JUDGMENT :

1. The instant appeal is filed by the appellant, the sole accused, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.01.2014 passed in Sessions Case No.93 of 2012 by the Principal Sessions Judge at Chikmagalur, whereby, the appellantaccused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘I.P.C.’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

That the deceased Manjunath was doing money lending business. He was a bachelor and the accused is his nephew, that is the father of the accused was the brother of the deceased. That six months prior to the incident, the accused had borrowed Rs.40,000/from the deceased stating that he will repay it. Since, the said amount was not repaid, there was a quarrel between them. On 06.07.2012, the accused assaulted the deceased with a hammer on his head causing grievous injuries. Immediately after the incident, the deceased was taken to the hospital for treatment. About 5 to 6 days thereafter he succumbed to injuries on 14.07.2012. On a complaint being lodged by PW1, who is the wife of the brother of the deceased, a case was lodged against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. After the death of the deceased, the same was altered to Section 302 of I.P.C. After investigation, charge sheet was filed. The prosecution examined in all, 23 witnesses and marked Exs.P.1 to P31 (a) along with 5 material objects. Neither the witness was examined nor any document was marked on behalf of the defense. By the impugned judgment and order, the accused was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the same, instant appeal is filed.

3. Sri. Hasmath Pasha, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant’s counsel contends that the judgment of the trial Court is erroneous and is liable to be interfered with. That not all of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. The witnesses have turned hostile and even if the case of the prosecution is to be accepted, there was no intention to commit the murder of the deceased. The evidence would also indicate that a quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased, just before the incident took place and thereafter, the alleged assault has taken place. The evidence also show that the accused was present with the deceased. He was seen by the eyewitnesses. The accused also assisted in shifting the deceased to the hospital. That there was no immediate death of the deceased. The deceased underwent treatment and died only about 5 to 6 days thereafter. Relying on the medical evidence, he contends that the cause of death is not relatable to the assault. He died for various other reasons other than for the injury which he has sustained by the alleged assault. Hence, he pleads that the trial Court committed an error in appreciating the evidence by convicting the accused.

4. The same is disputed by Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. He contends that the eyewitnesses who have witnessed the incident have deposed that at the time of the incident, the accused was holding the hammer and standing near the deceased Manjunath, who had fallen on the ground because of the assault made by the accused. That the accused was also questioned as to what has happened and to which he answered that he had assaulted the deceased by the hammer and thereafter, he went away from the scene. The contention of the appellant’s counsel that the death was not due to the assault, cannot be accepted because after the assault, the deceased was admitted to hospital because of the injuries sustained. Once the injuries are sustained there are possibilities that the same may lead to various complications and death may be due to such complications. However, the reason for admission to the h