JUDGMENT L. Manoharan, J. 1. Accused 1 to 3 in Sessions Case No. 65 of 1987 of the First Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam are the appellants. Accused 1 to 3 along with the 4th accused one Salim ware charged under S.341, 506 (ii) and 302 read with S.34 I.P.C. Learned First Additional Sessions Judge found accused 1 to 3 guilty of the offence punishable under S.302 read with S.34 IPC and sentenced each to undergo imprisonment for life under the said Section. Fourth accused was acquitted. Accused 1 to 3 challenge the conviction and sentence in this appeal. 2. Prosecution case can be summarised as follows :- On account of the enmity the accused persons had against Jose Thomas (deceased), son of PW 10, in furtherance of their common intention to cause the death of Jose Thomas, first accused armed with MO 6 chopper. and accused 2 and 3 armed with MOs. 7 chopper and 8 knife assembled on 29-8-1986 at about 7.30 P. M. on the rear side of the house situated near the fire station at Aluva Ma which accused 1 and 2 were residing. While, they were so waiting, on seeing Jose Thomas (deceased) riding on the pillion of a scooter ridden by PW 1, proceeding from east to west, the 3rd accused made a hiz-hiz sound to the deceased to stop whereupon Jose Thomas asked PW 1 to stop the scooter. The scooter was stopped and Jose Thomas came towards the place where the 3rd accused was standing in the company of the 4th accused. PW 1 remained where the scooter was stopped. Accused 1 and 2 approached PW 1 and criminally intimidated him saying that he would be done away with if he remained there and asked him to go away, PW.1 moved away to some distance. Then accused 1 and 2 also closed in where Jose Thomas was standing, When first accused armed with MO. 6 chopper, second accused armed with MO-7 chopper and third accused armed with MO-8 knife came closer, the scared Jose Thomas pleaded not to kill him. Accused 1 to 4 restrained Jose Thomas from escaping ; first accused cut him with MO. 6 chopper on his right hand, second accused cut him with MO-7 chopper on his left hand and third accused inflicted a stab on his chest with MO-8 knife. Accused 1 to 4 restrained Jose Thomas from escaping ; first accused cut him with MO. 6 chopper on his right hand, second accused cut him with MO-7 chopper on his left hand and third accused inflicted a stab on his chest with MO-8 knife. Again first accused inflicted several cut injuries on Jose Thomas, one of which fell on the left side of his (Jose Thomas) neck. On receiving the injuries he fell down. Thereafter, accused 1 and 2 Inflicted several cut injuries on different parts of the body of Jose Thomas, and third accused again stabbed him on his chest. Finally, first accused dealt a violent blow with MO-6 chopper on his neck which almost decapitated Jose Thomas. Accused 1 and 3 escaped on a scooter and accused 2 and 4 escaped on a motor cycle. 3. PW-36, Additional Sub Inspector of Police attached to the Police Station, Aluva, on receiving information over phone proceeded to the scene of occurrence. He saw the injured lying on the road with bleeding injuries. He took him to the Government Hospital, Aluva where he was pronounced dead, PW 36 made enquiries in the hospital whether any person had seen the occurrence; on learning that PW 1 saw the occurrence took him Jo the police station. He recorded Ext. P1(a) First information statement at 9.15 P.M. on 29-8-1986 and registered crime 362 of 1986 for which fee prepared Ext. P1 (b) F. I. R. against accused 1 to 3 and another person who could be identified on sight. 4. PW-45 took over the investigation in the same night. He deputed PW 36 on the next day for preparing inquest. He (PW-36) held inquest and prepared Ext. P18 inquest report PW 42 held autopsy; Ext. P45 is the post mortem report. PW 44 proceeded to the scene and prepared Ext. P19 scene mahazar. He seized the material objects found at the scene. As per his instruction PW 37 conducted search in the houses of the accused persons. Exts. P32 to 41 are copies of search memo and search list. PW 41, Sub Inspector of Police, Binanipuram seized the shirt of the second accused (MO-14) produced by PW 16 under Ext. P15. He also seized MO-16 shirt of the first accused and MO-17 shut of the 4th accused under Ext. P16 which were produced by PW 16. Exts. P32 to 41 are copies of search memo and search list. PW 41, Sub Inspector of Police, Binanipuram seized the shirt of the second accused (MO-14) produced by PW 16 under Ext. P15. He also