P. PADMARAJ, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned state public prosecutor for the respondent-state at a considerable length and carefully perused the entire case records in detail with their assistance. ( 2 ) THIS appeal is by the accused jinnappa pareesh hulakund of halingali village and is directed against the judgment and order of the trial court whereby he has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for having caused the death of his wife Smt. Sunanda aged about 26 years, on 21-11-1995 around 2 p. m. in the afternoon, over a pathway situated in the land of P. W. 8, by committing assault on her with a weapon called sickle used for cutting the sugarcane crop, while the deceased sunanda was returning home with a bundle of grass on her head, along with her sister-in-law shobha, P. W. 3 along the pathway situated in the aforesaid land of P. W. 8-bhupal. He has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the said offence. The accused has however been acquitted by the trial court of the charge under Section 506 of the IPC that during the course of the same transaction he had threatened P. W. 3-shobha to kill her with the same sickle when she tried to come to the rescue of the deceased. ( 3 ) THE prosecution sought to establish the guilt of the accused by adducing evidence relating to the motive of the crime; eye-witness to the occurrence and the recovery of the bloodstained weapon by which death had been caused and the bloodstained clothes of the accused which were worn by the accused at the time of occurrence in consequence to a statement made by the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and also the abscondence of the accused ever since the date of commission of such offence till his arrest by the police. The trial court believed the evidence and accepted the case of the prosecution insofar as the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has convicted and sentenced the accused accordingly as stated supra. Hence, this appeal. The trial court believed the evidence and accepted the case of the prosecution insofar as the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has convicted and sentenced the accused accordingly as stated supra. Hence, this appeal. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended before us that the trial court was not at all justified in recording the conviction against the accused under Section 302 of the IPC on the solitary evidence of P. W. 3, who is none other than the sister-in-law of the deceased and was thus a highly interested witness. He also contended that the trial court was not justified in drawing corroboration to the evidence of P. W. 3 from P. W. 6, whose testimony bristles with infirmities and hence not trustworthy. He contended that the evidence of P. W. 6 suffers from several inconsistencies and infirmities which make his evidence highly unreliable. He further contended that the evidence with regard to the recovery of the bloodstained articles is on the face of it highly artificial and not reliable. He further contended that the statements of some of the material witnesses including P. W. 3 were taken in court in the absence of the accused, which is a serious infirmity and illegality committed by the trial court. He also contended that recording conviction on the solitary eye-witness is not at all safe in the absence of any corroboration to such witness. He also contended that, the statement of P. W. 6 was recorded by the investigating ofticcr after a lapse of 15 days, which would make his statement doubtful. He further contended that even the conduct of P. W. 6 appears to be highly unnatural inasmuch as he did not disclose as to what he saw on that day to any other person immediately and on the other hand his statement came to be recorded only after about 15 days. He therefore contended that the evidence of P. W. 6 cannot be taken as a corroborative piece of evidence to the evidence of the solitary eye-witness P. W. 3. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the motive attributed to the accused in the case is most absurd while elaborating this contention, he contended that in the bigamy case filed by the deceased somewhere in 1991, the court awarded maintenance of Rs. