Narasimham, J.- This is an appeal by the sole accused in Sessions Case No. 10 of 1964 in the Court of Session, Guntur, against his conviction under section 302, Indian Penal Code, and sentence of imprisonment for life for the murder of one Thengada Ramalingaiah, the Karnam of Madinapadu on 23rd November, 1963, at about 8 a.m. in a field about two furlongs from the village. The deceased Karnam was also the Branch Postmaster of Madinapadu. The facts are as follows: The accused is the son of one Ramakrishna Reddy, who was the Village Munsif of the hamlets of Madinapadu, viz., Sarangapalli and Kothur. There were ill-feelings between the accused and the deceased. The accused was living a wayward life. He separated from his father, spent away his property, divorced his wife and kept a Muslim married woman at Kothur. The accused used to complain to the Tahsildar against the Village Karnam that he was not furnishing the accounts of the land revenue, “Bakila Jabita”. The accused’s father also complained about the same. Besides these differences the deceased had made a complaint against a cousin of the accused, also bearing the same name, son of one Adinarayana Reddy for assaulting him at the time of revenue collections. The Dachepalli Police registered a case under section 353, Indian Penal Code, and filed a charge-sheet on 20th September, 1963, after arresting the said Atchi Reddy. That case was pending trial at the time of occurrence. It was adjourned several times, and stood posted to 26th November, 1963, before the Special Second Class Magistrate, Piduguralla. The accused tried to persuade the deceased Karnam to withdraw the case; but he did not do so. About six days prior to the occurrence, the accused went to the deceased’s house to prevail on him to withdraw the case. He repeatedly went to his house three times and on the third occasion he threatened the Karnam that he would see how the case would go on without being withdrawn. This took place at the deceased’s house prior to his leaving home for Mutyalampadu. The deceased Karnam’s brother, P.W. 12, was the Karnam of Mutyalampadu about 5 miles from Madinapadu. The Karnam visited P.W. 12’s house on the day prior to his death. It was a Friday. On that day the accused met the Karnam and made a pretence of requesting him to measure his land. The deceased Karnam’s brother, P.W. 12, was the Karnam of Mutyalampadu about 5 miles from Madinapadu. The Karnam visited P.W. 12’s house on the day prior to his death. It was a Friday. On that day the accused met the Karnam and made a pretence of requesting him to measure his land. After some time, he left. On the following day, early in the morning he turned up at P.W. 12’s house and asked the ‘Mohtad’ where Karnam Ramalingaiah was. The Mohtad, P.W. 13, told him that Ramalingaiah and his brother had just then left. Ramalingaiah was on his way to Madinapadu. The accused then left. On the day of occurrence Karnam Ramalingaiah and his brother started just prior to sun-rise and proceeded about 2 furlongs. Then P.W.2went to his Chilli field and the deceased proceeded to Madinapadu. P.W. 1. is a resident of Madinapadu and he used to carry Mail bags between Madinapadu and Dachepalli. On Thursday and Friday (the occurrence was on Saturday morning) he entrusted the work of carrying Mails to his son P.W. 8 as he had to attend a ceremony at Kothapalem about 6 miles from Mutyalampadu. P.W. 1 went to Kothapalem with his cousin P.W.2 who is also a resident of Madinapadu. P.Ws. 1 and 2 were returning to Madinapadu on the morning of 23rd November, 1963. They had to pass Mutyalampadu on the way. When P.Ws. 1 and 2 proceeded beyond the tank abutting the village of Mutyalampadu, they met the accused who was also proceeding towards Madinapadu. They enquired of him where he had been. He said that he went to meet Karnam Ramalingaiah for getting his field measured. At that time P.Ws. 1 and 2 noticed Karnam Ramalingaiah coming some distance behind. Then Karnam Ramalingaiah also joined them and all the four P.Ws. 1 and 2, the Karnam and the accused proceeded a mile together and reached the tank known as ‘Peddiraju Kunta,‘Karnam Ramalingaiah had his morning ablutions like the washing of teeth and face there. He asked P.Ws. 1 and 2 also to do the same at the tank and proceeded saying that a peon of the Postal official would be waiting for him at Madinapadu. The accused followed Karnam Ramalingaiah pretending to be very chummy with him. He placed his right hand on the shoulders of Karnam Ramalingaiah and proceeded in a friendly way. P.Ws. 1 and 2 also to do the same at the tank and proceeded saying that a peon of the Postal official would be waiting for him at Madinapadu. The accused followed Karnam Ramalingaiah pretending to be very chummy with him. He placed his right hand on the shoulders of Karnam Ramalingaiah and proceeded in a friendly way. P.Ws. 1, and 2 stopped for a while at the tank and then proceeded on the way to Madinapadu. When they were about 60 yards behind the accused and the deceased who were ahead of them, they heard Ramalingaiah’s cries pleading with the accused as to why he was stabbing him. P.Ws. 1 and 2 were attracted by the cries of Karnam Ramalingaiah and they noticed the accused stabbing Karnam Ramalingaiah with a dagger indiscriminately. They rushed towards the victim. The victim fell down when they were almost nearing. The accused ran way with the knife. It was about 8 a.m. then. They saw Karnam Ramalingaiah dead bleeding profusely from the stab wound on his body. At about 10 a.m. the accused went to his house at Kothur where he was keeping his mistress. Shaik Masthanbi (P.W. 11). He wore a dhoti and a shirt and had a lungi tied round his body at the neck. He had a bandage to his left little finger. There were blood-stains on his shirt. He went into the house when his mistress was sitting on the pial of his house. She enquired him about