seized MO-16 shirt of the first accused and MO-17 shut of the 4th accused under Ext. P16 which were produced by PW 16. PW 44 arrested the accused from Manjeri at 11 P.M. on 28-9-1986. Accused were produced before the Magistrate, and PW 44 obtained the custody of the accused for a period from 30-9-1986 to 6-10-1986. As per the information received from the third accused on questioning, he recovered MO. 8 knife on 1-10-1986 under Ext. P20, and recovered MO-7 chopper under Ext. P21 on 2-10-1986 as per the information received from the second accused. MO. 6 chopper was seized by PW 44 from the scene in Crime No. 361/1986 in which Jolly Thomas, the brother of Jose Thomas was also murdered in the same night of the occurrence in this case. PW 44 questioned the witnesses, completed the investigation and laid charge before court. Prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 44, produced Exts. P1 to P - 66 and identified MOs. 1 to 24. On the defence side Exts. D1 to D7 were marked. 5. PW-42 who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Jose Thomas described the injuries in her evidence as well as in Ext. P45 as follows: "1. A curved incised wound 18 x 8 cms on the medical aspect of right elbow anterle-posteriorly, a flap of skin as the muscles is hanging down edges slightly irregular in the middle part. On dissection it is 2 cm in depth cutting the underlying bone. 2. Oblique incised gaping wound 12 x 6 cms on the anterior aspect of the right hand 3 cms below the elbow edges regular and everted. On dissecting, wound is 4 cm in depth cutting the underlying muscles and vessels with fracture of the underlying bone. 3. Oblique incised gaping wound 9 x 5 cms on the lateral aspect of right hand 5 cms below the elbow; edges regular and everted, depth is 2 cms cutting the muscles and vessels exposing the bone, fracture on the underlying bone. 4. 3. Oblique incised gaping wound 9 x 5 cms on the lateral aspect of right hand 5 cms below the elbow; edges regular and everted, depth is 2 cms cutting the muscles and vessels exposing the bone, fracture on the underlying bone. 4. Incised wound 10x9 cms starting from the lateral end of left shoulder to root of neck anterio-posteriorly, wound is directed downwards and medially, edges irregular at the medial part, depth is 3 cms. exposing the shoulder joint. 5. Vertical incised gaping wound on the lateral aspect of left upper arm 21 x 6 cms tapering to the shoulder, edges regular and everted dissecting it is 4 cms deep, cutting the underlying muscles and vessels exposing the bone. There is leniar fracture of the underlying bone. 6. Oblique incised wound 3x1 cm, skin deep on the medial aspect of left shoulder. 7. Lacerated wound on the medial aspect of left hand running antero posteriorly 10 cms above the wrist cutting the underlying 'muscles, vessels and bones etc. and hanging down only by the skin on the lacerated aspect 8. Transverse incised gaping wound, on the left side f the chest 5 cms above the left nipple, wound is 7x3 cms skin deep, edges regular. 9. Another transverse gaping incised wound 2.5 cms above, the Injury No. 8 wound is 9x5 cms, bone deep cutting the muscles and vessels. 10. Incised gaping wound 11x7 cms triangular shape, starting from in front of the left knee downwards, base of the wound is above and tapering downward. 11. There is no Injury on the left foot where it is bandaged. 12. Head is decapitated anteriorly at the level of 6 cms above the supra sternal notch, posteriorly at the level of 4th survical vertibra is fractured, cut surface is irregular, shows ridge formation at the level of 10 cms from the anterior boarder, edges irregular and everted, muscles contused and bruised, cut section of osophagus, trachea carotids, jugulars etc. seen. Blood clots haematoma seen on the cut surface." The Doctor herself has stated that she did not find any injury In the bandaged portion of left foot which is described as injury No. 11. She said, the death was due to decapitation. According to her, injury No. 8 could be caused with MO.6 and injuries 3 and 7 are defensive in nature. She said, the death was due to decapitation. According to her, injury No. 8 could be caused with MO.6 and injuries 3 and 7 are defensive in nature. She said, injury No 8 could be caused with MO-6 chopper and Injury No.7 could be caused with a weapon like MO.7. She added that, injuries Nos. 8 and 9 could be caused with a knife like MO.8. She said, all other injuries except injury Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9 could be caused by cutting with MOs. 6 and 7 choppers. According to her injury No. 12 is fatal and could cause death instantaneously. She added that, injury No. 12 is not due to a single cut. From the evidence of PW 42 and Ext. P45, it is clear that the death of Jose Thomas was culpable homicide amounting to murder. 