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the motive attributed to the accused in the case is most absurd while elaborating this contention, he contended that in the bigamy case filed by the deceased somewhere in 1991, the court awarded maintenance of Rs. 250/- per month to the deceased and against the accused and this cannot be considered to be a motive for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased. He contended that the prosecution after due deliberation has concocted a case against the accused by planting an eye-witness in the form of P. W. 3. He also contended that all along the said road, there are lands on either side and that being so, it is strange to note that no other person could be attracted to the spot though P. W. 3 stated to have screamed on seeing such ghastly incident. He also contended that even the village was situated at a distance of about 1/2 a kilometre from the place of incident and the very fact that no one could come to the spot, would create a doubt on P. W. 3 being an eye-witness to the incident. He further contended that it cannot be believed that the shouts of P. W. 3 could not attract even a single person to the spot. He therefore contended that P. W. 3 could not be an eye-witness to the incident and he must have been planted by the investigating officer after due deliberation and P. W. 3 being a close relative of the deceased, has obviously obliged to depose before the court as if she is an eye-witness to the incident. Learned counsel for the appellant further reiterated his contention that the evidence of the sole eye-witness, P. W. 3 cannot be accepted on the facts and circumstances of this case and also having regard to the time and place of incident as alleged by the prosecution. He also contended that the alleged eye-wit ness, P. W. 3 does not even refer to the presence of P. W. 6 and further this witness P. W. 6 had been examined, as admitted by himself, after 15 days of the alleged incident. He also contended that the alleged eye-wit ness, P. W. 3 does not even refer to the presence of P. W. 6 and further this witness P. W. 6 had been examined, as admitted by himself, after 15 days of the alleged incident. He also contended that P. W. 6 did not disclose about his seeing the accused going towards the rubkavi road to anyone in the village even after coming to know of the fact that the deceased had been killed by the accused this conduct on the part of P. W. 6, according to the learned counsel is highly unnatural. He further contended that the recovery of the sickle and clothes which were alleged to have been bloodstained were from an open place which was accessible to all and hence, it cannot be believed on the facts and circumstances of the case. He therefore contended that the accused is entitled to an acquittal at the hands of this court, in support of his submission, he also relied upon a decision of this court in the case of state of Mysore v k. b. kariappa and another , wherein the evidence recorded in one case is sought to be used against the accused in another case and this court has held that it cannot be done. ( 5 ) LEARNED state public prosecutor for the respondent-state has contended that P. W. 3 after witnessing the incident in question was highly agitated and she was going in the direction towards halingli village whereas P. W. 6 saw the accused going towards the rubkavi road and hence, there is no possibility of P. W. 3 seeing P. W. 6. He further contended that merely because P. W. 3 does not speak about the presence of P. W. 6, that by itself will not discredit the evidence of P. W. 3 who was the companion of the deceased at the time of this incident. He further contended that merely because P. W. 3 does not speak about the presence of P. W. 6, that by itself will not discredit the evidence of P. W. 3 who was the companion of the deceased at the time of this incident. He further contended that it is not correct to say that the statement of P. W. 6 was recorded by the i. o. after a lapse of 15 days, but on the other hand, the statement of P. W. 6 was recorded by the i. o. within 5 or 6 days of the incident and that further merely because there is some delay in recording the statement of P. W. 6 by the i. o. that by itself cannot discredit the evidence of P. W. 6 and on the other hand, it would only speak of the negligence on the part of the i. o. he further contended that the recovery of the sickle and the clothes of the accused were effected from the place where they were concealed and hence, it is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act in view of the fact that the place where they were concealed was within the exclusive knowledge of the accused. He also contended that the presence of P. W. 3 at the spot is quite natural and probable and hence her testimony in court cannot be doubted, more so, when it is substantially corroborated from the other circumstances appearing in the case. He also contended that the evidence of P. W. 3 was taken in court in the presence of the learned counsel for the accused, during the temporary absence of the accused and her evidence was completed on the next day when the accused was very much present in the court and hence, it is a case where no prejudice has been caused to the accused and that further, it is only an irregularity which is curable under Section 465 of the Criminal Procedure Code and that if according to the accused it was a serious irregularity, he should have objected to the same at the earliest point of time. While elaborating this submission, he contended that if the accused had objected at the earliest point of time, the said irregularity could have been cured. While elaborating this