the blood-stains. He asked her not to be curious. He took another dhoti and shirt which were hanging in the house and left abruptly. The same day at about 2 p.m. the Police came enquiring about the accused’s whereabouts. The accused was thereafter at large till he was arrested when he was in the disguise as a Jangam. We would be referring to the circumstances of his arrest in the appropriate context. The place of occurrence was about 2 furlongs from Madinapadu village proper. P.Ws. 1 and 2 went to the Village Munsif of Madinapadu P.W. 24, and reported the occurrence to him. But the Village Munsif did not take a report from them. P.W. 24 is a relation of the accused being his first cousin (Ramakrishna Reddy, the father of the accused and P.W. 24’s father, Hanumaiah are brothers). Besides P.Ws. P.Ws. 1 and 2 went to the Village Munsif of Madinapadu P.W. 24, and reported the occurrence to him. But the Village Munsif did not take a report from them. P.W. 24 is a relation of the accused being his first cousin (Ramakrishna Reddy, the father of the accused and P.W. 24’s father, Hanumaiah are brothers). Besides P.Ws. 1 and 2, the occurrence was witnessed by P.W. 3, who is a nephew of the accused. Without obviously taking a report of the occurrence from P.Ws. 1 and 2 the Village Munsif, P.W. 24 despatched crime reports, Exhibits P-11 and P-12 through Mohtad Shaik John at 9-30 a.m. saying that he had information from the village Mohtad, Syed John that a dead body was lying in a field east of the Village, that he proceeded to the place and saw the Village Karnam who was stabbed to death and that he was submitting the reports. Exhibit P-11 was despatched to the Police Station at Dachepalli and Exhibit P-12 to the Magistrate at Gurazala. On receipt of the report at 11-30 a.m. the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W. 27 registered a crime for an offence under section 302, Indian Penal Code, prepared express reports (Exhibit P-15) and despatched them to all concerned. He then proceeded to the scene of occurrence and reached the place by about 1 p.m. The dead body lay 3 feet from the ridge of the field of Atchi Reddy, son of Adinarayana Reddy against whom Karnam Ramalingaiah had laid a complaint and by the side of the donka leading from Mutyalampadu to Madinapadu. He saw the articles belonging to the Village Munsif lying there pell-mell and particularly noticed M.Os. 7 and 8 (Exhibit P-2 and P-3). He held an inquest over the dead body from 2-30 p.m. to 5 p.m. Exhibits P-13 is the inquest report in which he made mention of M.Os. 7 and 8. He examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 at the inquest and P.W. 3 after the inquest. He seized M.Os. 7 and 8 among others. He despatched the body for post-mortem with a requisition. The Circle Inspector of Police, Gurazala Circle, (P.W. 28) took up further investigation. The Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Gurazala (P.W. 20) conducted the post-mortem examination commencing at 8 a.m. on 24th November, 1963. He seized M.Os. 7 and 8 among others. He despatched the body for post-mortem with a requisition. The Circle Inspector of Police, Gurazala Circle, (P.W. 28) took up further investigation. The Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Gurazala (P.W. 20) conducted the post-mortem examination commencing at 8 a.m. on 24th November, 1963. Rigor mortis was present in the lower limbs and death appeared to have occurred about 24 hours prior to the post-mortem examination. Externally the Medical Officer found the following injuries: “1. A lacerated scalp wound of 2½” length gaping 1“over a contusion of 6” diameter above the right pinnal with multiple fractures, of skull running towards right orbit occiput and top of the head. Membranes and brain underneath contused with clots. 2. A lacerated scalp wound of 1½“length over a contusion of 4” diameter, near the hairy margin above the bridge of nose with fractures of skull underneath and membranes and brain below contused with clots. 3. A stab wound 2” in length with clean edges 1” gaping running to a depth of 2½“cutting all tissues underneath below the right ear. 4. An incised skin deep wound of 1½” length gaping ½” below and lateral to the right eye. 5. An incised skin deep wound of 1½” length gaping ½“placed one inch below and medial to injury No. 4. 6. An incised wound of 1½” length with ½” gaping cutting the right angle of mouth. 7. A stab wound of 1½” length ½“gaping with clean edges over the right side of nape of neck going to a depth of 2” cutting all tissues underneath. 8. A stab wound of 1½” length with ½” gaping with clean edges below the medial end of right clavicle going into the right chest. 9. A stab wound of 1½“length with ½” gaping with clean edges lateral to lower part of right scapular and going into the right chest. 10. A stab wound of 11“length ½” gaping with clean edges 2“to the left of 10th dersal spine and going into the left chest. 11. An incided wound of 2½” length ½” gaping and skin deep over the right supra scapular region. 12. Two incised wounds of skin deep of each 1” length ½“gaping placed 2” and 3” below the above wound.” All the injuries were antemortem. All tissues of wounds presented haemorrhagic appearance. 11. An incided wound of 2½” length ½” gaping and skin deep over the right supra scapular region. 12. Two incised wounds of skin deep of each 1” length ½“gaping placed 2” and 3” below the above wound.” All the injuries were antemortem. All tissues of wounds presented haemorrhagic appearance. The deceased had died of shock and haemorrhage as a result of the injuries. Death could have been instantaneous. Injuries 1 and 2 were fatal and could have been caused by a blunt weapon like a stone or a stick. The other injuries could be caused by a sharp edged weapon like a knife. Exhibit P-4 is the postmortem certificate. The accused was absconding and could be arrested only after the charge-sheet was filed on 23rd December, 1963. On 30th December, 1963, P.W. 27 arrested the accused at about 9-45 p.m. in Gurazala town when he was seen moving about in disguise like a ‘Jangam.