- (1.) Appellant was tried for committing murder of his wife and son on the intervening night of 19/ 20/06/1996. The Trial Court, vide judgment dated 6/08/1997, found him guilty of an offence under Section 302 IPC for causing death of his wife and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. He was also convicted for an offence under Section 304, part 11, IPC for causing death of his son and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellant put in issue his conviction and sentence before the High Court of judicature at Andhra Pradesh. A Division bench of that Court, vide order dated 6/09/1999, dismissed the appeal confirming conviction and sentence, as recorded by the Trial Court. By special leave, the appellant is before us. The motive for murder of wife by the appellant is stated to be his suspicion about her character and doubt of her fidelity. PW-1 has given evidence with regard to the earlier altercations between the husband and the wife because the appellant suspected the fidelity of his wife. To that extent, even the statement of pw-2 supports the prosecution version.
(2.) The motive has been amply established.
(3.) The sole eye-witness to the case is daughter of the appellant PW-3 aged about 7 years. She was sleeping with her father on the fateful night, when in the middle of the night she found him get up and go to the cot where her mother and brother were sleeping and cause injuries to both of them with a knife, which he had kept with himself before retiring to bed at night. Both the Trial Court and the high Court have relied upon the testimony of pw-3 and have found her to be a reliable and trustworthy witness. With the assistance of Mrs. D. V. Padma Priya, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, we have carefully perused the statement of PW-3 and find that reliance placed upon her testimony by the Trial Court and the High Court to be absolutely fair and proper. Her evidence also receives corroboration from medical evidence as well as from the statement of PW-1 and PW-2. Recovery of m. O.-1, the weapon of offence on a disclosure statement made by the appellant under section 27 of the Evidence Act while surrendering at the police station before PW-15 lends further credence to her testimony. No infirmity has been pointed out in the evidence of PW-3, daughter of the appellant, who having lost her mother and brother, has deposed against her own father. We have been impressed by her testimony. She had no reason whatsoever to falsely implicate her own father, the only member of the family left after the murder of her mother and brother. The appreciation of evidence by the Courts below does not suffer from any infirmity. In our opinion, the Trial Court as well as the High Court were perfectly justified in recording an order of conviction and awarding sentence to the appellant for the offences committed by him. There is no merit in this appeal. It fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.;