submission, he contended that if the accused had objected at the earliest point of time, the said irregularity could have been cured. He therefore contended that the accused having not raised this objection at the earliest point of time, it is now not open to the accused to raise for the first time in this appeal. He therefore, contended that there is no merit in this appeal filed by the appellant and it may be dismissed. ( 6 ) WE would now proceed to examine the materials placed on record qua each of the aforesaid circumstances. Motive: ( 7 ) WHAT led to the killing of his wife Smt. Sunanda by the accused, had connection with the litigations, launched by the deceased against her husband, the accused, for maintenance and bigamy, after she had left the house of the accused and started living with her parents in the same village about a few years prior to her death. The accused is stated to have been angered by her launching litigation in court and her success in the case for maintenance. It would be of some relevance to note here itself that the case suggested by the defence at the trial was that he was a mentally unsound person since about 5 or 6 years. Prior to this incident and even his father was half mad. It was also suggested by the defence that for about a period of six months in a year, the accused will be mentally unsound. However, all these suggestions made to the prosecution witnesses have been denied in toto. It is not in dispute that the deceased Smt. Sunanda was the wife of the accused and during the relevant time of this incident, she was living with her parents in the same village. The accused, the deceased and the material witnesses for the prosecution are from the same village. The deceased Smt. Sunanda was married to the accused about 7 or 8 years prior to this incident. After her marriage with the accused for a period of about 2 years, they led a happy married life. She did not bear any children through the accused. Thereafter, it is stated that differences arose between the accused and the deceased. The deceased Smt. Sunanda was married to the accused about 7 or 8 years prior to this incident. After her marriage with the accused for a period of about 2 years, they led a happy married life. She did not bear any children through the accused. Thereafter, it is stated that differences arose between the accused and the deceased. It is further stated that being unable to bear the tantrums and the harassment of the accused and on being frustrated with the conduct and behaviour of the accused, she left the house of the accused and came to live with her parents in the same village. Thus, the deceased Smt. Sunanda had left the house of her husband viz. , the accused, after about 2 years of her marriage with the accused and since then, she was living or residing with her parents in their house in the same village. It is stated that after the deceased had left the house of the accused, the accused took a second wife by name Smt. Kalavathi and had been residing with her in the same village. Thereafter, it is stated that the deceased had filed a case against the accused seeking maintenance in the court of law and she had succeeded in that case just a few days prior to this incident. The deceased Smt. Sunanda was awarded a maintenance amount of Rs. 250/- p. m. against the accused by the court. Ex. P. W. 4 is the copy of the judgment passed in favour of the deceased and against the accused. A perusal of the copy of the judgment at ex. P-4 would show that the deceased had filed a petition for maintenance against the accused somewhere in the year 1992 before the jurisdictional magistrate and an order in her favour came to be passed on 10-10-1995, awarding a maintenance amount of Rs. 250/- p. m. from the date of the order. It appears that the deceased Smt. Sunanda had also filed a criminal case against the accused and others for the offence of bigamy. A copy of the complaint filed by the deceased in this regard is produced at ex. 250/- p. m. from the date of the order. It appears that the deceased Smt. Sunanda had also filed a criminal case against the accused and others for the offence of bigamy. A copy of the complaint filed by the deceased in this regard is produced at ex. P-5 and it would show that somewhere in the year 1991, the deceased had filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the accused and others for the offences punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and other allied offences. The said complaint is dated 16-8-1991. A perusal of these two documents, exs. P-4 and p-5 would show that there were ill-feelings between the accused and the deceased at the relevant time of this incident. P. ws. 3, 4 and 7 have categorically deposed about these facts. P. w. 3-the sister-in-law of the deceased, has deposed that about two years after the marriage of the deceased with the accused, differences arose between them and thereupon, the deceased who was unable to bear the tantrums