‘ The Medical Officer, P.W. 20, examined the accused on 14th January, 1964, and found on him a painless horizontal scar, half an inch in length over the clar aspect parallel to and above the metacarpal phalangeal joint of the left little finger. The injury was simple in nature, and could have been caused with a sharp object like a knife about the time mentioned in the requisition, i.e., on 23rd November 1963 Exhibit P-5 is the wound certificate that the Medical Officer issued. The accused denied having stabbed Karnam Ramalingaiah with a dagger and killed him. He said that he had not complained to the Tahsildar against the Karnam and that it was false to say that he was trying to persuade the Karnam to withdraw the case filed against his cousin. He said that he had met the Karnam at Mutyalampadu, but that he had gone there for getting the doors of the temple prepared by a carpenter there and that he left the village the same evening for Kothur. What Shaik Masthana Bi, his mistress said was false. He was not absconding. He was arrested at Kothur but he did not remember when he was arrested He did not received the letter Exhibit P-2 from his brother-in-law. It was true that the pronote Exhibit P-3 was executed in his favour, and that he endorsed the pronote in favour of P.W. 18 for collection but P.W. 18 did not return the pronote to him. It was true that the pronote Exhibit P-3 was executed in his favour, and that he endorsed the pronote in favour of P.W. 18 for collection but P.W. 18 did not return the pronote to him. He said that he did not know about the seizure of Exhibits P-2 and P-3 from the scene of occurrence at the time of inquest. He said that P.Ws. 9 and 24 Achireddi son of Audinarayana Reddy and his brother Iswara Reddi got the case foisted against him. There can be no doubt that Karnam Ramalingaiah was brutally killed. The injuries on his body were inflicted with a knife and he was also hit on the head with a blunt weapon like a stick or a stone. The head injuries were fatal injuries. The man died as a result of the injuries on the spot. The evidence shows that the Karnam was then returning from the house of his brother at Muthalampadu. He had been there the previous day for a ceremony at his house. The eye-witnesses to the occurrence were P.Ws. 1 to 3. Circumstantial evidence is furnished by Exhibits P-2 and P-3 which were seized from the scene of occurrence. The prosecution has led evidence that the accused had a motive to kill the deceased. The prosecution has also led evidence of the immediate conduct of the deceased after the occurrence and his absconding as further circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused. From the circumstances of the attack it is evident that the killing was deliberate and pre-planned. It is said that the accused had gone to Mutyalampadu the previous day and known when the Karnam was returning and then accompanied the Karnam appearing to be chummy and friendly with him. We will now discuss the evidence led by the prosecution under the broad heads as above. Motive.-There is proof beyond doubt that the Karnam had filed a case complaining of an offence under section 353, Indian Penal Code, against the accused’s cousin and the Dachepalli Police investigated and filed a charge-sheet against the said Bathula Achi Reddy (not the accused, but his first cousin) on 20th September 1963. Exhibit P-14 is the charge-sheet filed in the Court of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Gurazala. P.W. 25, H.C. 121 of Dachepalli Police Station, has deposed to the charge-sheet that he filed after attesting the said Bathula Atchi Reddy. Exhibit P-14 is the charge-sheet filed in the Court of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Gurazala. P.W. 25, H.C. 121 of Dachepalli Police Station, has deposed to the charge-sheet that he filed after attesting the said Bathula Atchi Reddy. He has also said that the case was adjourned several times and stood posted to 26th November, 1963, and that the case was also transferred to the Special II Class Magistrate, Piduguralla. P.W. 10 who was living in the house of the Karnam, has stated that about 6 days prior to the occurrence, the accused came to the house of the deceased and requested him to withdraw the case against Atchi Reddi. The Karnam did not definitely say anything. Three times the accused came for the same purpose and on the third occasion the accused threatened the Karnam saying that he would see how the case would go on without being withdrawn. The accused did so just before the Karnam left for Mutyalampadu to attend the ceremony at his brother’s house. The next day he was murdered. We do not think that there is any truth in the suggestion that the witness was deposing falsely. The evidence given by P.W. 10 shows that there was an immediate provocation for the accused to attack the Karnam because he could not be persuaded to withdraw the case against his cousin. Apart from the said incident which was proximately connected with the attack on the deceased, we have the credible evidence of the Tahsildar, P.W. 15, that when he camped at Madinapadu for land revenue collections, the accused complained to him that the Village Karnam i.e., Karnam Ramalingayya did not furnish the accounts of land revenue. That was at the time of land revenue collections for the year 1963. Then on 30th August, 1963, the first cousin of the accused assaulted the Karnam in the presence of the revenue official and that was the case which was pending against the cousin of the accused. The Village Munsif of Madinapadu (P.W. 24) who was present on the occasion when Karnam Ramalingaiah was assaulted, said that Atchi Reddy abused the Karnam but did