B. K. SANGALAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment D/- 11-11-1994 passed in S. C. No. 99/93 by the learned XXI Additional Sessions Judge. Bangalore City convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under S. 302, I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE Inspector of Police, Malleswaram Police Station, Bangalore City filed the chargesheet against the appellant/accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused) for the offence under S. 302, I. P. C. before the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, who, in turn, committed this case to the Court of Session. The XXI Additional Sessions Judge has taken up this case for the final disposal and after hearing, the charge has been framed for the said offence and since the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, has posted the case for evidence of the prosecution witnesses. ( 3 ) THE prosecution has examined PWs-1 to 13 and got marked Exps P1 to P16 in addition to marking MOs 1 to 14. After the closure of the case, the accused has been examined under S. 313, Cr. P. C. wherein he has filed his written statement. The accused has also not chosen to lead any evidence on his behalf. After hearing the arguments, the learned Sessions Judge has recorded the conviction under Section 302, I. P. C. and sentenced him as stated above. ( 4 ) THE prosecution story in nutshell is as follows: The deceased Ramesh was the husband of PW-2 Leelavathi. He was running a grocery shop. Every day morning he used to open his shop at 9. 30 a. m. and carry on his business till 10. 00 p. m. On the date of the incident, i. e. , on 3-12-1992 the accused came near his shop and was standing in front of it. The deceased questioned him as to why he was standing there and further requested him not to stand in front of' his shop. For this, the accused took up an exception and abused in filthy words stating (Vernacular matter is omitted. . . . Ed. ). The accused also declared stating that he had taken five bottles of liquor. On not being satisfied with the statement, he proclaimed himself as he was the brother-in-law of a notorious rowdy by name Kencha and his name was Bala. . . . Ed. ). The accused also declared stating that he had taken five bottles of liquor. On not being satisfied with the statement, he proclaimed himself as he was the brother-in-law of a notorious rowdy by name Kencha and his name was Bala. So saying he caught hold of the collar of the deceased. The deceased told him that he would give the complaint. But the accused said contemptuously in a tone undermining the police that he had seen many police. Meanwhile some police PWs 9 and 10 who were on boat duty came there and made an enquiry and took both the deceased and the accused. However, the deceased was gracious enough not to pursue this matter too far. Then PW-2 who is the complainant went to bring vegetables. After he returned, within a short time, again the accused came to his shop and picked up quarrel using the above stated filthy words. The accused caught hold of the collar of the deceased and took out the knife from his waist and assaulted him indiscriminately. The deceased fell down in front of the shop of PW-8. PW-2 raised hue and cry. She took her husband to the K. C. General Hospital in an autorickshaw. PW-8 was also there. From the Hospital, she went to her brother's house to bring him. By the time, she came back with her brother, her husband had breathed his last. ( 5 ) PW-2 filed the complaint before PW-11 who was the S. H. O. as per Ex. P. 3, at 11. 10 p. m. He registered the case in Crime No. 539/92 under S. 302, I. P. C. and submitted FIR to the Court as per Ex. P. 8 through PW-7 and took up further investigation on the same night. ( 6 ) PW-13 after taking further investigation from the P. S. I.- PW-11 at 11. 20 p. m. or so went to K. C. General Hospital and saw the dead body and deputed PW-12 and the staff to trace the accused. On the same night he visited the scene of offence situated at 6th cross, Malleswaram, Margosa Road. He drew up the spot Mahazar as per Ex. P. 7 and also seized bloodstained chappals M. O. 9. He got the photographs of the scene of offence as per M. O. 11. ( 7 ) AT about 1. On the same night he visited the scene of offence situated at 6th cross, Malleswaram, Margosa Road. He drew up the spot Mahazar as per Ex. P. 7 and also seized bloodstained chappals M. O. 9. He got the photographs of the scene of offence as per M. O. 11. ( 7 ) AT about 1. 00 a. m. PW-12 and the staff who were deputed to trace the accursed, produced the accused before PW-13 with a report as per Ex. P. 14. He arrested the accused and searched his person in the presence of panchas including PW3 Nanjappa. During the personal search of the accused, he produced the knife (M. O. 5) which was bloodstained. The accused was wearing blue coloured jeans pant and a blue half sleeve shirt M. Os. 7 and 6 respectively. As they were blood stained he also seized the same under Panchanama Ex. P. 5 between 1. 15 a. m. to 2. 15 a. m. ( 8 ) ON 4-7- 1992, he held the inquest on the dead body of the deceased at the mortuary of K. C. General Hospital in the presence of panchas including PW-3 Nanjappa between 7 a. m. and 8. 