of her hus- band, got frustrated and left the house of the accused and came to live with her parents and since then, she had been residing with her parents in their house in the same village. She has further deposed that the accused took a second wife by name Smt. Kalavathy. Thereafter, she says that the deceased had filed a maintenance petition against the accused which has been ordered in her favour and she was awarded a maintenance amount of Rs. 250/- per month. She has also deposed that the deceased had also filed a bigamy case against the accused. Through her, the prosecution had got marked exs. P-4 and p-5. It is not in dispute that P. W. 3 has been a resident of the same village and she is none other than the sister-in-law of the deceased. She was one of the inmates of the house where the deceased Smt. Sunanda had been living with her parents after she had left the house of her husband viz. , the accused. It is pertinent to note that the maintenance was awarded in favour of the deceased on 10-10-1995 and the incident in question took place on 21-11-1995. She was one of the inmates of the house where the deceased Smt. Sunanda had been living with her parents after she had left the house of her husband viz. , the accused. It is pertinent to note that the maintenance was awarded in favour of the deceased on 10-10-1995 and the incident in question took place on 21-11-1995. That means, only a few days prior to this incident, the deceased Smt. Sunanda had been awarded maintenance in her favour and against the accused by the court. In this context, it is the specific say of P. W. 3 that the accused had been angered by the success of the deceased in court and also on account of the launching of the prosecution case against the accused for the offence of bigamy in court. Under the cross-examination of P. W. 3, it is elicited that these two cases were filed much earlier to the incident and that the accused had taken the second wife about three years prior to this incident. She has denied the suggestion that the deceased had been divorced by the accused. ( 8 ) P. W. 4-the father of the deceased, has also deposed to the same effect as that of P. W. 3 with regard to the circumstances regarding the motive alleged by the prosecution. He has further stated that after the deceased had left the house of her husband and came to live with him in his house, he had tried his best to resolve the differences between them by convening a panchayat wherein some of the villagers had participated, but the accused did not listen to them. ( 9 ) P. W. 7, is one of the villagers, who is stated to have advised the accused to lead a happy married life with the deceased. He is from the same village and aged about 50 years. He has stated that there were certain differences between the accused and the deceased and in that connection, they had advised the accused to lead a happy married life with the deceased but the accused did not follow their advise, though, in their presence, he had promised to lead a happy married life with the deceased. But however, the accused continued to be the same. On account of such differences, he has stated that the deceased had been living in her parental home in the same village. But however, the accused continued to be the same. On account of such differences, he has stated that the deceased had been living in her parental home in the same village. Under the cross-examination, he has stated that he along with one ramappa had advised the accused about 11/2 years prior to this incident in the house of the accused. He has denied the suggestion that they never advised the accused in this regard. ( 10 ) NOTHING has been brought out in the cross-examination of any of these witnesses to disbelieve their evidence with regard to the motive aspect of the case as spoken to by them. Their evidence on this aspect of the case is quite consistent, creditworthy and mutually corroborative with each other. We find no good ground to disbelieve their evidence regarding the motive aspect of the case spoken to by them, which is further corroborated by exs. P-4 and p-5. It was however contended by the learned counsel for the accused that the motive attributed to the accused is far too remote and it is highly inadequate and insufficient to commit the murder of the deceased. We are unable to accept this contention. The materials placed on record would show that there were ill-feelngs between the accused and the deceased. When the prosecution has succeeded in showing the possibility of some ire for the accused towards the deceased, the inability to further put on record the manner in which such ire would have swelled up in the mind of the offender to such a degree as to impel him to commit the offence cannot be construed as a fatal weakness of the prosecution. It is almost an impossibility for the prosecution to unravel the full dimension of the mental disposition of an offender towards the deceased. Motive for doing a criminal act