not assault him, whereas P.W. 15 said that the said Atchi Reddy pushed aside the Village Karnam who was standing by his side and he immediately intervened. The Village Munsif of Madinapadu (P.W. 24) who was present on the occasion when Karnam Ramalingaiah was assaulted, said that Atchi Reddy abused the Karnam but did not assault him, whereas P.W. 15 said that the said Atchi Reddy pushed aside the Village Karnam who was standing by his side and he immediately intervened. We have no doubt that the Village Munsif, P.W. 24, was giving a garbled version of what took place. We gather from this evidence that the accused had many grievances against the Karnam. We are convinced that the motive part of the prosecution case is established convincingly. It is argued that the motive shown by the prosecution is not sufficient to kill the Karnam. The sufficiency or otherwise of a motive depends on the calibre of the person concerned and obviously no hard and fast rule can be stated in this regard. We would now take up the evidence of the accused’s movements prior to and just before the occurrence. After the Karnam went to his brother’s house (P.W. 12’s house) at Muthyalampadu, the accused proceeded to Muthyalampadu and met him at P.W. 12’s house. The accused said that he had gone to Muthyalampadu for a different purpose and met the Karnam in the bazaar and that the Karnam had taken him to the house of P.W. 12 and that he did not ask the Karnam to measure his lands. We do not think that there is any truth in this distortion of facts spoken to by P.W. 12, that is to say, that the accused had of his own accord gone to the house of P.W. 12 and talked to the deceased asking him to measure his land. The accused was at P.W. 12’s house at sunset time. P.W. 12 said that he gave him tiffin to eat. Thereafter the accused left. P.W. 13, the Mohtad of Muthyalampadu, deposed that he saw the accused sleeping in the temple of Anjaneyaswami on its front side verandah, and that he accosted him because he recognised him as the person who had visited P.W. 12’s house. It may be recalled that P.W. 12 was the Karnam of Muthyalampadu and P.W. 13 was the Mohtad of that village. P.W. 13 slept at the house of P.W. 12. He saw P.W. 12 and Karnam Ramalingaiah leave before sunrise the next morning. It may be recalled that P.W. 12 was the Karnam of Muthyalampadu and P.W. 13 was the Mohtad of that village. P.W. 13 slept at the house of P.W. 12. He saw P.W. 12 and Karnam Ramalingaiah leave before sunrise the next morning. A short while later the accused came and enquired where Karnam Ramalingaiah was to which P.W. 13 unsuspectingly replied that he left for Madinapadu just then showing the direction in which he left. The evidence of P.W. 13 is natural and we do not think that there is any truth in the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. This would show that the accused was shadowing the Village Karnam. The accused said that he had left for Kothur on the evening of the day he met the Karnam at Muthyalampadu but that cannot be accepted as true as against P.W. 13’s positive testimony which we believe to be true. There is the evidence of the eye-witnesses also supporting the truth of P.W. 13’s statement. The further evidence of the eye-witnesses, to which we would presently refer shows that the accused pretended to be friendly with the Karnam and walked along with the Karnam on his way to Muthyalampadu. The direct eye-witnesses to the occurrence are P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3. P.Ws. 1 and 2 were together on their way back to Madinapadu from Kothapalem via Muthyalampadu. P.W. 3 is related to the accused and he was proceeding to his field from Madinapadu Village. P.W. 1 is a washerman by caste and profession, aged about 60 years. He was also carrying mail bags between Madinapadu and Dachepalli. He was paid Rs. 22 per month for that service. His routine as a Postal runner was to carry the mail bags to Dachepalli, about four miles from Madinapadu and carry the mail bags from Dachepalli to Madinapadu. His cousin-brother is P.W. 2. He is also a resident of Madinapadu. On 21st November, 1963, a Thursday, P.Ws. 1 and 2 went to Kothapalem to attend the obsequies of a relation of theirs. The distance between Muthyalampadu and Madinapadu was 5 miles and Kothapalem was 6 miles from Muthyalampadu. The obsequies were performed at Kothapalem on Friday i.e., on 22nd November, 1963. On 23rd November, 1963 P.Ws. 1 and 2 left Kothapalem at about second cock-crow time i.e., 4 or 4-30 a.m. They had to pass through Muthyalampadu. The distance between Muthyalampadu and Madinapadu was 5 miles and Kothapalem was 6 miles from Muthyalampadu. The obsequies were performed at Kothapalem on Friday i.e., on 22nd November, 1963. On 23rd November, 1963 P.Ws. 1 and 2 left Kothapalem at about second cock-crow time i.e., 4 or 4-30 a.m. They had to pass through Muthyalampadu. They reached Muthyalampadu by about sunrise time. On their way to Madinapadu from Muthyalampadu, after passing the tank abutting the village and a field, the accused Atchireddi met them. He was also proceeding towards Madinapadu. He told them that he had been to the Karnam to get his field measured by him. Then they looked back and found that the Karnam was coming behind them. Then Karnam Ramalingaiah, the witnesses and the accused proceeded together about a mile upto a tank known as ‘Peddiraju Kunta’. The Karnam was brushing his teeth with a margosa twig. He washed his teeth and face at the tank. Then he (the Karnam) asked P.Ws. 1 and 2 to have their ablutions there. Saying that an Inspecting Postal Official was expected at Madinapadu, Karnam Ramalingaiah and the accused proceeded. P.Ws. 1 and 2 resumed their journey when the accused and the Karnam were about a furlong ahead of them. By the time they reached the field of one Vangala Gopayya, the accused and the deceased were proceeding about 