The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

The deceased Muthamma @ Yellawwa was a native of Chikkagonnagar, Kushtagi Taluk, Koppal District. About six months prior to her death, she had come to Panambur along with her son Yellappa – PW4 who was aged 8 years. Her husband Balappa had died. About two months prior to her death, she was residing at Thokoor in a rented house along with PW4 and the accused. Accused was working as a Cleaner in a lorry owned by Udaya Kamath. The accused used to go home after consuming alcohol and abuse the deceased and her son. On 05.09.2009, the accused had given money to the deceased and asked her to pay rent to the landlord and accordingly, she had given the money to the landlord. On the same night, the accused asked the deceased to return the money given by him and assaulted the deceased and PW4. On the same night, the deceased left the house along with her son PW4 and slept in the Kudumboor busstop, located at Baikampady – Kudumboor road at Baikampady Industrial Area. At about 1.45 a.m. on 06.09.2009, the accused came to the said busstop, and on seeing the deceased and PW4 sleeping there, assaulted PW4 with a wooden plank on his head. Thereafter, he assaulted the deceased with the same plank on her head. She shouted. At that time, PW1 who was working as a Security Guard in the factory nearby, heard the cry of a woman, the sound of a falling wooden club and that of a crying child. Immediately he went to the busstop. In the torch light, he saw PW4 crying. When he enquired, PW4 stated that he and his mother were assaulted with a wooden club when they were both sleeping. PW1 also saw in the torch light that the deceased was lying in a pool of blood and she was moaning. He also saw the wooden plank. On enquiry, PW4 narrated what had happened on that day. At that time, PW1 flashed the torch light around the busstop and saw a man running towards Kudumboor. PW4 identified the man as his father, the accused. Muthamma succumbed to the injuries on the spot. PW1 returned to the factory and informed the incident to his superiors and returned to the spot. The Panambur Police were informed about the incident over telephone. PW29 Pramod Kumar, the then CPI came to the spot along with his staff at about 2.20 a.m. and recorded the statement of PW1, returned to the Police Station and registered a case in Crime No.99 of 2009 in terms of Ex.P1.

2. Investigation was taken up. The accused was arrested on the same day. A charge-sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 324, 307 and 302 of IPC. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined twenty-nine witnesses, marked twenty-two exhibits along with eighteen material objects. The defence marked twelve exhibits in support of its case. By the impugned Judgment, the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months. The accused was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently. Fine amount was ordered to be paid to PW4 Yellappa. Aggrieved by the same, the accused has filed this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Trial Court has committed an error in misreading the evidence and the material on record. The evidence clearly indicates that the accused had no intention to commit the murder of the deceased. Only because she had left him, he went in search of her. The assault was made without any intention to commit murder, but only to teach her a lesson. Under these circumstances, it cannot be held that the accused is guilty of the offence under Section 302 of IPC. Hence, he prays