is generally a difficult area for prosecution. One cannot normally see into the mind of another. Motive is the emotion which impels a man to do a particular act. Such impelling cause need not necessarily be proportionately grave to do grave crimes. Many a murder has been committed without any known or prominent motive. It has to be stated that adequacy of motive is of little importance. One cannot normally see into the mind of another. Motive is the emotion which impels a man to do a particular act. Such impelling cause need not necessarily be proportionately grave to do grave crimes. Many a murder has been committed without any known or prominent motive. It has to be stated that adequacy of motive is of little importance. We know from experience of criminal courts that atrocious crimes have been committed for very slight motives, not merely from malice and revenge but to gain a small pecuniary advantage. Therefore, after all motive is a psychological phenomenon and the mere fact that the prosecution failed to translate that mental disposition of the accused into evidence does not mean that no such mental condition existed in the mind of the accused. The court cannot fathom the mental disposition of the accused, nor could it Rule out the possibility of some cause of immediate provocation for the accused. It would be known only to the deceased and the accused. The deceased is not alive to tell to the court what was that provocation and the accused did not disclose it to the court. So, it is not possible to appreciate the contention that the motive attributed was not sufficient enough for the ghastly act perpetrated by the accused. Be that as it May, in this case however the prosecution has succeeded in showing that the accused had some ill-feeling towards the deceased. Therefore on the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the firm view that there were ill-feelings between the accused and the deceased at the relevant time of this incident. Thus, the prosecution has been able to prove that the accused had some motive to commit the crime against the deceased. That is to say, the prosecution has been able to place on record, the possibility of some ire for the accused towards the deceased. When the prosecution has succeeded in showing the possibility of some ire for the accused towards the deceased, the inability to further put on record the manner in which such ire would have swelled up in the mind of the offender viz. , the accused to such a degree as to impel him to commit the offence cannot be construed as a weakness of the prosecution. , the accused to such a degree as to impel him to commit the offence cannot be construed as a weakness of the prosecution. It is often said that motive for committing a criminal act is totally a difficult area for the prosecution. One cannot see into the mind of another. Motive is the emotion which impels a man to do a particular act. Such impelling acts need not necessarily be proportionally grave to do grave crimes. Many a murder has been committed without any known or prominent motive. It is almost an impossibility for the prosecution to unravel the full dimension of the mental disposition of an accused towards the deceased. Be that as it May, in this case, however, the prosecution has succeeded in showing that the accused had a cause to vindicate against his wife. The deceased Smt. Sunanda had quite recently, only a few days prior to the incident obtained an order of maintenance in her favour and against the accused in the maintenance case filed by her and that further she had also filed a complaint for the offence of bigamy against the accused. It could therefore be said that the accused would have thought of getting rid of his first wife viz. , the deceased once and for all. Therefore, in our view, the prosecution has thus succeeded in establishing the motive. Eye-witness: ( 11 ) P. W. 3-Smt. Shobha, the wife of one shantinath, is the only eye-witness to have deposed about the assault committed on the deceased by the accused. She is the sister-in-law of the deceased. At the relevant time of this incident, as we have already noticed, she was one of the inmates of the house of the parents of the deceased, wherein the deceased had been living after she had left the house of her husband. The parental family of the deceased had owned the land at a distance of about 2 kms from the village habitation. The land owned by the accused was at some further distance away from their land. On that fateful day, at about 10 a. m. in the morning, both P. W. 3-shobha and the deceased sunanda, left the house to go to their land or nearby their land to bring grass. They had been to their land called "hondaragaddi land". The land owned by the accused was at some further distance away from their land. On that fateful day, at about 10 a. m. in the morning, both P. W. 3-shobha and the deceased sunanda, left the house to go to their land or nearby their land to bring grass. They had