6. Prosecution examined PWs. 1, 2 and 6 as the occurrence witnesses of whom PWs. 1 and 2 turned hostile they did not support the prosecution case. PW 6 supported the prosecution, naturally therefore the thrust of the attack by the learned counsel for the appellants was against the acceptability of the evidence of PW 6, PW 6 said, he is a native of Kilikollur at Kollam, that for the last over 8 years he is residing at Aluva along with his sister and that, he is a cooly. He said, on 29-8-1986 at about 7. 30 P. M, while he was returning from the market to the private bus stand after his work and reached near the fire station in front of Paulson Tailors he saw Jose Thomas (deceased) riding on the Pillon of the scooter ridden by PW - 1 towards the private bus stand. At that time the third accused made a hiz - hiz sound, whereupon the scooter was stopped and Jose Thomas proceeded towards the place where accused 3 and 4 were standing. Then from the house of Moothedan accused 1 and 2 came out with choppers in their hands. PW. 1 stood a little away from the place where accused 3 and 4 were standing. He (PW - 6) said accused 1 and 2 restrained Jose Thomas (deceased) who pleaded, not to kill him and that, at that time first accused inflicted a cut injury with MO - 6 chopper on Jose Thomas. PW. 1 stood a little away from the place where accused 3 and 4 were standing. He (PW - 6) said accused 1 and 2 restrained Jose Thomas (deceased) who pleaded, not to kill him and that, at that time first accused inflicted a cut injury with MO - 6 chopper on Jose Thomas. Then the second accused inflicted another cut injury with MO -7 chopper on the left hand of Jose Thomas. Third accused who rushed to the scene stabbed Jose Thomas on his chest with MO - 8. Again first accused inflicted a cut injury on the left side of the neck of Jose Thomas, receiving which he fell down. Then all the accused inflicted injuries on Jose Thomas and finally first accused inflicted a heavy cut on the neck of Jose Thomas and declared that he is finished; then said that, they should now look for the other man. Saying this, accused 1 and 3 left the scene on a scooter; they were followed by accused 2 and 4 on a motor cycle. He said, there was enough light from the nearby electric post and also from the houses. 7. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the evidence of this witness is unworthy of acceptance. Learned counsel contended that the very conduct of PW 6 is such that the same would show that his evidence is not trust worthy. He pointed out that, he improved upon his statement recorded under S.164 Cr. P. C. by PW 34 the Magistrate. It is also his case that, there is no satisfactory explanation for his presence at the scene. He would maintain that he (PW-6) being an interested and a chance witness, his evidence cannot be accepted for bringing home the guilt of the accused. 8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor maintained that not only that PW 6 is a natural witness, his evidence does not suffer from any infirmity and that his evidence also gets enough corroboration from independent sources. When such is the situation, according to the learned Public Prosecutor, the evidence of PW 6 is acceptable. 9. The occasion for the presence of a witness particularly an occurrence witness has to be examined with due regard to the time of occurrence as well as the scene of occurrence. The scene of occurrence is a road in the heart of Aluva Town. 9. The occasion for the presence of a witness particularly an occurrence witness has to be examined with due regard to the time of occurrence as well as the scene of occurrence. The scene of occurrence is a road in the heart of Aluva Town. The time of occurrence is 7.30 P. M. a time when a town would be live and busy, PW 6 said, he was proceeding to the private bus stand from Aluva market after his work and on his way he saw the occurrence. The presence of a person like PW.6 at that hour near the scene of occurrence cannot be termed unusual. There can be nothing unusual in a pedestrian like PW.6 being in apublic place like the scene of occurrence at that hour. In the decision in Rana Pratap v. State of