100 yards ahead of them (P.Ws. 1 and 2) In between there were only Variga fields, with crop of the height of half a yard and there were no trees obstructing their vision. P.Ws. 1 and 2 observed the accused placing his right hand on the shoulders of the deceased and going in a jolly mood. In that manner the Karnam and the accused were approaching the field of one Bhimalingam. That was very near the field of Atchi Reddy against whom the Karnam had complained. P.Ws. 1 and 2 were in the rear about 60 yards behind Karnam Ramalingaiah and the accused. Then P.Ws. 1 and 2 heard the deceased Karnam cry "Atchi Reddy, why have you come to the extent of stabbing me with a knife and what injustice had I done to you." Hearing those cries, P.Ws. 1 and 2 ran towards the Karnam. They saw the accused stabbing the Karnam indiscriminately with a knife which appeared to have a blade about 6" long. He stabbed the Karnam indiscriminately. 1 and 2 ran towards the Karnam. They saw the accused stabbing the Karnam indiscriminately with a knife which appeared to have a blade about 6" long. He stabbed the Karnam indiscriminately. When P.Ws. 1 and 2 had covered about 40 yards, the Karnam fell down. The accused noticing their approach ran away towards north with the knife in his hand. They approached the Karnam who lay dead with bleeding injuries by the side of the foot-path. It was about 8 a.m. After seeing the dead body they proceeded to Madinapadu about half a mile from the scene of occurrence and informed the Village Munsif (P.W. 24) that the accused had stabbed the Karnam to death. But the Village Munsif who is a relation of the accused (P.W. 24’s father Hanumayya and the accused’s father Ramakrishna Reddi were brothers) did not take their statements. P.Ws. 1 and 2 then went away and they were examined by the Investigating Officer, P.W. 27, at the inquest. The suggestion to P.W. 1 was that he was deposing at the instance of Hanumaiah, P.W. 9. But it was not made clear how the witness was obliged to Hanumaiah to depose to falsehood at his instance. The suggestion to P.W. 2 was that he was deposing at the instance of P.W. 1 and Hanumaiah, P.W. 9 what we have said about P.W. 1 equally applied to P.W. 2. Nothing appears in their cross-examination to suggest that P.Ws. 1 and 2 had any grievance or any ill-feelings towards the accused to rope in the accused falsely. From the evidence it has to be said that they are disinterested witnesses. The learned Counsel for the accused has contended that P.Ws. 1 and 2 should be discredited on several grounds. The first ground of attack is that they cannot be believed that they had informed P.W. 24, the Village Munsif of Madinapadu, for it is argued that P.W. 24 is a responsible person and could not have ignored P.Ws. 1 and 2 and sent reports like Exhibits P-11 and P-12 saying that the village Mohtad Syed John had stated that it was talked that there was a dead body at Bhimalingam’s field, east of the village and that he and some others on going there saw the dead body of Karnam Ramalingaiah with stab wounds. 1 and 2 and sent reports like Exhibits P-11 and P-12 saying that the village Mohtad Syed John had stated that it was talked that there was a dead body at Bhimalingam’s field, east of the village and that he and some others on going there saw the dead body of Karnam Ramalingaiah with stab wounds. If the Village Munsif, P.W. 24, was not related to the accused and had not distorted facts, then probably this criticism could have merited serious attention. But it is brought out very clearly that the Village Munsif was very closely related to the accused and that he had also denied that another Atchireddi had assaulted Karnam Ramalingaiah. The Village Munsif tried to appear as one not interested in the accused saying that although they belonged to one family, they were not on familiar terms. Then he improved this assertion in the next breath saying that the accused was on inimical terms with him. But nothing can be gathered from his evidence to show the nature of ill-feelings between him and the accused. We reject the statements of P.W. 24 as merely self-serving. We agree with the observations of the learned Sessions Judge who had the advantage of first hand appraisal of the evidence of the witnesses, which are these. “The version of the Village Munsiff is that P.Ws. 1 and 2 did not come to him and did not report the matter and that his mohtad reported to him about the dead body of the Village Karnam Ramalingaiah, the deceased lying in the field of Atchireddi, son of Audinarayanareddi. The accused is no other than a near relation of the Village Munsif and hence to accommodate the accused, he might have thought it fit to ignore the information given by P.Ws. 1 and 2 and not to disclose the name of the accused in his report. But in view of the cogent and convincing evidence against the accused, justice should not suffer merely on the conduct of the Village Munsif in not taking the statements from P.Ws. 1 and 2.” We think that we have very good reasons to believe P.Ws. 1 and 2 and none at all to discredit them. To put it briefly they were not hostile to the accused. They did not benefit by implicating the accused falsely. 