been to their land called "hondaragaddi land". While both P. W. 3 and the deceased were in that land to collect the grass, they saw the accused going towards his land. They saw the accused going towards his land after about an hour of their reaching the land. They were in the land collecting the grass till about 1 p. m. thereafter, P. W. 3-shobha and the deceased sunanda left their land along with the grass bundles in order to return to their house in the village. When they were both proceeding on the footpath in order to go towards their house in the village, near the land of P. W. 8-bhupal, the accused who came from the side of his land, overtook P. W. 3. At that point of time, the deceased was going ahead of P. W. 3 carrying the grass bundle over her head. After the accused overtook P. W. 3-shobha, he proceeded further straight towards the deceased and pulled down the grass bundle from her head and then, he assaulted the deceased with the sickle after taking it out from a plastic bag. The accused had a plastic bag with him wherein he had kept the sickle and at the time of committing assault, he took out the sickle from the plastic bag and assaulted the deceased indiscriminately. The accused cut the neck of the deceased with the sickle and also inflicted several injuries on hands, chest etc. The deceased Smt. Sunanda died on the spot. When P. W. 3 ran to rescue the deceased, the accused threatened her with dire consequences and also to kill her also if she were to intervene. Hence, she did not have the courage to go near the accused and snatch the sickle from his hands after committing assault on the deceased, the accused ran away from the spot along with the sickle, in the sugarcane field. Though P. W. 3-Smt. Shobha had screamed and cried out for help, none came to her rescue at that point of time. Though P. W. 3-Smt. Shobha had screamed and cried out for help, none came to her rescue at that point of time. Then, while P. W. 3 was returning to the house agitated and crying, she met some persons on the way and she told them about the occurrence. Then, after returning to the house, P. W. 3 informed the said incident to P. W. 4-the father of the deceased, P. W. 4 also happens to be the maternal grandfather of P. W. 3. Thereafter P. W. 3 also took P. W. 4 and others to the spot where the deceased Smt. Sunanda was lying with injuries on the spot. P. w. 4 and others saw the dead body of the deceased which was lying on the spot. Thereafter, she went along with the father of the deceased viz. , P. W. 4 to the police station, where she lodged a complaint with the psi, P. W. 14 at about 3. 30 p. m. which is as per ex. P-6. On the basis of that, psi, P. W. 12 registered the case and dispatched the fir to the jurisdictional magistrate as per ex. P-10. It would be of some relevance to note here itself that the incident in question took place at about 2 p. m. on 21-11-1995 and P. W. 3 had lodged her complaint at about 3,30 p. m. at the police station situated at a distance of about 5 kms and that further the fir was dispatched at about 4 p. m. itself. Under the cross- examination, the defence had obtained an answer from P. W. 3 that on that fateful day, there were no persons in the neighbouring lands. She has further stated that the deceased Smt. Sunanda was assaulted by the accused on the footpath passing through the land of P. W. 8-bhopal. She had gone to the police station along with P. W. 4 on a motorcycle to lodge the complaint. Her evidence as to the manner in which the deceased had been assaulted by the accused finds substantial corroboration from the findings recorded by the Dr. , P. W. 1 who held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 22-11-1995 at about 8 a. m. the Dr. Her evidence as to the manner in which the deceased had been assaulted by the accused finds substantial corroboration from the findings recorded by the Dr. , P. W. 1 who held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 22-11-1995 at about 8 a. m. the Dr. , P. W. 1 found as many as 13 injuries on the person of the deceased including the one on the neck, which had separated the entire neck portion from the rest of the body. It was found by the Dr. , P. W. 1 that the entire neck was separated from the body at c7-t1 vertebrae level, all the neck structure were cut at the same level including trachea, oesophagus, spinal cord and big vessels with muscles and fascia. Except the 1" size attachment of skin was present just below the left ear and the encircling measurement was about 17" in size. All the injuries of the deceased were found to be ante-mortem in nature. The evidence of the Dr. , P. W. 1 would clearly reveal that the neck of the deceased was almost severed or cut off from the rest of the body except that it was attached by tag of skin according to the Dr. , P. W. 1 such injuries could be caused by a sharp weapon like the sickle. The Dr. , P. W. 1 has opined as to the cause of death that it