10 a. m. as per Ex. P. 4. After the inquest, the dead body was sent to the Victoria Hospital for P. M. Examination. PW-1 who conducted P. M. examination has issued P. M. certificate as per Ex. P. 1. PW-1 has opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of multiple injuries. On 7-12-1992 he sent the requisition to P. W. D. Office to prepare the sketch and he received the same as per Ex. P. 6. He has also sent all the seized articles to the FSL and has received the report as per Ex. P5. ( 9 ) ON 25-1-1993, the CPI sent the knife MOS to PW-1 Doctor with a requisition to furnish his opinion with reference to the injuries noted in the P. M. report Ex. P1. On 27-2-1993, he received the opinion of PW-1 who opined that the injuries could be caused by a weapon like MO-5 as per Ex. P2. After receipt of all the documents, he filed the chargesheet against the accused. ( 10 ) THE learned Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the testimony of PW-2 and also has placed his reliance on the other circumstances. P2. After receipt of all the documents, he filed the chargesheet against the accused. ( 10 ) THE learned Sessions Judge has placed reliance on the testimony of PW-2 and also has placed his reliance on the other circumstances. He has found that the evidence of the prosecution was sufficient. As such he recorded the conviction. ( 11 ) SRI Ravi B. Naik, learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously submitted that there is no cogent and reliable evidence on the record. As such the conviction is bad. In addition to this, he submitted that there is delay in filing the complaint to the extent of three hours and further submitted that there is some discrepancies as far as the complaint is concerned. According to him, it is not clear whether it was oral or written complaint. The identity of the accused also has not been satisfactorily established. ( 12 ) SRI Satish, learned HCGP strongly sup-ported the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. ( 13 ) IN view of these rival contentions, now it is to be seen that whether there are any infirmities as submitted by Sri Ravi Naik in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. ( 14 ) AT the very outset it is to be stated that Sri Ravi Naik has fairly conceded as far as the finding of homicidal death is concerned. He does not dispute about this and he also does not dispute the number of injuries caused and the scene of offence. His main contention is that whether the evidence of PW-2 is acceptable. The prosecution has examined PW-8 as an eye-witness. But unfortunately, he has turned hostile. ( 15 ) AT about 8. 30 p. m. or so the incident has taken place just in front of the shop of the deceased. PW-2 who was present and who could witness this incident raised a hue and cry and took her husband to the Hospital. She also went to her brother's house to bring him. By the time, she returned, her husband was no more. Then she filed the complaint. PW-13 after taking the further investigation has held the inquest and then handed over the dead body for P. M. Examination. PW-1 who conducted the P. M. examination has issued the certificate as per Ex. P 1 mentioning as many as 15 injuries. By the time, she returned, her husband was no more. Then she filed the complaint. PW-13 after taking the further investigation has held the inquest and then handed over the dead body for P. M. Examination. PW-1 who conducted the P. M. examination has issued the certificate as per Ex. P 1 mentioning as many as 15 injuries. PW-1 has also opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of multiple injuries. All these clearly show that the deceased met with a homicidal death. ( 16 ) THE next question that is canvassed is whether the evidence of PW-2 can be accepted in toto. According to Mr. Naik, the conduct of PW-2 is unnatural. There is a delay in filing the complaint. The alleged incident took place at about 8. 30 p. m. and the complaint was lodged at 11. 10 p. m. As such there is a delay of three hours. In our opinion, this submission is totally unacceptable. More often than not we hear about the delay in lodging the complaint. In this case, it is to be seen that PW-2 was present in her shop. She could see the assault by the accused on her husband with M. O. 5. It is not one or two injuries. As many as 15 injuries were being inflicted. After all PW-2 is a lady. She could see her husband falling down on account of such a ghastly and brutal act of the accused. One could imagine the miserable condition of PW-2. We cannot expect a lady who had suffered from a horrible shock, immediately to jump on her legs and run to the police station, to inform the police. Her mind must have become blank, as she was dazed. More often any person under such circumstances would not know what to do. ( 17 ) THERE are many ifs and buts. In this case, the alleged incident took place after 8. 30 p. m. Within 2 1/2 hours, it is practically impossible to manipulate and concoct a false case against the accused. As she was present and as she had witnessed the incident, there were least possibilities of concocting a false case against the accused. ( 18 ) THE Defence counsel always expects a witness to behave in the same fashion he wants them to behave in a particular situation. As she was present and as she had witnessed the incident, there were least possibilities of concocting a false case against the accused. ( 18 ) THE Defence counsel always expects a witness to behave in the same fashion he wants them to behave in a particular situation. He approves the conduct of the witness as natural by his nod only if it is to his liking and if it can be used as lever for getting acquittal. Otherwise, according to him, the conduct of the witness is always unnatural. It is not only difficult and dangerous but also an impossible proposition that the reaction of the witnesses to a particular situation should not vary from one to another. Especially in case of ladies and that too when they could see their husbands falling down with multiple injuries the reaction would be totally different. Under such circumstances it is not unnatural if it is stated that their mind becomes totally blank and dazed. It is also elicited in the cross-examination that she raised hue and cry. ( 19 ) PW-8 who is a neighbour should have come to her rescue. But he has not supported the case as such the prosecution was left in lurch. 