1 and 2.” We think that we have very good reasons to believe P.Ws. 1 and 2 and none at all to discredit them. To put it briefly they were not hostile to the accused. They did not benefit by implicating the accused falsely. It would be natural conduct on their part to run up to the Village Munsif after witnessing a ghastly crime. They were examined by the Investigating Officer at the inquest and they had given a consistent version at all material stages. Further the presence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is spoken to by P.Ws. 3, 5, 6 and 7 who have no reason to implicate the accused falsely. P.W. 3 is a relation of the accused. He is aged about 13 years. He was studying in the V class in the Higher Elementary School of Madinapadu. The accused and his father are sons of brothers. He said that about 2 baras after sun-rise on the day of occurrence he was going to his chilli-field as his sister asked him to go there. From Madinapadu he had to go by a footpath. When he reached the field of Bheemanna, he came across the accused and the deceased coming to the Village together. The accused was placing his right hand on the shoulders of the deceased. After he passed them and covered a distance of 20 to 30 yards, he heard the cries of the deceased “Atchireddi don’t kill. Why do you kill me unjustly.” When the witness turned back, he saw the accused stabbing the Karnam repeatedly; with the blows so inflicted, the Karnam fall down and died. Due to fear he began to run and saw P.Ws. 1 and 2 coming running towards the scene of occurrence raising cries ‘don’t kill, don’t kill.‘Then he went to his field. Where his sister Punnamm (P.W. 4) was and told her that ‘Kakkayya’ (accused) stabbed and killed the karnam at Bhimalingam’s field. He was referring to the accused as ‘kakkayya’ meaning thereby junior paternal uncle. At about midday they were returning. They saw a crowd gathered at the scene of occurrence. The same evening he and his sister were examined by the Police. The witness said that on the day of occurrence he did not go to school as his sister wanted him to go over to the field. At about midday they were returning. They saw a crowd gathered at the scene of occurrence. The same evening he and his sister were examined by the Police. The witness said that on the day of occurrence he did not go to school as his sister wanted him to go over to the field. The witness denied the suggestion that he was deposing at the instance of his father and the Police. The witness appeared to have said that the suggestion was true but immediately denied the suggestion. Read as a whole, it can be seen that the witness denied the suggestion. The evidence of P.W. 3 is criticised as that of a child. Whether a child witness could be believed or not depends on the circumstances of each case and this is case where we are not persuaded that there is anything to doubt the truthfulness or the dependability of P.W.3 . The learned trial Judge did not find any reason to discredit P.W. 3. We are Unable to see any reason to discard his testimony. P.W. 3 is corroborated by his sister, P.W.4, against whom nothing was suggested. The evidence of P.W.3 therefore specifically refers to the presence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. P.Ws. 1, 5, 6 and 7 were women of Madinapadu who were on their way to the fields from Madinapadu. P.W. 5 said that she owned 5 gorrus of land to the east of the village. About two baras after sun-rise, she was proceeding to her field along the foot-path to Muthalampadu. When she was so proceeding, she saw Karnam Ramalingaiah and the accused Atchireddi coming opposite to her near the field of one Meka Nagayya. She proceeded further. Within about 40 yards from the place where she had seen the Karnam and the accused going together, she saw P.Ws. 1 and 2 coming the same way. The witness went to her field which was about a mile away. About midday she saw a crowd gathered round the dead body of the Karnam Ramalingaiah. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely at the instance of her husband. She is also related to the accused. The field in which the dead body of Ramalingaiah lay belonged to Atchireddy against whom the Karnam had laid a complaint. P.W. 6 is also a woman of the Reddi community. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely at the instance of her husband. She is also related to the accused. The field in which the dead body of Ramalingaiah lay belonged to Atchireddy against whom the Karnam had laid a complaint. P.W. 6 is also a woman of the Reddi community. She deposed to the same effect as P.W. 5. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely at the instance of Atchireddi, son of Adinarayana Reddy and his relations to save the said Atchireddi. P.Ws. 6 and 7 were going together at that time. P.W. 7 deposed to the same effect as P.W. 6. It would appear that she prevaricated about the accused and for that reason she was cross-examined. Her testimony has to be read along with the testimony of P.W. 6 because both the women were proceeding together. The evidence of these three witnesses, P.Ws. 5, 6 and 7 furnish independent corroboration to the testimony of the eye-witnesses. They not only speak to their presence but also show that P.Ws. 1 and 2 could have witnessed the occurrence. The learned Counsel next argued that P.W. 1’s leave application, Exhibit P-10, had never reached the postal authorities and that would cast a doubt as to P.W. 1 visiting Kothapalam with P.W. 2 and coming back. It is no doubt true that Exhibit P-10 was lying at Madinapadu Branch Post Office. But it is also the evidence of the Inspector of Post Offices, P.W. 23, that as per Rules it was not necessary to report about the absence of a postal runner. To the same effect is the evidence of the Postmaster, Dachepalli, P.W. 22, that it was permissible under the Rules that if a mail runner wished to proceed on leave, he could authorise a person to act on his behalf and hand over his application to the Branch Postmaster which would be forwarded to the Accounts Office at Dachepalli. Obviously that was what had taken place. P.W. 1 had deputed his son, P.W. 8 who deposed that on Thursday and Friday i.e., 21st and 22nd November, 1963 he carried the mail bags on behalf of his father, P.W. 1. This is corroborated by P.W.22, the Postmaster, Dachepalli Post Office, that instead of P.W. 1, P.W.8 attended to the mail bags on 21st November, 1963 and 22nd November, 1963. This is corroborated by P.W.22, the Postmaster, Dachepalli Post Office, that instead of P.W. 1, P.W.8 attended to the mail bags on 21st