was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of cut injury to the neck. The time since death as has been opined by the Dr. , P. W. 1 is within 24 hours of post-mortem examination. Thus, the findings re- corded by the Dr. , P. W. 1 would substantially support the evidence of P. W. 3 regarding the manner of assault. In this context, it would now be relevant to note the evidence of P. W. 5-abayyi and P. W. 4-bhimappa. ( 12 ) P. W. 5 is the wife of one savanth kheboji and she belonged to the same village. She knew both the accused and the deceased. The lands of P. W. 5-the accused and the complainant P. W. 3 were all situated towards a stream. ( 12 ) P. W. 5 is the wife of one savanth kheboji and she belonged to the same village. She knew both the accused and the deceased. The lands of P. W. 5-the accused and the complainant P. W. 3 were all situated towards a stream. On that fateful day, P. W. 5 had been to their land to bring grass and at that time, she saw both P. W. 3 and the deceased in their land collecting grass. After p. w. 5 collected grass and was in the process of returning to her house, she had also called P. W. 3 and the deceased, but they told her to go ahead and they would finish their work in the land and would follow her. Thereupon, P. W. 5 returned to the house while P. W. 3 and the deceased were still there in their land. After a short while of her return to the village, she learnt that the deceased had been hacked to death by the accused with a sickle. This information according to P. W. 5 was given by P. W. 3 in the village. In the cross-examination, the defence had obtained an answer from P. W. 5 that at that time, no other person had come to collect grass in the neighbouring lands. She has further stated that while returning home, she did not meet any person on the way. The evidence of P. W. 5 would also lend corroboration to the evidence of P. W. 3. The presence of P. W. 3-shobha with the deceased at the relevant time of this incident stands corroborated from the evidence of P. W. 5. The evidence of P. W. 3 as well as the evidence of P. W. 5 would further show that at the relevant time of this incident, no other persons were found in the neighbouring lands. These answers, which were obtained by the defence in the cross-examination of p. ws. 3 and 5 would clearly eliminate the presence of any other persons in the neighbouring lands. ( 13 ) P. W. 4 is the father of the deceased. He has stated that on that fateful day, both the deceased Smt. Sunanda and P. W. 3-shobha left the house in the morning to bring grass from a place nearby their land. 3 and 5 would clearly eliminate the presence of any other persons in the neighbouring lands. ( 13 ) P. W. 4 is the father of the deceased. He has stated that on that fateful day, both the deceased Smt. Sunanda and P. W. 3-shobha left the house in the morning to bring grass from a place nearby their land. Thus, according to the evidence of P. W. 4, they both left the house together in the morning to bring grass from a place nearby the land of P. W. 4. Thereafter, at about 2 p. m. , P. W. 3-shobha returned to the house alone, crying and informed P. W. 4 in the house that the deceased sunanda has been assaulted by the accused with a sickle by pulling down the bundle of hay that was carried by the deceased on her head, on the road near the land of P. W. 8-bhupal. On being so informed by P. W. 3, he immediately went to the spot and saw the deceased Smt. Sunanda lying there with bleeding injuries all over the body. Then, he went along with P. W. 3 to the police station where P. W. 3 lodged a complaint regarding the occurrence. Under the cross-examination, he has stated that they might have reached the police station around 3 or 4 p. m. in the evening. ( 14 ) NOW comes the evidence of P. W. 6. He is aged about 17 years and a resident of the same village. He has stated that on that relevant day, at about 2 p. m. or so, when he was putting fodder to the cattle, in the land of one hanumanna where he was employed as a labourer, he saw this accused going towards the rubkavi road holding a sickle in his hand and at that time, he appeared to be little bit agitated. He tried to talk to the accused but the accused asked him to keep quiet. Then, when he returned to the village, he learnt that the accused had killed the deceased by assaulting her with a sickle. Under the cross-examination, he has no doubt stated that after about 15 days of his seeing the accused he was enquired by the police and he informed the same to them and till then, he did not tell this fact to anyone. Under the cross-examination, he has no doubt stated that after about 15 days of his seeing the accused he was enquired by the police and he informed the same to them and till then, he did not tell this fact to anyone. But the fact remains to be seen is that his statement came to be recorded by the i. o. within 5 or 6 days of this incident. P. w. 6 has further stated that on that day, he did not go to the house of the deceased Smt. Sunanda. ( 15 ) P. W. 8-bhupal, is the owner of the land wherein the incident in question had occurred. He has stated that there was a foot track in his land, which is situated towards a stream. On that day, on coming to know about the murder of the deceased Smt. Sunanda in his land at about 2. 