K. Lakshman, J.

1. Heard Mrs. G. Jaya Reddy, learned counsel for appellant - accused and Mr. M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 18.11.2019 in S.C. No.216 of 2015 passed by learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge at Nizamabad.

3. Vide the aforesaid judgment, the trial Court convicted the appellant - accused for the offence under Section - 302 of IPC and accordingly sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2,000 (Rupees Two Thousand Only) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (06) months.

4. The case of the prosecution is that PW.1, native of Jankampet Village of Nizamabad District, has a son and daughter - Saritha, who is aged about 18 years. In the year 2012, she performed the marriage of her daughter with accused, native of Neela Village. Out of their wedlock, they did not have children. Previously the accused used to work in Cell Phone repairing shop, but for the last six months, he is not working. His wife was studying Intermediate Second Year at Women’s College, Nizamabad. The accused suspecting her fidelity used to quarrel with her frequently. Since they do not have issues, the accused went to Azmeera Darga and prayed for having children and returned to Nizamabad on 18.12.2014. Then, the accused increased his suspicious over the deceased and started quarrelling with her.

5. It is the further case of the prosecution that the deceased called her mother (PW.1) to their house, but the accused decided to do away the life of the deceased. In pursuance of his plan, on 19.12.2014 at 7.30 A.M., the accused necked out PW.1 from the house and started quarrelling with the deceased by increasing volume of computer system. During mid-night, the accused tied her hands and legs and laid her at Kitchen room. Then, the accused picked up a knife and incised her throat and cut the under lip. Then, he slapped on her fore hand and cheek and after confirming her death, he started shouting as a mad person to dilute his guilt of offence. On hearing loud voices, the neighbours and police entered into the house by break opening the doors and caught hold the accused.

6. Then, PW.14 - Sub-Inspector of Police, IV Town Police Station, Nizamabad, registered a case in Crime No.373 of 2014 under Section - 302of IPC and thereafter PW.15 - Inspector of Police took up the investigation.

7. During the course of investigation, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He also secured presence of panchas, drew the scene of offence and thereafter he also took steps for recording confessional statement of accused. On completion of investigation, he laid a charge sheet against the appellant herein. The same was committed to the Sessions Court which has taken on file as S.C. No.216 of 2015 and thereafter made over to the trial Court.

8. The trial Court framed charge for the offence under Section - 302 of IPC against the accused and then proceeded with trial.

9. During trial, PWs.1 to 16 were examined, Exs.P1 to P11 were marked and MOs.1 to 14 were exhibited. On behalf of the accused, he examined DW.1 and got marked Ex.D1.

10. After completion of evidence on behalf of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section - 313 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, upon hearing both sides, the trial Court recorded conviction against the appellant herein for the aforesaid offence and accordingly imposed sentences of imprisonment in the manner stated above. Challenging the said conviction and sentence of imprisonment, the appellant preferred the present appeal:

11. Learned counsel for the appellant - accused contended as follows:

               i. There is no direct evidence and the entire case rests on circumstantial evidence.

               ii. PWs.6 to 8 and 10 were turned hostile and no incriminating was found in their evidence to prove the offence.

               iii. The police having cited LWs.3 and 4 did not examine them and the same is fatal to the case of prosecution.

               iv. DW.1 has specifically deposed to the effect that the accused was not available on the date and at the time and, therefore, commission of offence is highly doubtful.

               v. Prosecution failed to prove motive beyond reasonable doubt.

               vi. The accused was implicated falsely in the aforesaid case. With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel sought to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant.

12. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit as under:

               i. The motive for commission of offence by the accused was suspecting the fidelity of the deceased and the same was proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

               ii. The prosecution also proved that the accused was present on the date and time at the scene of offence through the evidence of PWs.4 and 5.

               iii. Though there is no direct evidence, the circumstantial evidence forms a complete chain to convict the appellant.

               iv. Having considered all the aforesaid aspects only, 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.

13. In view of the 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 offence under Section - 302 of IPC against the appellant herein - accused are sustainable, both on facts and in law?

