P. C. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant being charged under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for having committed murder of one Jayanti Jojo on 19-6-1982 by means of an axe, has been convicted thereunder and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rourkela by his Judgment dated 8. 7. 1983. ( 2 ) THE prosecution story is that on 19. 6. 1982 at about 7 p. m. the appellant assaulted the deceased Jayanti Jojo by means of an axe in a paddy field of Thakur Barjo in Barjotoli of village Purunapanni (Pathantoli) and caused her instantaneous death. It was alleged that while P. W. 8 Soma Gudia, P. W. 9 Jaswa Kandulna and P. W. 10 Johan Kandulna were dining in the afternoon at about 5 p. m. in the house of P. W. 10, the accused appeared in a drunken state and demanded service of beaf curry to him. But P. W. 10 replied that the stock had already exhausted. The appellant thereafter insisted for giving him beaf curry and as a consequence there was a quarrel between them. The appellant left the place and reappeared some time after being armed with an axe and threatened to kill P. W. 10, who out of fear ran away towards Barjotoli. The appellant chased him with the axe to his hand. At that time the deceased Jayanti, elder sister of P. W. 10, apprehending danger to the life of her brother followed the appellant. The appellant finding Jayanti that had followed him, turned back and dealt several axe blows on the deceased which caused her instantaneous death. ( 3 ) P. W. 1 Joseph Kandulna, the cousin brother of the deceased informed the Gramarakshi, P. W. 2, after getting information about the murder of Jayanti. The Gramarakshi advised him to lodge a report at Hatibari Out Post which he did on the following morning. The Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to the said Out. Post recorded the Station Diary Entry on 20. 6. 1982 (Ext 10) and rushed to the spot. He held the inquest over the dead body, prepared the inquest report (Ext. 1) and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. The Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to the said Out. Post recorded the Station Diary Entry on 20. 6. 1982 (Ext 10) and rushed to the spot. He held the inquest over the dead body, prepared the inquest report (Ext. 1) and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. During the investigation he seized some blood stained earth and also got the appellant medically examined as he had appeared in Hatibari Out Post on 19-6-1982 at 10 P. M. and had produced the axe, M. O. 1 and complained about the injuries sustained by him. He seized a white full pant stained with blood under Ext. 3 as per the information of the accused, who led to the discovery while in custody on 8. 7. 1982 and sent the blood stained earth, axe, white full pant of the accused and the wearing apparels of the deceased, stained with blood for chemical examination. After completion of investigation he submitted charge-sheet against the accused. ( 4 ) THE appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him under section 302 I. P. C. His plea was that, finding P. Ws. 8 to 10 killing a buffalo, he objected at which P. W. 8, Soma Gudia, assaulted him on the left side of his fore-head by the butt end of the axe causing injury and as he was then chased, he managed to escape to Hatibari Out-Post to report the matter, but the police detained him and sent up for trial in this case. ( 5 ) PROSECUTION examined 12 witnesses of whom P. Ws. 8 and 9 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence and P. W. 10 has seen some part of the occurrence. P. W. 7 is the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and his conclusion was that the death was homicidal. P. W. 1, the cousin brother of the deceased, is the informant. P. W. 2 is the Gramarakhi, who came to the spot after being informed about the murder, and had watched the dead body in that night. P. W. 3, a co-villager, is a witness to the inquest, under Ext. 1 and seizure under Ext. 2, P. Ws. 4 and 5 are witnesses to the seizure under Ext. P. W. 2 is the Gramarakhi, who came to the spot after being informed about the murder, and had watched the dead body in that night. P. W. 3, a co-villager, is a witness to the inquest, under Ext. 1 and seizure under Ext. 2, P. Ws. 4 and 5 are witnesses to the seizure under Ext. 3, P. W. 6 is the Medical Officer of Hatibari Primary Health Centre who had examined the appellant on receipt of a police requisition, Ext. 4, P. W. 11 is the Constable, who accompanied the dead body for postmortem examination. P. W. 12 is the 1. 0. , who conducted the investigation. The appellant did not choose to examine any witness on his behalf. ( 6 ) ON a consideration of the evidence on record the learned Addi. Sessions Judge found that the death of the deceased Jayanti was homicidal. He believed the evidence of the eye witnesses P. Ws. 8 and 9 and came to the conclusion that the appellant had assaulted the deceased Jayanti by means of an axe, M. O. 1 and had caused her death. He found that the accused had absconded till 8. 7. 1982 on which date he was arrested at Biramitrapur. The conduct of the appellant in absconding immediately after the occurrence, according to the learned court below, lends support to the prosecution story that the appellant was the author of the alleged crime. An objection was taken before the learned Addi. Sessions Judge that there was unexplainable delay in lodging the F. I. R. which the learned Addi. Sessions Judge did not accept. It was also held that the appellant assaulted the deceased by giving successive blows on her neck, a vital part of her body, by means of an axe, (M. O. 1) fully knowing the consequence of his act and caused instantaneous death of the deceased. The appellant has thus been convicted under section 302. I. P. C. and has been sentenced to undergo R. I. for life as aforesaid. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel, appearing for the appellant urged the following points and contended that the appellant was innocent and was not connected with the alleged crime: (i The death of the deceased Jayanti was not homicidal. Rather the evidence led by the prosecution has indicated that it was either accidental or by mistake. (ii) The eye witnesses P. Ws. Rather the evidence led by the prosecution has indicated that it was either accidental or by mistake. (ii) The eye witnesses P. Ws. 8 and 9 should not be believed as they were inimically disposed towards the appellant and their evidence contradict each other and do not support the story of the prosecution. (iii) There has been delay in lodging the F. I. R. and the explanation furnished to explain the delay is not acceptable and consequently it must be held that the delay in lodging the F. I. R. is fatal to the prosecution case. (iv) Assuming that the death of the deceased was caused by the appellant it would not amount to murder as defined in section 300, I. P. C. it may at best be called culpable homicide not amounting to murder and consequently the appellant may at best be liable to be punished under section 304, I. P. C. and not under section 302 I. P. C. We would examine each of the points with reference to the prosecution case and the evidence adduced in support thereof. ( 8 ) P. W. 7 is the Medical Officer of Kuaramunda P. H. C. who on 20-6-1982 had conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased Jayanti Jojo. On examination, he found 5 incised wounds of the following description: (i Incised wound 3 x 1 x 2 over the right side upper part of the neck, obliquely from the posterior part to anterior tm the angle of the mandible. (ii) Incised wound 2 x 1/2 x 11/2 over right side of the neck transversely below the injury No. 1. (iii) Incised wound 2 x 1/2 x 1/2 transversely below injury No. 2. (iv) Incised wound 21/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 over the left scapular region of the back above downwards 3 left to the mid vertibra line. (v) Incised wound 21/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 over the right side of the back on right scapular region transversely. Out of these injuries he opined that Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were grievous in nature whereas the others were simple. On dissection he found that the upper part of tae right side of the first cervical vertebra below external injury No. 1, was cut into two pieces and the right carotid artery and right jugular vein were cut. Out of these injuries he opined that Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were grievous in nature whereas the others were simple. On dissection he found that the upper part of tae right side of the first cervical vertebra below external injury No. 1, was cut into two pieces and the right carotid artery and right jugular vein were cut. He further found that the second cervical vertebra was also cut below injury No. 2. According to the said Doctor all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and were caused by a sharp cutting weapon. He opined that the death had occurred about 18 to 24 hours before the post-mortem examination. In his opinion, the cause of death was due to shock on account of circulatory failure as a result of excessive haemorrhage caused by the aforesaid injuries in general and injuries Nos. 1 and 2 with corresponding internal injuries in particular. In his evidence he said that injuries No. 1 and 2 individually can cause instantaneous death, and the said injuries along with injury No. 3 were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Apart from proving the post-mortem report Ext. 8 the also proved Ext. 7, and his opinion with reference to the query of the Investigating Officer is that the Injuries noticed on the dead body of the deceased were possible by the axe (M. O 1.) which was despatched to him by the 1. 0. Thus, the unchallenged evidence of the Doctor will lead to the conclusion that the death of the deceased Jayanti Jojo was homicidal in nature. ( 9 ) THE only question to be determined now is as to whether the accused-appellant was the author of the crime. As already stated P. Ws. 8 and 9 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. Both of them have deposed that while they were dining in the house of P. W. 10. Who happens to be the younger brother of the deceased at about 5 P. M. on 19. 6. 1982 the accused appellant appeared in a drunken state demanding for service of beaf curry to him. But as they replied that they had already consumed the beef curry and there was nothing left to be served to him, the accused-appellant got enraged and gave push to the P. W. 10 insisting for service of beef curry. 6. 