KSR,J&BVIMC,J Crt.A.Uos.S22 & 535 of 2016 According to the evidence of PW.13, A.1 and his fatheraskedforashare in the property of Narasa Reddy, who refused to give any share. In that connection a panchayat was held in the village and as per the decision of the panchayat, a house site anjj some portion of agricultural land was given to A.1, but A.1 did not satisfy with the property given to him. PW.13 admitted that there were disputes between A.1 on one hand, PW.1 and her husband Vasudeva Reddyontheotherhand.Further PW.1 in her evidence stated that there were differences between A.1 and her family members after she gave birth to two children. According to PW.1, after giving birth to deceased Nos.1 and 2, the affection of parents-in-laws of PW.1 towards her was increased many a fold, as she gave birth to male children to continue their family legacy. If PW.1 and her sons are alive, A.1 won’t get the property of Narasa Reddy, and he decided to kill them, so that the entire propertywill cometotheirfamily,as Vasudeva Reddy, husband of PW.1 was physically and mentally ill. Thus the prosecution is able to establish the motive on the part of A.1 in killing the deceased Nos.1 and 2. When once the prosecution is able to provethemotiveaswellaslast seen theory, the burden lies on A.1 to explain as to when and under what circumstances he parted the company of both the deceased. But no explanation is forth coming from A.1. On careful scrutiny and appreciationoftheevidenceadduced by the prosecution, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has proved the motive on the part of A.1 to do away the life of thedeceasedNos.1and2beyondall reasonable doubt.