14. As discussed supra, the prosecution alleges that this case concerns a homicidal act arising out of accused suspecting fidelity of his wife. Section 302 of IPC embodies the punishment for murder. Its essence lies in penalizing acts where a person intentionally causes the death of another, or commits an act with the knowledge that it is so imminently dangerous that it will likely result in death. The provision reflects the gravity with which the law treats the unlawful taking of life. It authorizes the imposition of the most severe punishments, like death penalty or imprisonment for life, depending on the circumstances of the case. The focus under this section is not merely on the act of causing death, but on the presence of intention or knowledge that elevates the act to commit murder, thereby justifying stringent punishment.

15. Now, coming to the case on hand, PW.1 is the mother of the deceased. According to her, after the marriage of her daughter with the accused, they were living at Yadagiribagh in a rented house of PW.3. The spouses lived cordially for six months after their marriage. Thereafter, the accused started suspecting the character of her daughter attributing illegal intimacy with others and used to quarrel with her. Out of their wedlock, they did not have children. For the said reason, they visited many Temples, Swamijis and Dargahs. Finally, the accused went to Ajmir Dargah.

16. PW.1 further deposed that after return from the Ajmir Dargah, both of them visited the parental home of the accused to present prasadam to the mother of the accused. On the same day (which happened to be Friday) in the evening, her daughter made a phone call to her asking her to come to her house at Yadagiribagh. Accordingly, at about 7.30 P.M., she went to the house of her daughter and found both the spouses quarreling with each other. Then, she asked them not to quarrel, but the accused pushed her out of the house and closed the door. The accused started songs in his computer with high volume and did not open the door though she knocked it asking him to open the door. Then, she sat at the door for about two hours. Then, the landlord of the said house (PW.3), who lives in the ground floor, came there to the first floor on hearing sound and asked the accused to open the door, but in vain and, therefore, he went back. The accused again raised the volume of the songs and started shouting from the house. Then, PW.3 again came after one hour and asked the accused to open the door, but the accused did not open the door. Therefore, PW.3 called the neighbours and as the accused did not open the door, he made a call to the police, who also came there and requested the accused to open the door, but in vain. Thus, the police broke open the window of the house and smoke came out of the house from the windows. Then, the police broke open the doors by kicking and then went into the house.

               i) PW.1 further deposed that she found the hands and legs of her daughter to have tied with a lungi. Her lips and throat were cut and she was lying in a pool of blood in the kitchen. The police also observed the same. Then, the accused tried to run away, the police caught hold of him and took him to the police station. Then, she gave Ex.P1 - report on 20.12.2014. The police examined her and recorded her statement. Thus, according to her, the accused killed her daughter attributing illegal intimacy to her daughter.

               ii) During cross-examination she denied the suggestion in relation to ‘alibi’ that the accused was not present in his house, she did not go to his house at that time, her daughter herself called for a person for worship in order to get children in the absence of the accused, that no incident as stated by her took place at that time.

17. PW.2 is the brother of the deceased and son of PW.1. He deposed that his father is living as driver of a Taxi. He also deposed on the same lines as deposed by her mother (PW.1) with regard to the disputes between the accused and the deceased.

18. PW.3, owner of the house in which the accused and the deceased resided on rent, deposed that he is the owner of the house situated at Yadagiri Bagh, Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad. The accused and the deceased are his tenants of first floor, while he is residing in the ground floor. On 20.12.2014 mid night, he heard the noise of quarrel between the said spouses. There was some gap and again there was similar noise. PW.5 and one Mr. Rajmohan, a police constable, are his neighbours. Due to the said noise and fear, he called both the said neighbours and went to the portion of the accused. They knocked the door of the accused, but it was not opened. Then on their information, two police constables came there and knocked the door, but it was not opened. Therefore, one of the police constables broke open the glass pane of the window of the said portion. The accused tried to throw water and pelt stone from inside through the window. On kicking the door by one of the said constables, the door was opened. Then the accused tried to run away. They caught hold of the accused. Then they went into the house and found the wife of the accused to have died and lying in a pool of blood. Her throat appeared to have been slit with a knife, which was also lying there. The said police took the accused to the police station. Later, he was examined by the police and recorded his statement.

               i) During cross-examination, nothing useful was elicited from PW.3.