19-A. Another circumstance that could be seen is that PW-2 immediately has taken her husband to the Hospital. Can it he said that it is an unnatural conduct. A lady prefers to save the life of her husband than to run to the Police Station. It is her paramount consideration to see that her husband would be saved. Under such circumstances, we are unable to opine that her conduct was not natural. Moreover, after admitting her husband, she has immediately run to her brother's house. This is also a natural conduct because ordinarily persons will run to their relatives to take assistance from them. ( 20 ) SRI Naik also submitted that the name of the accused was Balu and not Bala and as such there are possibilities of giving a false complaint. 'this submission is also not accepted. In view of the evidence of PW-2, who states that the accused came and stood in front of their shop and her husband told him to go away. 'this submission is also not accepted. In view of the evidence of PW-2, who states that the accused came and stood in front of their shop and her husband told him to go away. The accused not only abused in filthy language, but also threatened claiming his notorious status in the Society stating that he was the brother-in-law of a notorious rowdy by name Kencha. At the same time, PWs-10 and 11 were on the beat duty. On seeing this galata, they came and made an enquiry and took both the deceased and the accused to the Police Station. Ex. P. 13 eloquently speaks about this. In Ex. P. 13, the name of the accused appears. Subsequently in Ex. P 1 also the same name appears. The incident has taken place at 8-30 p. m. PW-2 was present there. There were lights. Moreover, she has also given the physical features of the accused in her complaint, stating that the accused was of a height of 5'-6" with somewhat of white complexion. She has also stated that he was wearing blue coloured jeans and blue shirt. The accused was arrested at 12-30 a. m. All these circumstances clearly indicate that there is no difficulty in identifying the accused. It is also pertinent to note that soon after the arrest and on personal search, the accused has produced MO-5 which was seized under Ex. P. 5. Next day also she was shown in the police station. When so much material is on record, it is very difficult to accept the submission of Sri Naik that there are possibilities of committing mistakes in identifying the accused. ( 21 ) SRI Naik made much about the complaint. According to him, there were two complaints one was oral and another was written. If it is so, the real gernesis of the case is suppressed by the prosecution case. In our view, this submission also cannot be accepted. The witness deposed in the Court after a long long time after the incident, there are some variations here and there. No case can be free from some discrepancies. Some discrepancies are bound to be here and there. The totality of the evidence has to be seen while appreciating the evidence of PW-2. No doubt, she was an eye-witness to the incident. No case can be free from some discrepancies. Some discrepancies are bound to be here and there. The totality of the evidence has to be seen while appreciating the evidence of PW-2. No doubt, she was an eye-witness to the incident. The defence has not brought any material on the record to show that there was a previous enmity and there were possibilities of falsely implicating the accused. When we read the evidence of PW-2 it clearly goes to show that she was present and witnessed the incident and she heard the filthy language used by the accused and also she further heard the proclamation of his relationship and his name. In view of these facts and in view of Ex. P. 13 it goes without saying that there was a complaint as per Ex. P. 3 by PW-2. ( 22 ) SRI Naik also submitted that Ex. P. 13 can not be relied as there was no registration of the case. But the text of PW-13 shows that the deceased was gracious enough not to go any further in the case. So on account of this, the police might not have proceeded. It is also seen that both the deceased and the accused came together out of the police station. In view of this, this submission is also not acceptable. ( 23 ) THE evidence of PW-2, in our opinion does not suffer from any infirmities. The shop of the deceased and his house are adjoining to each other. So the presence of PW-2 was most probable. She has also immediately acted, in the sense, she immediately took her husband to the hospital and immediately she has gone to her relative's house and brought her brother and then she has gone to the police station to file the complaint. Beyond this, a person like PW-2 would not have done anything better. It is also too much to expect more than this from PW-2. Hence we are constrained to believe the testimony of PW-2. The learned Sessions Judge has taken all these aspects into consideration and appreciated the evidence on record in a proper perspective. We find no reason to interfere with the recording of conviction by the learned Sessions Judge. ( 24 ) IN the light of these observations made by us, the following order is passed. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed. We find no reason to interfere with the recording of conviction by the learned Sessions Judge. ( 24 ) IN the light of these observations made by us, the following order is passed. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .