The testimony of injured witnesses is accorded greater evidential value, establishing credibility unless major contradictions arise.

JUDGMENT :

M.S.RAMESH, J.

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahalir Court, Krishnagiri in S.C.No.125 of 2016, dated 25.10.2018.

For the sake of convenience, the parties in the appeal are addressed according to their ranks before the trial Court.

2. The brief case of the prosecution, as per the final report, is that the accused, namely Surat @ Ram Surat, who hails from the State of Uttar Pradesh and P.W.1, namely Ganesh, who hails from the State of Assam, were jointly working in a rose garden belonging to one Narayana Reddy (P.W.2). Since P.W.1 had complained to P.W.2 that the accused was not attending to his work properly, owing to which, P.W.2 had dismissed the accused from the job, there was an enmity between them. On 07.11.2015 at about 07.00 P.M., the accused, in order to take revenge against P.W.1, tried to attack him with an iron rod and when P.W.1 ran away from the scene, he attacked his wife Sukkiramani (P.W.9) and his 3 year old daughter Myna. Owing to the attack, while P.W.9 suffered grievous injuries, her daughter died on the spot. On completion of the investigation, the accused was charged of having committed the offences under Sections 302, 307 and 506(ii) of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

3. In order to prove the charges before the trial Court, the prosecution had examined 20 witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.20, apart from marking 21 documentary evidences Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.21 and 1 material object M.O.1. On the side of the accused, no oral or documentary evidences were let in.

4. The trial Court, on the strength of the evidences before it, had found the accused guilty of having committed the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. For the offence under Section 307, the accused was sentenced to undergo 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. The trial Court had also found that the accused did not have sufficient means to pay any fine and that he was defended by a Legal Aid Counsel and therefore did not impose any fine. For the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC, the accused was found as 'not guilty' and acquitted from the charge.

5. This judgment of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Krishnagiri, made in S.C.No.125/2016 dated 25.10.2018 is under challenge in the present appeal.

6.1. The evidences, that were let in by the prosecution before the trial Court, are as follows:-

6.2. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased child and husband of P.W.9, who speaks about the motive of the accused, owing to his complaint about the accused to his employer and his retaliation in connection with such a complaint. He would also state that when the accused had attempted to assault P.W.1 with an iron rod, he ran away from the scene and thereafter, when he came back, he found that the accused had brutally attacked his wife (P.W.9) and his child, who succumbed on the spot, to the injuries. He also speaks about the injuries suffered by P.W.9 in her left head, ears, face and about taking her to Bangalore hospital for first aid and thereafter to Hosur Government hospital, where she was admitted as an in-patient. He then testifies about the Police obtaining a complaint from him at Hosur Government hospital, at which point of time, his employer P.W.2, who was present there, had translated his statement made in Hindi, to the Police. The complaint given by him was marked as Ex.P.1 and the signature of P.W.2 was marked as Ex.P.2 and the iron rod, which was used by the accused during the assault, was identified by him and marked as M.O.1.

6.3. P.W.2 is the employer of P.W.1 and the accused and who is in the business of selling roses from his garden. In his oral evidence, he speaks about the conduct of the accused, who used to be intoxicated during work hours and the several warnings he gave to the accused to refrain from indulging in fights. He also speaks about the frequent quarrels between the accused and his wife.

6.4. P.W.