19. PW.4 is the police constable in IV Town Police Station. He deposed that at about 2.30 A.M., he received information through wireless set that a couple was quarrelling at Yadagiri Bagh. Then, he along with Amzad Khan, Home Guard No.362 went to the said place. By the time they reached the place, there was a Police Jeep and police staff. On enquiry, they were told about the noise coming from a portion in the upper floor and door was not opened by the inmates even after knocking. Then they went up and broke the window of the said portion. They found heavy smoke in the house and songs were heard with high volume in a computer. When they asked the inmate of the house through the window to open the door, he sprinkled water on them through the said window. They and the neighbours broke open the door, entered into the house and found the accused inside and a woman was found lying dead in a pool of blood in the kitchen with her hands and legs tied and her lips and throat cut. The deceased was the wife of the accused. They caught hold of the accused and took him to their police station.

               i) During cross-examination, he admitted that at the time of receiving the information, they were in New Housing Board Colony situated 4 or 5 km. away from the scene of offence. They went for beat duty on a motorcycle and they reached the scene of offence after half an hour. They were at the scene of offence up to 7.00 A.M. or 8.00 A.M.

20. PW.5 is also a circumstantial witness. He is adjacent neighbor. He also specifically deposed with regard to the events that occurred on the lines of PW.3.

21. PW.6 is the panch witness for the scene of offence. He did not support the case of prosecution and, therefore, he was declared hostile and was cross-examined by learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

22. PW.7 is also panch witness for the inquest and seizure of clothes of the deceased after completion of inquest. She was also declared hostile and was cross-examined by learned Additional Public Prosecutor. However, during cross-examination, she admitted that the police seized clothes of the deceased (MOs.1 to 6) in her present under Ex.P4 - panchanama.

23. PW.8 is the panch witness for confessional statement of the accused and recovery thereof. He did not support the case of prosecution and, therefore, he was declared hostile and was cross-examined by learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

24. PW.9 is the doctor. He conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. According to him, he found the following features:

               (i) Both hands were tied together and tied at both ankle joints of lower limbs. Dried blood stains were present on the face and the neck.

               (ii) Rigor mortis was present all through the body. Postmortem staining was seen on the back.

He also found the following ante-mortem injuries, which were fresh and abrasions were reddish brown in colour.

               (i) Contusion 6 cm x 3 cm on right side forehead;

               (ii) Abraded contusion 3 in number spread in an area of 3 cm x 2 cm on right side forehead near hair line;

               (iii) Superficial cut injury 1 cm x 0.25 cm x skin deep inner aspect of left eyebrow;

               (iv) Contusion 2 cm x 1 cm at root of the nose;

               (v) Abraded contusion on right side of face (6 cm x 5 cm);

               (vi) Contusion 1 cm x 1 cm on left cheek;

               (vii) Cut injury to left side lower lip (4 cm x 2 cm);

               (viii) Abrasions 1 cm x 0.25 cm on the back of right hand;

               (ix) Abrasion 0.5 x 0.25 cm front of right leg (middle third);

               (x) Cut injury of 6 cm x 3 cm x airway deep (transversely placed) present in front of the neck. Underlying soft tissues were cut and complete transection of airway at the level of thyroid cartilage and anterior wall of oesophagus in cut. Blood clots noted in sub glottis area and in trachea.

               (xi) On reflection of scalp contusion of 1 cm x 1 cm noted on mid frontal region and a contusion of 2 cm x 1 cm over left parietal region.

According to him and as per Ex.P6 - PME report, the cause of death was ‘cut throat injury’.

25. PW.10 is the panch witness for confessional statement of the accused and recovery thereof. He did not support the case of the prosecution.

26. PW.11 is the panch witness with regard to seizure of clothes of the deceased (MOs.1 to 6) after completion of inquest.

27. PW.12 is the panch witness for scene of offence and inquest through whom MOs.8 to 14 were marked. Ex.P8 is the crime details form containing rough sketch map of scene of offence.

28. PW.13 is the Tahsildar of Nizamabad. According to him, the inquest was conducted over the dead body of the deceased in his presence. Ex.P2 is the inquest panchanama.

29. PW.14 is the Sub-Inspector of Police. On receipt of report given by PW.1 orally, he recorded her statement vide Ex.P1 and thereafter registered a case in Crime No.373 of 2014 for the offence under Section - 302 of IPC and issued Ex.P9 - FIR.