Haryana ( AIR 1983 SC 680 ) the Supreme Court observed: "Murders are not committed with previous notice to witnesses: soliciting their presence. If murder is committed in a dwelling house, the inmates of the house are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a brothel, prostitutes and paramours are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a street, only passers by will be witnesses. Their evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are mere 'chance witnessed'. This court is Beeran v. State of Kerala ( 1991 (2) KLT 175 ) has also pointed out that the evidence of witness cannot be rejected on a sweeping generalisation that he is a chance witness. On the other hand, the evidence has to be judged for its inherent worth. With due regard to the occupation of PW 6, the occasion for his presence spoken to by him would show that he is a natural and probable witness. He (PW 6) said, after the occurrence he went home and told the same to one Chandran; but it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that, he did not say so in his statement under S.164 Cr. P. C. That, in the circumstance can be treated only as a minor discrepancy. It was contended that, in his statement under S.164 Cr. P. C. he did not state the exact places where the injuries ware inflected, though he gave such details also when he gave evidence in court. P. C. That, in the circumstance can be treated only as a minor discrepancy. It was contended that, in his statement under S.164 Cr. P. C. he did not state the exact places where the injuries ware inflected, though he gave such details also when he gave evidence in court. PW 6 said, he was in a perplexed condition when he was questioned under S.161 Cr. P. C. and when he gave the statement under S.164 Cr. P. C. he did not remember the said details. 10. A realistic approach to the evidence of PW.6 certainly is called for. The very injuries inflicted on the victim would show the ghastly nature of the occurrence. Over and above the several injuries sustained by Jose Thomas, practically he was decapitated and that took place all of a sudden in the heart of a town, when none could have been prepared for that rude, merciless and shocking occurrence. Every one there naturally would have been dismayed on being suddenly thrown against such a bloody scene. When a witness re - produces the said scene if some omission or error occurs in the minor details in his statement under S.164 Cr. P. C. that cannot be projected as a reason for disbelieving the witness. 11. The contention that PW. 6 did not do anything on seeing Jose Thomas being attacked, in our view, cannot be a ground for disbelieving him. As we have pointed out, a person who witnesses such an occurrence would be simply left mute on account of fear, and shock. There was hardly time for one to recover from that so that he could react. It need not necessarily be that all react to an occurrence in the same manner. When the armed and ferocious three accused started butchering another, one would shudder to interfere and he would miss even his voice to raise an alarm; that cannot be put against him as a reason to disbelieve his evidence. The argument based on injury No. 12 to the effect that the same does not agree with what 5 PW 6 said too, in our view, is note acceptable. True, PW 6 said, finally the first accused dealt a heavy blow with MO. 6 chopper on the neck of Jose Thomas and according to PW 42 injury No. 12 could be caused on account of more than one cut. True, PW 6 said, finally the first accused dealt a heavy blow with MO. 6 chopper on the neck of Jose Thomas and according to PW 42 injury No. 12 could be caused on account of more than one cut. As we have pointed early, all that a person who happens to witness such an occurrence can perceive and retain is the assailants inflicting the injuries with the respective weapons at various parts of the body of the victim, and if he could not recapitulate a photographic re-production of each and every injury with particular reference to the places where the injuries were Inflicted, that cannot operate as a circumstance against the trustworthiness of the witness, We see no force in the said argument. 