1982 the accused appellant appeared in a drunken state demanding for service of beaf curry to him. But as they replied that they had already consumed the beef curry and there was nothing left to be served to him, the accused-appellant got enraged and gave push to the P. W. 10 insisting for service of beef curry. P. W. 10 thereafter retaliated by giving a push to the accused-appellant and both of them quarrelled for some time. The accused-appellant thereafter left the place and reappeared there some time after with an axe threatening to assault P. W. 10. P. W. 10 being afraid of his life fled away and he wall chased by accused-appellant. The deceased being a sister of P. W. 10 followed the accused apprehending danger to the life of her brother. P. Ws. 8 and 9 deposed that they also followed the accused apprehending the danger to the life of P. W. 10 and his sister. According to them P. W. 10 some how managed to escape after crossing Barjotoli. The deceased was then following the accused and reached near Mahula tree standing on the field of Thakur Barjo. There the accused-appellant dealt axe blows to the neck and back of the deceased as a consequence of which she fell down dead. The accused thereafter fled away with the axe towards a hillock nearby. Both of them went near the deceased and found her lying there and then informed P. W. 10 who came there. P. W. 10 had not actually seen the accused dealing the axe blows on the deceased, but corroborates the rest of the story of chasing by the accused as deposed to by P. W. 8 and 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has strenuously urged that immediately before the occurrence there was a quarrel between the accused-appellant in one hand and P. W. 8 and 9 on the other and therefore, they are inimically disposed against the accused appellant and their evidence should not have been accepted by the Addi. Sessions Judge. There is hardly any material in evidence to term the witnesses P. Ws. 8 and 9 as Interested for the prosecution or inimically disposed against the accused. Sessions Judge. There is hardly any material in evidence to term the witnesses P. Ws. 8 and 9 as Interested for the prosecution or inimically disposed against the accused. The quarrel which preceded the occurrence is a part of the chain of circumstances leading to the occurrence itself and the same cannot be taken to be a ground for discarding the evidence of P. Ws. 8 and 9 as they might have a grudge against the accused. There is absolutely no apparent reason as to why they would depose against the accused-appellant implicating him falsely in such a serious crime. Over and above, their evidence mutually corroborate each other and in our opinion is convincing. Admittedly there was no previous enmity between the accused and these witnesses. Thus, we do not find any reason not to accept the evidence of these witnesses. ( 10 ) EVEN assuming that P. Ws. 8 and 9 are interested witnesses, the position is well settled that interestedness by itself is not a valid ground for discarding or rejecting the sworn testimony of the witnesses. All that is necessary is that the evidence of the interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. In such scrutiny, interested testimony of a witness is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient, in the circumstances of the particular case, to base a conviction thereon Han Obula Reddi and others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh1. ( 11 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that P. W. 8 stated in his cross- examination that when the quarrel was going on in the house of P. W. 10, another person Mangara Samad had also some there. He advanced an argument that non-examination of the said person, would have been examined as a material witness for the prosecution for having witnessed the quarrel would cast serious suspicion in accepting the story of occurrence as deposed to by P. Ws. 8 and 9, We do not find any substance in this argument. Admittedly Mangara Samad was, not a witness to the actual occurrence of killing the deceased nor did he follow the accused when he chased P. W. 10. 8 and 9, We do not find any substance in this argument. Admittedly Mangara Samad was, not a witness to the actual occurrence of killing the deceased nor did he follow the accused when he chased P. W. 10. The law is well settled that the prosecution need not examine each and every person who is a witness to any of the circumstances leading to the commission of crime. Examination of the aforesaid person by the prosecution would have been a mere duplication of the story narrated by P. Ws. 8. 9 and 10 and would not have improved the position of the accused appellant in any manner whatsoever. Thus we do not find any substance in the point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. ( 12 ) THE next ground against the prosecution case is the delay in lodging the F. I. R. The occurrence admittedly took place on 19. 6. 1982 at about 7 P. M. and the F. I. R was lodged at Hatibari out-post on 20-6-1982 at 8. 15 a. m. It is in evidence of P. W. 1, a cousin brother of the deceased, that on getting the information about the death of his cousin Jayanti at about 9 pm. he unsuccessfully made an attempt to search for the accused and thereafter informed the Garmarakshi, P. W. 2, to accompany him to tile Police Station. According to him, the Gramarakshi advised him to go to the Police Station for lodging the F. I. R. in the next morning which he did. P. W. 2, the Gramarakshi deposed that after getting information from P. Ws. I and 9, he started for Hatibari Out Post in the said night but the Police Officer in the Police Station advised him to go back to the place of occurrence and watch the dead body during the night. According to his version he came back and watched the dead body till the following morning and accompanied P. Ws. 1 and 9 to the Out-Post that very morning, That P. W. 2 had gone to Hatibari Out Post in the night of the occurrence does not find support from the testimony of 1. 0. P. W. 12 The fact, however, remains that the Gramarakshi, P. W. 2, was informed about the occurrence soon-after it took place. 1 and 9 to the Out-Post that very morning, That P. W. 2 had gone to Hatibari Out Post in the night of the occurrence does not find support from the testimony of 1. 