November, 1963 and 22nd November, 1963. From what has been deposed to by P.Ws. 22 and 23, the leave letter appears to be formal. The postal runner could make alternative arrangements and avail of leave. That was what had taken place in this case. So there was no impediment to P.W. 1 proceeding to Kothapalem to attend to his private affairs. The learned Counsel next urged that there is a defect in the direct testimony as the eye-witnesses have not spoken to the causing of head injuries with a blunt weapon like a stick or a stone. He would invite us to infer from this circumstances that the witnesses have neither seen the attack, nor had given a truthful account of the attack. It may be recalled that the Medical Officer has spoken to injuries 1 and 2 on the head which could have been caused by a blunt weapon like a stone or a stick and the other injuries 3 to 12 could have been caused by a sharp edged weapon like a knife. Taking the evidence of the eye-witnesses as it is they had seen the accused stab the deceased with a knife. This part of the evidence is corroborated by medical testimony. We cannot therefore say that they had not seen the infliction of injuries with a knife. We do not also see any particular reason for their not deposing to what they had seen. It is possible that they had not noticed the infliction of head injuries with a stick or a stone as they were attracted only by the cries of the victim and so noticed only what took place from that time onwards. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that there was no reason to be so sceptical of the direct testimony in the particular circumstances of this case. He urged that only the accused attacked the Karnam and ran away at the sight of the approaching eye-witnesses, and that it was a necessary inference in the circumstances that the accused had caused also the head injuries. He would say that far from discrediting the witnesses the circumstances indicate that the witnesses had deposed with commendable restraint and a sense of responsibility. He would say that far from discrediting the witnesses the circumstances indicate that the witnesses had deposed with commendable restraint and a sense of responsibility. We are inclined to agree with the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor. It does not always happen that the eye-witnesses see the causing of every injury. Nor is it imperative that they should see and speak to every injury that is caused to the victim. If it is otherwise, the result would be anomalous. Take for example the case of circumstantial evidence. The causing of injuries is inferred from the circumstantial evidence against the accused. So, where the witnesses had seen only the causing of stab injuries and the assailant is only one, it is an inference that the other injuries were caused by the same assailant. There could be no complication in the case of a single assailant. It could be different in the case of more than one assailant and where there is no common intention. We agree with the learned Public Prosecutor that an inference might be legitimately drawn that the accused had caused all the injuries, in the circumstances and in the situation in which he was seen. Nextly, the learned Counsel contended that from the evidence of P.Ws. 12 and 13 the Karnam had left Madinapadu before sun-rise and that would not fit in with the case that he would not reach Madinapadu about 3 or 4 miles from there within an hour or so, as it was said that the Karnam walked fast. It was therefore contended that this evidence would not fit in with the attack on the Karnam alleged to have taken place about 8 a.m. when he was still on his way to Madinapadu. We do not see any substance in this line of criticism. Two broad facts are noticeable in this context, firstly that the Karnam never reached Madinapadu. There was no such suggestion to Shaik Bibi (P.W. 10) who was the servant of the Karnam. The other fact is that P.Ws. 1 and 2 reached Mutyalampadu about sun-rise time. That time synchronised with the alleged time when the Karnam left Mutyalampadu. We cannot therefore assume that the Karnam and P.Ws. 1 and 2 reached Madinapadu within an hour after sun-rise and by a process of backward reasoning say that the Karnam was not killed on the way and that P.Ws. 1 and 2 reached Mutyalampadu about sun-rise time. That time synchronised with the alleged time when the Karnam left Mutyalampadu. We cannot therefore assume that the Karnam and P.Ws. 1 and 2 reached Madinapadu within an hour after sun-rise and by a process of backward reasoning say that the Karnam was not killed on the way and that P.Ws. 1 and 2 had not seen the killing. These are merely arguments based on surmises and they very much miss the substantial truth of the prosecution case. We therefore find no substance in the contention that P.Ws. 1 to 3 are not worthy of credence. We therefore accept their evidence. The motive part of the prosecution case explains why the Karnam was killed in such a brutal manner. The accused denied the motive part of the prosecution case as also the evidence against him that he stabbed the deceased Karnam and killed him on the spot. He said that his opponents foisted the case on him. It is not possible to accept these denials and the allegation that he was falsely implicated as against the credible evidence to the contrary. We would now refer to the other evidence which furnishes independent corroboration to the direct testimony. Exhibits P-2 and P-3 were seized at the scene of occurrence at the inquest. Their seizure is spoken to by P.W. 24 (the panchayatdar at the inquest) and P.W. 27 (the investigating Officer). Exhibit P-2 was written by the accused’s brother-in-law, P.W. 14, to the accused and it was delivered to the accused by P.W. 16, an extra departmental delivery agent of Madinapadu Sub-Post Office, P.W. 16 was getting a salary of Rs. 29 per month. It is