12. As is held in Vahula Bhushan v. State of Tamil Nadu (1989 Cr L. J. 799) there is no rule of law which states that the testimony of single witness cannot be accepted and the conviction cannot be based on such evidence, if his evidence is otherwise worthy of acceptance. Apart from the same, there is corroboration for the evidence of PW.6 PW.44 in his evidence said, he arrested the accused on 28-9-1986 at 11 P.M. from the Manjeri Tourist Home at Manjeri and as per Ext. P20 (a) information received from the third. accused on questioning him, on 1-10-1986 he proceeded to Parakkattil Timber Industries as led by the third accused and he (the 3rd accused) took out MO.8 knife from beneath the logs stacked in the yard and produced the same which he seized under Ext. P.20. 13. PW-44 also has stated that pursuant to Ext. P21 (a) information received from the second accused, he recovered MO-7 under Ext. P21 on 2.10.1988 which was produced by the second accused from the bush near the advertisement board of Dhanalakshmi Bank on the northern side of the road at Desom. 14. PW-23 is the attestor to Ext. P20 and PW 24 is the attestor to Ext. P21. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that PW 23 did not state to his having seen the production of the knife. But it should be noted that PW 20 admitted to his having seen the production of the knife. But it should be noted that PW 20 admitted to his having signed Ext. 20 and he also has admitted that the same was read over to him. But it should be noted that PW 20 admitted to his having seen the production of the knife. But it should be noted that PW 20 admitted to his having signed Ext. 20 and he also has admitted that the same was read over to him. PW 24 though said that he could not now identify the knife and the second accused, too has admitted to his having signed the mahazar. In this connection, it is worthy to note that PW 44 arrested the accused persons from the Manjeri Tourist Home at Manjeri. He seized Ext. P9 register and Ext. P.10 cash bill under Ext P11. PW 18, Manager of the Tourist Home stated that accused persons were residing in room No. 84 of the said tourist home from 11 P. M. on 29-8-1986. He identified the second accused who wrote the address in the register. They ware living so under a false address. PW 44 arrested them there. It is not as if, the uncorroborated evidence of a police officer cannot be relied on. As is held in Kadavanathil Baby v. State (1983 Crl. LJ 1186) the evidence of an investigating officer can be acted upon evert if his evidence is not corroborated by other evidence. When the investigating officer has proved the statement of the accused in pursuance of which the weapon was recovered from the place of concealment, the same could be acted upon particularly when the attestors to the respective mahazares admitted to their having signed the mahazar and also with due regard to the "attendant circumstance. In the absence of hostility, a police officer's evidence cannot be rejected (Nathusingh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1983 SC 2783). 15. PW-44 in his evidence said that MO.6 was recovered from the scene in crime No.361 of 1986. Jolly Thomas, brother of Jose Thomas (deceased in this case) was also murdered about 15 minutes after occurrence in this case at about 7.45 P. M. in the same night at Catholic Centre in Aluva Town. That case was tried as Sessions Case No.65 of 1987. According to PW 44 after murdering Jolly Thomas, accused persons proceeded to the Catholic Centre where they met Jose Thomas and murdered him after about 15 minutes of the occurrence in this case. PW 44 said MO 6 was seized from the scene in Crime No. 361/1986. These weapons had human bloodstain. 16. According to PW 44 after murdering Jolly Thomas, accused persons proceeded to the Catholic Centre where they met Jose Thomas and murdered him after about 15 minutes of the occurrence in this case. PW 44 said MO 6 was seized from the scene in Crime No. 361/1986. These weapons had human bloodstain. 16. The recoveries of weapons also have to be understood in the context of the accused person making themselves scarce they were not available after the occurrence until their arrest. When a person hides himself after the occurrence with the object of evading the process of law, that would amount to absconding. In the decision in Kartarey v. State of U. P. ( AIR 1976 SC 76 ) it is observed: "To be an 'absconder, in the eye of law, it is not necessary that a person should have run away from his home, it is sufficient if he hides himself to evade the process law even if the hiding place be his own home." The evidentiary value of the absconding would depend upon the circumstances; certainly the evidence of absconding would further fortify the satisfaction of the court with respect to the guilt of the accused. The evidence of PW 31, the Superintendent of Central Excise Range Office would show that the second accused who was a Peon in that office attended duty on 29-8 1986. 