30. PW.15 is the Inspector of Police, Nizamabad. He deposed with regard to conducting of investigation, securing presence of panch witnesses, drawing the panchanama with regard to scene of offence, taking steps for conducting autopsy over the dead body, examination of witnesses and recording their statements and also confessional statement of the accused and recovery thereof.

31. PW.16 is another Inspector of Police. He deposed with regard to sending the material objects to the Forensic for Chemical analysis and after receipt of report from the Forensic Laboratory and other documents, he laid the charge sheet against the accused.

32. In this case, in support of the contention of the accused that he was not present at the scene of offence on the date and at the time of offence, which is in the nature of ‘alibi’, he examined DW.1. DW.1 deposed that on 19.12.2014 at 10.00 P.M., the accused came to his house, brought prasadam and gave to him stating that it was brought from Ajmeer and went back to his house. Again the accused came to him in the morning at 6.00 A.M. on the next day and stated that he received information about death of his wife and asked him to come with him. Then, both of them went to the house of the accused at about 7.15 A.M. and found the wife of the accused neck to have been cut and her hands and legs to have been tied.

33. Keeping in view the aforesaid rival submissions of both sides and the aforesaid evidence, this Court has to re-appraise the evidence of prosecution witnesses as well as the defence in coming to a conclusion whether learned trial Court was right in recording the conviction and imposing the life imprisonment against the accused. First of all, we should analyse as to whether there was any motive on the part of the accused in commission of the offence. In this case, the relevant witness is PW.1, the mother of the deceased, specifically deposed that after the marriage of her daughter with the accused, they were living in the rented house of PW.3 and they lived cordially for six months after their marriage. Thereafter, the accused started suspecting the character of the deceased attributing illegal intimacy with others and, therefore, the accused quarrelling with her frequently. Even PW.2, elder brother of the deceased, also deposed on the same lines as that of PW.1 with regard to the accused suspecting the character of the deceased. Thus, their evidence reveals that the accused had a strong suspicion about the character and fidelity of the deceased. The prosecution relies upon this circumstance to establish that the accused nurtured a grievance and animosity towards the deceased. Such persistent suspicion regarding the character of the deceased provides a plausible motive for the accused to commit the offence and lends support to the prosecution case. Though motive by itself may not be sufficient to establish guilt, where there is other incriminating evidence on record, proof of motive assumes significance as a circumstance pointing towards the involvement of the accused in the crime.

34. With regard to the occurrence, the date of incident was on 20.12.2014 in the mid-night and the place of incident is at the house of the accused. It is the specific contention of the accused that he was not at all present at his house on the date of incident and that he was at his village and the same was proved through the evidence of DW.1, who has specifically deposed in the manner stated above. PW.1, the mother of the deceased has specifically deposed with regard to the quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased at his house and the same is also supported by PW.2, her son. Further, PW.3, owner of the house in which the accused and the deceased were resided, also specifically deposed with regard to the quarrel took place between them. PW.5 is the neighbour of PW.3. He also specifically deposed with regard to the said incident. All of them in one voice deposed that as the accused did not open the door even after knocking it, they went up and broke the window of the said portion. PWs.1, 2 and 4 also deposed that smoke came out of the house from the window. All the aforesaid witnesses also deposed that songs were heard with high volume in a computer. When they asked the inmate of the house through the window to open the door, the accused sprinkled water on them through the said window. Then, they and the police broke open the door of the said portion, entered into the house and found the accused inside and a woman was found lying dead in a pool of blood in the kitchen with her hands and leg tied and her lips and throat cut. Then they caught hold of the accused and took him to the police station. Even PW.15, the first Investigating Officer deposed that on 20.12.2014 he apprehended the accused at the scene of offence and brought him to their police station.

