The credibility of witnesses, independent assessment of eyewitness accounts, and the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC were central legal principles established in the judgment.

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the order passed by a division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant (hereinafter referred to as accused No. 1") for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC) and sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 200/- with default stipulation.

( 3 ) BACKGROUND facts as projected by the prosecution are as follows: accused persons D. Sailu, Ramaiah, D. Pentamma and yadaiah are described as A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4. Samuel (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) was the husband of shantamma (P. W. 1 ). A-1 is the son of the elder brother of the deceased, A-2 is the father of A-1, A-3 is the wife of A-2 and A-4 is the younger brother of A-1. The deceased and the accused were not on good terms as they quarrelled with each other over bore water for the fields. Fifteen days prior to the date of incident, the accused and the deceased quarrelled with each other. On the date of incident i. e. 24. 11. 1999 at about 8. 00 p. M. , A-1 asked the deceased as to why he (deceased) scolded the mother of A-1. The deceased told him that he did not scold his mother. Then P. W. 1, the wife of the deceased, caught hold of the hands of A-1. A-4, the younger brother of A-1, came and attempted to beat the deceased. P. W. 1 pushed the younger brother of A-1. A-2 beat P. W. 1 with hands and A-1 stabbed the deceased at the instigation of A-2 with a knife on the left side of the stomach. As a result, the deceased fell down. A-3 also came there along with A-2 and beat P. W. 1. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the Sangareddy Hospital in an auto.

( 4 ) THE Village Administrative Officer gave Ex. P8 report to p. W. 14, who registered the case in Cr. No. 82 of 1999 under section 302 read with 34 IPC against Al to A4. P. W. 15 took up investigation, visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of P. W. 10 and another and seized controlled earth from the scene. Thereafter, he proceeded to Government Hospital and held inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P. W. 12 and others. He seized blood stained clothes from the body of the deceased. On inquest it was found that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained by him. P. W. 8 is the Doctor, who conducted the autopsy, opined that the deceased died due to shock and hemorrhage due to injury to vital organ. On 13. 11. 1999, A-1 to A-4 were arrested by the Sub-Inspector of police, Kondapur and produced before P. W. 15. P. W. 15 interrogated A-1 and A-1 gave confessional statement in Ex. P6 and in pursuance of the confessional statement, a knife was recovered under Ex. P7. As A-1 also sustained injuries, he was referred to hospital and examined by the Doctor and Ex. P. 10, wound certificate was issued. After receipt of the Forensic sciences Laboratory Report, he filed the charge sheet against a-1 and A-3 for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 ipc. As A-4 was juvenile, he was produced before the Judicial first Class Magistrate, Nizamabad, which is a juvenile Court. A-2 was absconding.

( 5 ) THE learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, modak at Sangareddy, after considering the material on record, came to the conclusion that the offence alleged against the accused is exclusively triable by the Court of Session and therefore, he committed the case to the Court of Session. The learned Sessions Judge took the case on file in S. C. No. 129 of 2001 and after hearing the prosecution and the defence and after considering the material on record, charge for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC was framed against A-1 and A-3. As A-1 and A-3 denied the charge levelled against them, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 15 and marked Exs. P1 to P12 besides marking of M0. 1 to prove its case. PWs. 1 to 4 were stated to be eye witnesses to th