1. The case of the prosecution is that C.W.1/Keshi is the wife of the deceased Amakusa Gouda. Both were residing in Sanmote, Mavinkurve, Honavar Taluk. By the side of their house, the accused who is the brother of the deceased was residing with his family members. There was a quarrel took in between the complainant and the accused frequently, since the deceased had caught red handed, the accused while committing theft of coconuts from the trees. On 24.09.2006 at about 02:00 p.m., wherein the accused was abusing the deceased in filthy language as to why that he has committed theft of coconuts. When the deceased told him that he has caught red handed him while committing theft of coconuts, accused brought a spade and from the backside of the spade, assaulted the deceased on his head. The deceased fell down to the ground and he was been shifted to Honavar Government Hospital, as he sustained injuries.

2. C.W.23 PSI of Honavar Police Station on receiving MLC from the Hospital, visited Honavar Government Hospital along with his staff. Since the injured Amakusa Gouda was not in a position to speak, that he took a complaint from Keshi, the wife of the injured and he returned to the Police Station. Based upon on the complaint given by C.W.1/Keshi, he registered the FIR in Honavar Police in Crime No. 193 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code, as per Ex.P-1. Thereafter, on 25.09.2006 he visited the scene of offence along with panchas and he conducted mahazar, as per Ex.P-4, in the presence of C.Ws.2 and 3. C.W. 10/Mamata showed the scene of crime and pointed out spade/M.O.1 which was the weapon used by the accused. The said M.O.1 was also seized by him under Ex.P-4 panchanama. On 03.10.2006 he received the information regarding the death of the injured Amakusa Gouda in Udupi Hi-tech Hospital and he sent a requisition to the JMFC, Honavar to substitute Section 302 of Indian Penal Code in place of Section 324 of Indian Penal Code, as where he registered the case in Crime No. 193 of 2006. Subsequently, he visited Udupi Hi-tech Hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body as per Ex.P-5 in the presence of C.Ws.5 and 6. The dead body was sent through P.C. No. 1497 for post-mortem examination. C.W. 19 produced clothes of the deceased. They were seized under panchanama/Ex.P-6 in the presence of C.Ws.5 and 6. M.Os. 2 and 3 are the articles which were seized under the mahazar/Ex.P-6. On 04.10.2006 he visited the scene of crime and recorded the statement of C.Ws.10, to 15 and 17'. He conducted personal search panehanama/Ex.P-7 of the accused in the presence of C.Ws.7 and 8. Ex.P-2 is the sketch given by the Engineer and prepared the sketch, as per Ex.P-13 at the time of spot panchanama conducted by him.

3. C.W.24 is the CPI who took the case for further investigation. He sent the seized weapon/M.O.1 for the opinion of the Doctor which required to be sought for. He received Ex.P-11, the opinion of the Doctor relating to M.O.1/spade. After recording statement of C.Ws.18 to 20 during the course of investigation by him that he completed the investigation and laid the charge-sheet against the accused before the committal Court. The charges were framed against the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty.

4. In order to prove the case against the accused, the prosecution in all examined 11 witnesses, got marked 15 documents, as Exs.P-1 to P-15 and so also got marked M.Os.1 to 3.

5. The Learned Sessions Judge analysed the prosecution witnesses as P.Ws. 1 to 11 and also got marked the documents as Exs.P-1 to P-15, apart from that material objects as M.Os. 1 to 3, held conviction against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence held by the learned Sessions Judge against the accused has been questioned by preferring this appeal by the appellant/accused.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant during the course of