35. In view of the same, it is clear that the accused was present in his house on the date and time of the incident till the neighbours and police came to the scene of offence. In contrast, the accused raised a plea of ‘alibi’, contending that he was not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. To substantiate the said plea, he examined DW.1, who deposed that the accused had visited his village for the purpose of distributing prasadam, which the accused brought from Ajmeer. DW.1 also deposed that the accused initially used to live in his village (Neela Villge) and later shifted to Nizamabad along with his wife, to a house nearby the house of his mother-in-law. The father of the accused known to him and they used to do agriculture together in the village. Therefore, they were visiting terms between both the families. As already discussed above, he further deposed that on 19.12.2014 at 10.00 P.M., the accused came to their house and brought prasadam and gave to him stating that it was brought from Ajmeer and went back to his house. Again, the accused came to him in the morning at 6.00 A.M. of the next day and stated that he (accused) received information of death of his wife and asked him to come with him. Then, both of them came to the house of the accused at Nizamabad at about 7.15 A.M. and found the accused’s wife neck to have been cut and her hands and legs to have been tied. She suffered a bleeding injury to her mouth and she was lying dead in the house of the accused. The mother-in-law of the accused was also present in the said house. The police were also present there. Some others were also present, who were not known to him. The mother-in-law of the accused shouted that the accused himself killed the deceased. The police took the accused into their custody. During examination of the accused under Section - 313 of Cr.P.C., when learned trial Court put a question to the effect that the accused and his wife roamed around temples, Swamijis and Dargas and lastly he alone went to Ajmir Dargah and after his return from the said Dargah, both the accused and his wife went to his parental home to present prasadam to his mother, he answered that his wife (deceased) and mother-in-law (PW.1) only roamed around the temples etc., and that he did not go anywhere. But, he did not give the answer that he went to his village and gave prasadam to DW.1. Had he given answer in the manner of going to his village and offering prasadam to DW.1, his plea of ‘alibi’ would have been sustained. Therefore, the evidence of DW.1 and the answer given by the accused during his examination under Section - 313 of Cr.P.C. are contrary to each other.

36. The burden of proving plea of ‘alibi’ lies squarely on the accused, who must establish by cogent and convincing evidence that his presence at the scene of occurrence was impossible or highly improbable. In the present case, the accused has failed to discharge such burden. On the contrary, the evidence of PW.3, his neighbour (PW.5), and the Investigating Officer (PW.16) consistently establishes the presence of the accused at the place of occurrence.

37. In Ashok Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh(2024 INSC 1011), the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the settled principle that a plea of ‘alibi’ is a rule of evidence under Section - 11 of the Evidence Act, and the burden to establish it lies on the accused. The plea can succeed only when the accused proves, by cogent and convincing evidence, that he was at such a distant place at the relevant time, that his presence at the scene of occurrence was impossible or highly improbable. Mere assertions or doubtful testimony are insufficient to establish an ‘alibi’. The Apex Court further held that "the plea of alibi can be applied only if the 'elsewhere place' is far away from the place of occurrence so  that it was extremely improbable or impossible for the person concerned to reach the place of occurrence and participate in the crime."

38. Thus, in the present case, the testimony of DW.1 does not inspire confidence and fails to withstand careful scrutiny. No convincing or reliable material has been placed on record to substantiate the plea of ‘alibi’. Accordingly, in the face of the cogent, consistent, and trustworthy evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, the plea of ‘alibi’ put forward by the accused deserves to be rejected.

39. Further, PW.1 and PW.2 deposed with regard to the motive on the part of the accused in commission of offence by the accused. PWs.1 and 2 apart from PWs.3, 4 and 5 deposed that when they entered inside the house of the accused, they found the deceased to have died and lying in a pool of blood and her throat appeared to have been slit with a knife and a knife was also lying there. The evidence of PW.9 - the doctor deposed that there are cut injuries on the face of the deceased and according to him and as per Ex.P6, the cause of death was due to cut throat injury. He also specifically deposed with regard to the nature of injuries as mentioned above.

40. The injuries caused on the body of the deceased and the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 with regard to their observing/finding the injuries over the dead body of the deceased are consistent. Thus, their evidence consistently proves that the deceased died due to the cut injuries caused by the accused with MO.8 - knife, which was recovered pursuant to the confessional statement made by the accused in the presence of panch witnesses (PWs.8 and 10). However, the said PWs.8 and 10 did not support the case of prosecution with regard to the confessional statement and recovery thereof i.e., MO.8 - knife. The other panch witnesses (PW.6) for scene of offence and inquest and PW.7 for inquest and seizure of clothes of the deceased after completion of inquest did not support the case of prosecution. However, during cross-examination, PW.7 admitted that the police seized clothes of the deceased in his presence under cover of panchanama (Ex.P4) and that he attested the same. He also identified MOs.1 to 6.