30-8-1986 and 31-8-1986 were public holidays and from 1-9-1986 onwards the second accused did not attend the office. Along with that, their residence in Manjeri Tourist Home at Manjeri in false address makes the absconding incriminatory. 17. PW-39, Doctor attached to the Lal Memorial Hospital, Iringalakuda, treated the second accused on 29-8-1986. She said, he was treated for an injury on the left eye brow and left little finger. The wound was stitched by her. PW 19 is the Administrator of the said hospital. He also corroborates the evidence of PW 39 as to the fact that the second accused was treated in that hospital. PW 39 identified the second accused as the person who was treated in the hospital. 18. PW-36 said that, at 9.15 P. M. on 29-8-1986 PW 1 came to the police station and tendered Ext. P1(a) F. I. statement. He has sworn as to what PW. 1 told him and recorded by him. PW 39 identified the second accused as the person who was treated in the hospital. 18. PW-36 said that, at 9.15 P. M. on 29-8-1986 PW 1 came to the police station and tendered Ext. P1(a) F. I. statement. He has sworn as to what PW. 1 told him and recorded by him. PW 1 did not support the said statement; but he admitted his signature in Ext. P1. According to him (PW-1) he was taken to the police station on the date of burial of Jose Thomas and was made to sign the statement. The statement under S.154 Cr. P. C. can be used for corroborating or contradicting the informant only. Ext. P1(b) reached the Magistrate at 7 P. M. on 30-8-1986, In view of the evidence of PW 36 and with due regard to the attendant circumstances, it is clear that PW 1 went to the police station on 29-8-1986 and tendered a statement. Though PW 1 was declared hostile and was permitted to be cross examined, that need not mean that the whole evidence of the witness has to be rejected. 19. In the decision in Khujji v. State of M. P. ( AIR 1991 SC 1853 ) PW 4 therein, who tendered the first information, turned hostile to the prosecution. Adverting to the same the Supreme Court observed at page 1858; "The first Information report is a detailed document and it is not possible to believe that the investigating officer imagined those details and prepared the document Ext. P3. The detailed narration about the incident in the first information report goes to show that the subsequent attempt of PW 4 to disown the document, while admitting his signature thereon, is a shift for reasons best known to PW 4. We are, therefore, not prepared to accept the criticism that the version regarding the incident is the result of some fertile thinking on the part of the investigating officer. We are satisfied, beyond any manner of doubt, that PW 4 had gone to the police station and had longed the first information report. To the extent he has been contradicted with the facts stated in the first information report shows that he has tried to resile from his earlier version regarding the incident." Here also Ext. P1 contain the details of the occurrence. To the extent he has been contradicted with the facts stated in the first information report shows that he has tried to resile from his earlier version regarding the incident." Here also Ext. P1 contain the details of the occurrence. As is held in Nathusingh's case ( AIR 1973 SC 2783 ), the mere fact that PW 36 is a police officer is no reason to disbelieve him. In Ext. P1(b) F.I.R. the 4th accused is mentioned only as a friend of accused 1 to 3 who could be identified on sight, for the name of the 4th accused was not mentioned in the first information statement. Thus the fact remains that the F. I. statement was recorded in the night of 29-8-1986. 