0. P. W. 12 The fact, however, remains that the Gramarakshi, P. W. 2, was informed about the occurrence soon-after it took place. Unexplained delay in lodging F. I. R. gives a scope for connection of a story leading to the murder of the deceased. But the delay in lodging the F. I. R. in our opinion has been sufficiently explained by the circumstances appearing in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. Admittedly the occurrence took place at about 7 p. m. The accused after committing the murder had fled away and he had not been apprehended either by the police or by the villagers. Some search was made by P. W. 1 where after he informed the Gramarakshi about the incident. By the time the Gramarakhi got the information about the incident it was about 9 pm. in the night. The explanation given in the F. I. R. by P. W. 1 as well as in his evidence is that the Gramarakshi, P. W. 2, advised him to watch over the dead body during the night and inform the police next morning. The occurrence took place in the interior part of the district of Sundargarh. P. Ws. 1 and 9 are rustic persons and their not going to the Police Station in the night of occurrence can not be viewed with suspicion. That apart, the Gramarakshi was informed after about two hours of the occurrence who had come to the spot soon thereafter. The Gramarakshi, P. W. 2, of course made a statement that he had gone to the Police Station in the night of occurrence and lodged the Information, but the Police Officer in the Out-Post advised him to guard the dead body during the night and that F. I. R. was lodged on the following morning. This part of evidence of P. W. 2 hay not been supported by the Lal, P. W. 12. This part of evidence of P. W. 2 hay not been supported by the Lal, P. W. 12. The only inference available from the said discrepancy in the evidence of P. W. 2 and P. W 12 is that P. W. 2 being a Gramarakshi falsely deposed that he had gone to the Out-Post in the night of the occurrence with a view to save himself from the consequence of negligence of duty as he was duty bound to inform the Police as early as possible. That by itself would not make the explanation offered by P. W. 2 unacceptable. We are, therefore, of the view that a reasonable explanation for the delay in lodging the F. I. R. has been given by the prosecution. ( 13 ) THE conclusion so far reached leads as to the third stage in the language of the Supreme Court in the case reported in Ravavarappu Punnayya and another v. State of Andhra Pradesh2. Their Lordships have observed that whenever a court is confronted with the question whether the offence is murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder, it will be convenient for it to approach the problem in three stages. The question to be considered at the first stage would be whether the accused has done an act doing which he has caused the death of another. Proof of such casual connection between the act of accused and the death of the deceased, leads to the second stage for considering whether that act of the accused amounts to culpable homicidet as defined in section 299 of the Indian Penal Code. If the answer to this question is prima facie found in the affirmative, the 3rd stage is reached for considering the operation of section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. At this stage the court should determine whether the facts proved by the prosecution bring the case within the ambit of any of the four Clauses of definition of murder contained in section 300, I. P. C. If the answer to the question is in negative, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under the first or second part of section 304, I. P. C. , depending, respectively, on whether the second or the Third Clause of section 299, I. P. C is applicable. If this question is found in the positive, but the case within any of the exceptions enumerated in section 300, the offence would still be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under the First Part of section 304, I. P. C. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has tried to bring this case within the exception to section 300, I. P. C. saying that the appellant was deprived of the power of self control by grave and sudden provocation as he was being chased by the deceased as would be found from the evidence on record. In our considered view, we do not think that this case can be brought under any of the Exceptions to section 300, I. P. C. As deposed to by the Doctor (P. W. 7), besides three incised wounds which were grievous in nature, two other incised wounds of simple nature were also inflicted. The injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were quite heavy so as to cut the cervical vertebra into pieces. There can be no Question of grave and sudden provocation as the deceased was a lady running unarmed behind the accused. According to the Doctor, all the aforesaid injuries could have been caused by the sharp cutting weapon like the axe (M. O. 1 ). It is further evident that three grievous injuries were inflicted on a vital part of the body like the neck. It is, therefore, apparent that the appellant must have known that by his act he was likely to cause the death of the deceased. Thus on the evidence on record it is not possible to come to any other conclusion than that the accused-appellant intended to Cause such injuries which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. That being so the offence squarely comes under the Third Clause to section 300, I. P. C. ( 14 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. .