.9 is underwear. i) During cross-examination, nothing useful was elicited from PW.12. 29. PW.13, another Village Revenue Officer, is the panch witness for confession of both the accused with regard to hiding of MOs.1 and 2 - knives in the house of accused No.2 at Gayamvarigudem, recovery thereof and its seizure. MO.10 is the blood stained white and black coloured lining cotton full shirt, MO.11 is the blood stained ash coloured pant, MO.12 is the blood stained blue coloured jeans pant, MO.13 is the blood stained white coloured full cotton shirt. The Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 11Q 2847 was also seized as in MO.14. Exs.P10 and P11 are the seizure panchanamas i) During cross-examination, nothing useful was elicited from PW.13. 30. PW.14 is the Medical Officer working as Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Nakrekal. He conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased on 10.10.2017 and found the following external and internal injuries: (a)3x2x1 cm laceration at fore head; (b)2x2x1 cm laceration at right cheek; (c)Right orbit laceration 3x1x1 cm; (d)Right cheek to let cheek laceration 7x3x1.65 cm; (e)Left ring finger was intact with fracture. It was a defensive wound. (f) Left wrist laceration 2x1x1 cm. i) According to him, the injuries found on the deceased are possible with weapons similar to MOs.1 and 2. He issued Ex.P12 -postmortem examination report. 31. It was a defensive wound. (f) Left wrist laceration 2x1x1 cm. i) According to him, the injuries found on the deceased are possible with weapons similar to MOs.1 and 2. He issued Ex.P12 -postmortem examination report. 31. PW.15, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kethepally Police Station, deposed with regard to receipt of report (Ex.P15) from LW.1 on 10.10.2017, he issued FIR in Crime No.144 of 2017 and sent the same to the Court concerned. Since the offence is grave, he intimated the same to PW.16, who took up investigation. 32. PW.16, the Inspector of Police, deposed with regard to conducting investigation, examining the witnesses (LW.1, PWs.1 to 6), conducting scene of panchanama and taking steps for conducting autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and seizure of material objects etc. 33. PW.17, another Inspector of Police, deposed with regard to filing of charge sheet after receipt of Ex.P17 - Forensic Science Laboratory Report. 34. On an overall re-appreciation of evidence of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses, it is clear that PW.1 is the second wife of the deceased and PW.8 is his first wife. PW.8 has specifically deposed that the deceased is the maternal uncle of Mrs. Kalamma, wife of accused No.1. The deceased arranged the marriage between Kalamma and accused No.1 and they stayed in Thungathurty for one year after the marriage and then went to Hyderabad. They had two children. Accused No.1 and his wife lived together for about three (03) years after their marriage and thereafter disputes arose between them and she left the company of accused No.1. The deceased pacified her and asked her to join the company of accused No.1. Thereafter they lived together for some time after which the accused No.1 developed illicit intimacy with some other woman. Again disputes arose between accused No.1 and his wife and she left his company and started living with her parents. In this regard, accused No.1 requested the deceased to ask his wife joined his (accused No.1) company, for which the deceased asked the appellant herein to bring some caste elders, to go and convince his wife. But the appellant did not bring the caste elders and on the other hand developed grudge over the deceased. PW.11, the younger brother of the deceased, has specifically deposed that accused No.1 informed him twice or thrice that he would kill the deceased. 35. But the appellant did not bring the caste elders and on the other hand developed grudge over the deceased. PW.11, the younger brother of the deceased, has specifically deposed that accused No.1 informed him twice or thrice that he would kill the deceased. 35. Thus, there is specific evidence with regard to motive on the part of the appellant herein to kill the deceased, as deposed by PW.8 and PW.1, first and second wives of the deceased respectively and also PW.2. PW.1 has specifically deposed that the wife of the appellant had left him and the appellant asked the deceased to act as an elder and accompany him to bring her back. The deceased told the appellant to call two or three other elders to accompany them. Developing grudge over the deceased, the appellant killed him for refusing to accompany him. She also specifically deposed that the appellant herein is responsible for the death of her husband PW.2 also specifically deposed with regard to motive on the part of the appellant. He deposed that the appellant asked the deceased to bring his wife back. Earlier also, the deceased brought her back when she left the company of the appellant. The deceased told the appellant that the wife of appellant is not listening to him as he had brought her twice. In this regard , the appellant had attacked the deceased while he was alone by dragging him out his house. 36. In view of the above, the prosecution has proved motive on the part of the appellant herein beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that prosecution failed to prove the motive is unsustainable. 37. Even there is specific evidence with regard to witnessing the incident by PWs.2, 5 and 6. PW.2 has specifically deposed that when the deceased raised his hands to protect himself, the appellant hacked him down. At that time, apart from him, PWs.3, 4 and PW.6 were also present and witnessed the incident. The appellant had dragged the deceased out of his house. He also identified MOs.1 and 2 - knives with which the appellant hacked the deceased. PW.5 has specifically deposed with regard to witnessing the incident. He deposed that on the date of incident, he saw the appellant giving the last blow with a knife. The appellant had dragged the deceased out of his house. He also identified MOs.1 and 2 - knives with which the appellant hacked the deceased. PW.5 has specifically deposed with regard to witnessing the incident. He deposed that on the date of incident, he saw the appellant giving the last blow with a knife. PW.6 also deposed that he saw on the date of incident the appellant started quarrelling with the deceased. Thus, it is clear from the evidence of PWs.2, 5 and 6 that they witnessed the appellant killing the deceased. 38. Though PW.3 turned hostile, his evidence to the extent it is useful can be considered as held by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. PW.3 deposed that when he reached near his house, he saw the appellant herein and the deceased quarreling. The deceased died on the road near the house of PW.4. This extent which is useful to the prosecution can be considered. 39. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that the prosecution also proved the commission of offence by the appellant herein through the evidence of PWs.2, 5 and 6 beyond reasonable doubt. 40. In this case, the prosecution also proved that the dead body of the deceased was lying near the house of PW.4 on the date of incident through the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11 beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of Medical Officer (PW.14) also supports the case of prosecution to the effect that the injuries found on the deceased were possible with weapons similar to that of MOs.1 and 2. Pursuant to the confession made by the appellant herein, recovery of MOs.1 and 2 were also proved through the independent evidence of PW.12 and 13. Thus, the prosecution has adduced reliable and cogent direct evidence proving that the appellant herein caused the death of the deceased. The testimony of eyewitnesses is consistent, trustworthy and inspires confidence. There are no material contradictions affecting the core of the prosecution case. In view of the direct evidence, proved motive and its cause, recovery of material objects, and corroboration by medical and scientific evidence, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant failed to disprove the same. 41. There are no material contradictions affecting the core of the prosecution case. In view of the direct evidence, proved motive and its cause, recovery of material objects, and corroboration by medical and scientific evidence, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant failed to disprove the same. 41. The learned trial Court having considered all the aforesaid aspects only recorded conviction against the appellant herein and imposition of life imprisonment thereof. There is no error in it. 42. The present Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed confirming the conviction recorded against the appellant - accused No.1 and imposition of life sentence thereof by learned Principal & Sessions Judge, Nalgonda vide judgment dated 29.11.2019 in S.C. No.56 of 2019. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.