20. Prosecution has also made reliance on the evidence of PW.41 and Exts. P15 and P16. Under Ext P15, PW 41 seized MO-14 shirt and under Ext. P16 he seized MO-36 shirt According to the learned Public Prosecutor MOs. 14 and 16 respectively were worn by accused 2 and 1 at the time or occurrence and the same had human bloodstains. PW 9 did not identify the said shirts worn by accused 1 and 2. PW. 41 claimed that these shirts were produced before him by PW 16. According to the prosecution after the occurrence accused 1, 2 and 4 came to the residence of PW 16; changed their dress after obtaining another set of dress from PW 16, and it was the said shirts that PW 16 produced before PW 41. But PW 16 did not support the prosecution. Though his statement under S.164 Cr. P. C. was recorded, he denied the contents of the same. His statement under S.164 Cr. P. C. cannot be treated as substantive evidence. Consequently the said piece of evidence cannot be relied on; but that cannot affect the probative force of evidence of PW 6 and the other attendant circumstances to which advertence has already been made. 21. It was contended by the learned Public Prosecutor, there is acceptable evidence as to motive also. Reliance was placed on the evidence of PW 38 and Ext. P32, and also the evidence of PWs. 7, 8 and 10. According to the prosecution, there was longstanding enmity between the two families of the accused 1 and 2 and the deceased and it was on account of the said enmity Jose Thomas was murdered. Reliance was placed on the evidence of PW 38 and Ext. P32, and also the evidence of PWs. 7, 8 and 10. According to the prosecution, there was longstanding enmity between the two families of the accused 1 and 2 and the deceased and it was on account of the said enmity Jose Thomas was murdered. 22. PW-38 charge sheeted Ext. P42 case. That was a case charge sheeted under S.143, 147, 148, 149, 324 and 307 read with S.34 IPC, PW 4 was injured in that case who is the brother of accused 1 and 2. PW 3, the brother of deceased was the second accused in Ext. P42 case. That case ended in acquittal. It is the prosecution case that in spite of the acquittal, there was enmity. 23. Learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that Ext. P42 would show that the parties had settled the matter and that was the reason why the case ended in acquittal. There is an observation in Ext. P42 to the effect that, according to the prosecution the parties had compromised the matter. That was not a compoundable offence. Learned counsel for the appellants also relied on the evidence of PW 4 in support of his contention that even after the said case, they had partnership business. No deed of partnership was produced. PW 4 turned hostile to the prosecution and he is the brother of accused 1 and 2. 24. Apart from the same, the evidence of PW 7 would show that there was persisting enmity between the families of the accused and deceased. PW 7 said, a week before the date of occurrence on his way back from his sister's house, the head light of bis motor cycle got damaged, and therefore, to repair the same he went to the Auto Aids work Shop which belonged to Jose Thomas (deceased) According to him, while he was there, first accused came there in a scooter and picked-up quarrel with Jose Thomas and held out threat that they are (accused) twelve and that they would lake away his head. The criticism against the evidence of this witness is that, he had another way to his house. But PW 7 said that, his brother-in-law had to be dropped in the hospital on his way to his house. 25. PW 10 is the mother of Jose Thomas (deceased). The criticism against the evidence of this witness is that, he had another way to his house. But PW 7 said that, his brother-in-law had to be dropped in the hospital on his way to his house. 25. PW 10 is the mother of Jose Thomas (deceased). She also said, four months before the date of occurrence, first accused and Jose Thomas quarreled and the first accused held out the same threat. When there is evidence as to the occurrence the role of motive is only minimum, and when the direct evidence is of an acceptable nature regarding the commission of the offence the question of motive become immaterial (State of A. P. v. B. Chandraiah - AIR 1986 SC 1899 ). We have adverted to the evidence of PW 6 Not only that his evidence on a careful scrutiny is acceptable, his evidence gets enough corroboration from the evidence of recovery regarding MOs. 7 and 8, the evidence as regards the treatment that the second accused got on 29-8-1986 for the injuries sustained by him, the conduct of the accused by absconding and the evidence as regards motive. Thus the evidence of PW 6 not only is individually acceptable, bat the same gets enough corroboration also. Even in the absence of evidence regarding motive, the evidence of PW 6 and other circumstances to which advertence has already been made would prove beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt the guilt of accused 1 to 3, There is no infirmity in the conviction and the sentences awarded by the learned Sessions Judge. The appeal is without any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.