R. K. PATRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Koraput convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 323, I. P. C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life on the first count and rigorous imprisonment for 15 days on the second count. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case is that the appellant and Dambu Melaka (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') were staying in one house but in different portions in village Dangar Chheka. On 16-3-1991 at about noon the appellant dismantled a wall of the house in absence of the deceased. On his return to the house, the deceased asked the appellant as to why he took such steps in dismantling the wall. It is the allegation of the prosecution that on being so confronted, the appellant assaulted the deceased by means of an axe on his head by giving three successive blows resulting in his instantaneous death. When Kusta Melaka, P. W. 8, protested, the appellant assaulted him by the blunt side of the axe on the middle of his head causing bleeding injury. ( 3 ) THE plea of the appellant was one of denial. ( 4 ) IN order to bring home the charges against the appellant, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses. P. Ws. 2, 8 and 9 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P. W. 6 is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on police requisition. P. W. 7 is the doctor who examined the injured, P. W. 8. On the basis of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, the learned Sessions Judge held that the appellant committed the murder of the deceased and also assaulted P. W. 8 and thus convicted him under Sections 302 and 323, I. P. C. ( 5 ) IT is not disputed before us that the deceased had a homicidal death. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased found the following injuries :external injuries :1. Lacerated wound measuring 1" x 2" x bone deep on right parietal region. 2. Lacerated wound 1/2" x 3/4" x bone deep on right side fore-head. 3. Bruise (black-eye) measuring 1/2" x 2" on the right upper eye-lid. 4. Cephal haematoma was present under wound No. (1 ). Internal injuries :1. Lacerated wound measuring 1" x 2" x bone deep on right parietal region. 2. Lacerated wound 1/2" x 3/4" x bone deep on right side fore-head. 3. Bruise (black-eye) measuring 1/2" x 2" on the right upper eye-lid. 4. Cephal haematoma was present under wound No. (1 ). Internal injuries :1. The membrane in right parietal lobe under injury No. (1) ruptured. 2. Laceration of right parietal lobe in brain. 3. The stomach contained undigested food. 4. Laceration of muscle fibres under injury Nos. (1) and (2 ). 5. Stellate and pond-shaped fracture in right parietal bone. He opined that those injuries were ante-mortem in nature and the cause of death was probably due to neurogenic shock and/or injury to vital organ like brain and/or intra-cracial haemorrhage. According to him, those injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. ( 6 ) SHRI Narasingh, learned counsel for the appellant, strenuously contended that P. W. 2 being a chance witness, his evidence cannot be accepted without corroboration. Regarding the evidence of P. Ws. 8 and 9 his submission was that they are unreliable for having made pre-varicating statements at different stages. He also commented that in the F. I. R. the time of occurrence was mentioned as at 8 a. m. whereas the eye-witnesses have deposed that it took place at noon. ( 7 ) WHO is a chance witness ? As observed by the Supreme Court in Bahal Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 1976 SC 2032 : (1976 Cri LJ 1568) if by coincidence or chance a person happens to be at the place of occurrence at the time it is taking place, he is called a chance witness. It all depends upon the facts and circumstances of a case to depict a witness a chance witness. One may be a chance witness even in his own house if, for instance, he should at that time have been in his office. If the presence of a witness at the place of occurrence is natural, his evidence cannot be brushed aside merely by describing him as a chance witness. His evidence may require a close scrutiny. Since besides P. W. 2 there are two other eye-witnesses, namely, P. Ws. 8 and 9, against whom there is no comment that they are chance witnesses, let us proceed to consider their evidence. His evidence may require a close scrutiny. Since besides P. W. 2 there are two other eye-witnesses, namely, P. Ws. 8 and 9, against whom there is no comment that they are chance witnesses, let us proceed to consider their evidence. PW 8 is a close neighbour of the appellant and the deceased. He stated that after he came from village Tunda, he took food in his house and was witting on the verandah. It was noon. The appellant and the deceased came from out-side and entered into their houses. After