on his evidence that Karnam Ramalingaiah entrusted the letters to him to be distributed among the villagers. On 9th November, 1963 Exhibit P-2 letter was entrusted to him, and he delivered the same to the accused at Madinapadu. Exhibit P-3 is a promissory note executed in accused’s favour by P.W. 17. The accused endorsed the same in favour of P.W. 18 for collection. P.W. 18 deposed that he demanded P.W. 17 twice or thrice and he did not pay. He demanded the accused. He also did not pay. So he returned the note to the accused as it was also time-barred. The accused endorsed the same in favour of P.W. 18 for collection. P.W. 18 deposed that he demanded P.W. 17 twice or thrice and he did not pay. He demanded the accused. He also did not pay. So he returned the note to the accused as it was also time-barred. We have no reason to doubt the seizure of Exhibits P-2 and P-3 from the scene of occurrence. The accused when questioned about these documents said that he did not receive the letter Exhibit P-2, and about Exhibit P-3 he said that the borrowing and the endorsement were true but it was not returned to him by P.W. 18. We do not find any reason to discredit the evidence tothe contrary. It is argued before us that it is strange that the accused could have been carrying Exhibits P-2 and P-3 with him and to have dropped them there. A further argument built on this suspicious thinking was that these must have been planted there. This planting was not even suggested to P.W. 24 and P.W. 27. P.W. 24 it may be remembered, was a relation of the accused and had his sympathy for the accused. If at all, he would help him and not harm him. We do not see any necessity in this case to plant Exhibits P-2 and P-3 to fix the presence of the accused as there was direct evidence. The learned Sessions Judge believed the recovery of Exhibits P-2 and P-3 from the scene of occurrence. We do not see any convincing reason to suspect the recovery and act on a surmise that they were probably planted. The Supreme Court observed in Aher Raja Khima v. State of Saurashtra1. “The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police officer as of other persons and it is not a judicial approach to distrust and suspect him without good grounds therefor. Such an attitude could do neither credit to the magistracy nor good to the Public. It can only run down the prestige of the Police administration.” The recovery of these documents, the custody of which was with the accused, from the scene of occurrence, read with the other evidence makes us infer that the accused has inadvertantly dropped them in a hurry to make good his escape at the approach of the eye-witnesses. It can only run down the prestige of the Police administration.” The recovery of these documents, the custody of which was with the accused, from the scene of occurrence, read with the other evidence makes us infer that the accused has inadvertantly dropped them in a hurry to make good his escape at the approach of the eye-witnesses. Next we have to notice the accused’s conduct spoken to by his keep, Masthanbi. (P.W. 11). At about 10 a.m. on the day of occurrence the accused returned home with a dhoti, a shirt and a lungi tied round his body at the neck and with a bandage to his left little finger and straightaway went inside the house when she was sitting on the pial of the house. She saw blood-stains on his shirt. When she enquired about blood-stains, he snubbed her curtly not to concern herself, and taking a dhoti and shirt hanging in the house, he left abruptly. Later on she learnt that the Karnam was mrdered. During the course of the day the Police asked her about the accused. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely at the instance of the Police. It does not appear that there were any misunderstandings between P.W. 11 and the accused. She was willingly his mistress and we do not see any truth in the suggestion that she was implicating the accused falsely. The medical evidence which we have referred to, also corroborates that the accused had an injury on his left little finger which could have been caused with a sharp object like a knife. Probably this injury was caused when the accused handled the knife on the day of the occurrence. It is necessary to recall that the accused absconded and was moving in disguise like a ‘Jangam’ when he was arrested on 30th December, 1963. The absconding and the disguise were spoken to by the Investigating Officer P.W. 27. That he had left abruptly on the day of occurrence was spoken to by his keep, Masthanbi (P.W. 11). These are additional facts to be considered with the direct evidence. The accused pleaded that what Masthanbi his mistress, said was false. He also said that he was not absconding but that he did not remember when he was arrested. He said nothing about his disguise as a ‘Jangam Devara’ when he was specifically questioned (Question 20). These are additional facts to be considered with the direct evidence. The accused pleaded that what Masthanbi his mistress, said was false. He also said that he was not absconding but that he did not remember when he was arrested. He said nothing about his disguise as a ‘Jangam Devara’ when he was specifically questioned (Question 20). We have no doubt that the evidence led in this regard by the prosecution is entitled to credit. The accused did not meet the evidence squarely. He has not given any reason why his mistress has spoken to his unnatural conduct on the day of occurrence. The facts, which we have discussed supra, have reassuring effect and further confirm the truth of the direct evidence. We accept the evidence adduced in the case as proving that the accused intentionally killed Karnam Ramalingayya and thereby committed murder. We confirm the conviction under section 302, Indian Penal Code and the sentence of imprisonment for life and dismiss the appeal. G.S.M. ----- Appeal dismissed.