41. Further, PW.11 is another panch for seizure of clothes of the deceased after completion of inquest. She specifically deposed that on the instructions of the police, she and PW.7 went to the Hospital, where they found the dead body at the mortuary and in their presence, the police seized the clothes of the deceased as in MOs.1 to 6 and so also MO.7 - blood stained bra of the deceased vide Ex.P4 - panchanama. PW.12 is the panch witness for the scene of offence and recovery of MOs.8 to 14 which includes the knife. Though PW.6 turned hostile, the prosecution examined PW.12, who specifically deposed that he and PW.6 fund the dead body of the deceased and her lips and neck were cut. The police conducted the panchanama of the scene of offence in their presence and seized MOs.8 to 14.

42. Thus, though PW.6 - one of the panch witness for recovery of MO.8 - knife was turned hostile, still there is evidence of another panch witness examined as PW.12. His evidence is consistent with that of the evidence of Investigating Officer (PW.15) in respect of recovery of MO.8 - knife at the scene of offence. Therefore, the evidence of hostile witness (PW.6) in respect of recovery of MO.8 - knife would not tilt the case of the prosecution on account of availability of consistent evidence of another panch witness (PW.12) and the evidence of Investigating Officer (PW.15). MOs.15 and 16 are the blood stained clothes of the accused. There is no material on record to suggest any motive for the Investigating Officer to falsely implicate the accused or to fabricate the recovery.

43. It is well settled that the testimony of an Investigating Officer cannot be discarded solely on the ground that one of the panch witnesses has not supported the prosecution case, if his evidence is otherwise trustworthy and inspires confidence. The prosecution has independently established the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence through the evidence of PWs.1 to 5. PW.16, another Investigating Officer, who laid the charge sheet, also deposed that he received Ex.P11 - report from the forensic scene laboratory. As per Ex.P11, item Nos.1 to 13 were examined and human blood was detected on them. The blood group of the blood stains on item Nos.2, 4 to 6, 9, 10 and 13 is of ‘A’ blood group. As per Ex.P11 - report, the knife is item No.1 and the same was detected with human blood. However, its blood group could not be determined. Item Nos.12 and 13 are the white colour full sleeved polyester shirt with violet checks and a blue colour jeans pant and the same were also detected with blood stains. The blood stains detected over Item No.13 also determined with “A” blood group. Therefore, the prosecution has successfully established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances. There is no missing link in the chain of events and the cumulative effect of the evidence leads to the irresistible conclusion that the accused alone committed the offence. Accordingly, the chain of circumstances stands fully established warranting the recording of conviction against the accused. As discussed above, the plea of ‘alibi’ raised by the accused has also been found to be unsubstantiated. The recovered knife was found to be connected with the crime and lends corroboration to the prosecution case.

44. The contention of learned counsel for the accused that one Mr. K. Raja Mohan, a Police Constable and the tenant of adjacent portion of the accused, was not examined by the prosecution and the same was fatal to its case. As discussed above, PW.3 is the owner of the house where the accused was tenant in one of the portions was examined by the prosecution. PW.5 is adjacent neighbour of PW.3 and he was also examined by the prosecution. They specifically deposed as to what had happened on the date and time of commission of offence by the accused. Therefore, in the presence of their evidence, non-examination of K. Raja Mohan is not at all fatal to the case of the prosecution.

45. Learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly convicted the accused for the charge under Section - 302. There is no perversity, illegality, or mis-appreciation of evidence warranting interference by the High Court. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed by learned trial Court deserve to be confirmed and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

46. The present Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence of imprisonment recorded and imposed against the appellant - accused vide judgment dated 18.11.2019 in S.C. No.216 of 2015 by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge at Nizamabad.

47. The appellant - accused is on bail vide order dated 09.02.2026 in I.A. No.1 of 2019. Therefore, the appellant - accused is directed to surrender before the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge at Nizamabad, within one (01) month from today for serving out remaining sentence of imprisonment. If he fails to surrender, the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge at Nizamabad, shall take necessary steps in accordance with law.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.