some time the deceased came out of his house and went to the other side. In the mean-time the appellant dismantled the wall of the house. The deceased came back and asked the appellant as to why he dismantled the wall. The appellant was holding an axe and told him as to why he would not dismantled the wall. So saying he assaulted the deceased by means of the axe by inflicting four blows on different parts of his head. When he (PW 8) asked the appellant as to why he was assaulting the deceased, the latter came and also assaulted him (PW 8) by the blunt side of the axe on the middle of his head. PW 7 is the doctor who examined PW 8 and found one abrasion 11/2" x 1/2" over the scalp on the middle part of the head. We have perused the evidence of PW 8 and did not find any serious infirmity in his evidence. His presence at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted in view of the fact that he himself had sustained injuries as noticed above. He is also not inimically disposed towards the appellant. PW 9 stated that his house is located close to the place of occurrence. When he heard the sound of falling down of a wall, he came out of his house and saw the deceased challenging the appellant as to why he was dismantling the wall. At this the appellant dealt one blow by means of an axe on the right side head above the ear of the deceased. As a result of the assault, the deceased fell down where after the appellant gave three axe blows on different parts of the head of the deceased. He also stated that when PW 8 protested, the appellant also assaulted him by means of the axe. As a result of the assault, the deceased fell down where after the appellant gave three axe blows on different parts of the head of the deceased. He also stated that when PW 8 protested, the appellant also assaulted him by means of the axe. He is a co-villager of the appellant and the deceased and in no way related to either of them. Nothing was bought out in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony. On perusal of the evidence of PWs 8 and 9, we are satisfied that their evidence is reliable and on their evidence itself the conviction of the appellant can be maintained. We may note here that although PWs 8 and 9 have stated that the occurrence took place at noon, in the F. I. R. it was mentioned that the occurrence took place at 8 a. m. The F. I. R. was lodged by PW 1 who is the father of the deceased. He had not seen the occurrence. He came to know about the incident after his return to the village from his field. PWs 1, 8 and 9 being illiterate and aboriginals have no sense of timing and the evidence of PWs 8 and 9 cannot be rejected merely on the ground that there was discrepancy with regard to the time of occurrence. ( 8 ) LET us not turn to the evidence of PW 2 who has been described by the learned counsel as a chance witness. He belongs to village Nakti. He stated that on that day he had been to village Tunda and while returning to his village, he took rest near the place of occurrence in a cow-shed. He deposed that when the appellant dismantled the middle wall of the house, the deceased came out and protested but immediately the appellant came out of his house with an axe and gave a blow on the left side head near the ear of the deceased. When he fell down, the appellant dealt three more blows by means of the axe on different parts of the head of the deceased. It appears from his cross-examination that he did not state before the police that after returning from village Tunda he was staying in the cow-shed near the place of occurrence. When he fell down, the appellant dealt three more blows by means of the axe on different parts of the head of the deceased. It appears from his cross-examination that he did not state before the police that after returning from village Tunda he was staying in the cow-shed near the place of occurrence. Although he speaks of the presence of PWs 8 and 9 at the time of occurrence, he stated that none of them came near the spot. He also does not speak about the appellant assaulting PW 8. His version that on his return from village Tunda, he was resting near the place of occurrence in a cow-shed cannot be accepted with a pinch of salt. If he had seen the assault by the appellant on the deceased, he could not have missed to see the appellant assaulting PW 8. That PW 8 was injured cannot be doubted in view of the medical report. In the circumstances, we cannot rely on the evidence of PW 2 to hold that he is one of the eye witnesses to the occurrence. ( 9 ) AS already indicated, we have found PWs 8 and 9 to be reliable. As their evidence does not suffer from any serious infirmity, we hold that the conviction of the appellant under Ss. 302 and 323, I. P. C. is well founded. ( 10 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. ( 11 ) C. R. PAL, J. , I agree. Appeal dismissed. .