JUDGMENT :

CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA, J.

1. In disagreement with the findings given and the consequent sentence passed, the appellant, who is the accused in Sessions Case No. 306 of 2011 that stood pending on the file of the Court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad, is before this Court.

2. Heard Sri S. Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the appellant, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor who represented the respondent-State.

3. Making his submission, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant had no intention whatsoever to attack his mother-in-law and cause her death and indeed, the prosecution miserably failed in establishing the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant equally had no intention to attack his wife and his daughter and absolutely, there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant attempted to kill his wife and his daughter. Learned counsel further contended that even if the version of the prosecution is taken to be true that the appellant hit his mother-in-law with a fire wood stick, the case, at best, would fall within the ambit of Section 304 Part-II IPC, but not under Section 302 IPC. He also stated that the injured i.e. the wife and the daughter of the appellant, sustained only simple injuries and thus, the case does not fall within the ambit of Section 307 IPC, but falls within the ambit of Section 323 IPC. Learned counsel referring to Ex.P-9-Scene Observation Report and Ex.P-20-Rough sketch, contended that those documents reveals the presence of kitchen very near to the scene of offence and further, there is convincing material on record to show that the appellant took the stick from that place and hit his mother-in-law, his wife and his daughter and had the appellant carried any intention to kill those persons, he would have reached the scene of offence with a weapon, but he did not do so. Learned counsel finally pleads the Court to revisit the entire evidence and do justice.

4. Contradicting the submissions thus made, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that there is no reason for the wife and the daughter of the deceased, who were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 respectively, to speak falsehood and they, in clear terms, narrated the happening of the incident. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the appellant attacked P.Ws.1 and 2 and also his mother-in-law and ultimately, killed his mother-in-law besides causing injuries to them. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that other independent witnesses also supported the case of the prosecution and they stated that it is the appellant who approached the scene of offence, attacked his mother-in-law, his wife and his daughter with an intention to kill them and therefore, the trial Court rightly convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and thus, the judgment of the trial Court needs no interference.

5. In the light of the submissions thus made, the points that emerge for consideration are:

(1) Whether the prosecution established beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder.

(2) Whether the prosecution established beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant having attempted to commit the offence of murder, has committed the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.

POINT Nos. 1 and 2:

6. The case of the prosecution, as could be perceived through the contents of the charge sheet, if narrated in a narrower compass, is that PW-1-P.Laxmi Bai is the wife of the appellant. Her marriage was solemnised with the appellant about 25 years prior to the date of the incident and they were blessed with two daughters and two sons. The appellant being addicted to the habit of consuming liquor, stopped working and started harassing PW-1. PW-1, who could not bear the harassment of the appellant, about ten months prior to the