30 p. m. he had been to his land from the house and there, he saw the dead body of the deceased lying in his land with injuries all over the body. Under the cross-examination, he has stated that there is a road in between his land and the village. There are lands belonging to other persons nearby his land and they also grow sugarcane crop. The land of the accused is at some distance away from his land. It was not however within the audible distance. Normally, people will be found moving about on the said pathway situated in his land. ( 16 ) P. W. 9-housawa is a panch for the inquest proceedings held on the dead body of the deceased. Ex. P-7 is the inquest report. She has stated that on the scene of incident, she saw two bundles of grass lying nearby the dead body of the deceased and also a plastic handbag. Under the cross-examination, it is further elicited by the defence that the police seized the grass bundles and also the other articles. ( 17 ) P. W. 2 is an engineer who has prepared the sketch of the scene of incident by visiting the spot as per ex. P-3 and he has stated that the scene of incident was located on a foot track leading to gadde. According to him, there are lands nearby but the village habitation was quite far off from the scene of incident. P-3 and he has stated that the scene of incident was located on a foot track leading to gadde. According to him, there are lands nearby but the village habitation was quite far off from the scene of incident. ( 18 ) THE material evidence placed on record would show that on that relevant day, the deceased Smt. Sunanda and P. W. 3-shobha together left the house to bring grass from a place nearby their land and they were seen together in the land just prior to the incident. Then on their way back home, the deceased had been assaulted by the accused and P. W. 3-shobha being the companion of the deceased, had witnessed the incident. Then on the assault committed on the deceased her evidence is so natural and probable that it inspires confidence and creates no doubt. The failure of P. W. 3-Smt. Shobha to go to the rescue of the deceased cannot cause any dent to the evidence of P. W. 3. The accused having threatened to kill her also, she could not have risked her life to apprehend the desperate accused. No doubt, there were lands nearby the place of incident and it is also true that the people will be found moving about on the said road or the pathway passing through the land of P. W. 8. But the question is whether there were any persons in the neighbour- ing lands at the time of this incident. It is in the evidence that there were no other persons in the neighbouring lands at that time and that further the village habitation was also quite far off from the spot. In fact P. W. 3-Smt. Shobha did raise an alarm and called or cried for help, but none came to their rescue. Obviously since there were no other persons in the neighbouring lands, none came to their rescue at the time of this incident. P. w. 3-Smt. Shobha is thus not a witness to be disbelieved having regard to the fact that she was the companion of the deceased at the time of this incident. She was accompanying the deceased when the incident in question took place and accordingly she had witnessed the incident. P. w. 3-Smt. Shobha is thus not a witness to be disbelieved having regard to the fact that she was the companion of the deceased at the time of this incident. She was accompanying the deceased when the incident in question took place and accordingly she had witnessed the incident. As we have already stated P. W. 3 was the companion of the deceased and that being so, she is the most probable and natural witness to the incident which took place while she was accompanying the deceased. Her evidence would receive substantial support from the other evidence available on record as discussed above. This apart, her evidence that the accused had assaulted the deceased with a sickle has also been corroborated from the recovery of the sickle at the instance of the accused as well as his clothes, which were found to be bloodstained, to which aspect we shall advert later, supplemented by the report of the forensic science laboratory. The incident in question took place just in front of P. W. 3 in the broad daylight. The deceased was proceeding ahead of P. W. 3, while they were going along the foot track carrying the head load of grass. The accused came from the side of his land and he overtook P. W. 3 and went further towards the deceased, who was going ahead of P. W. 3. At that time the accused whipped out or took out the chopper from his back and inflicted murderous blows on the deceased which was witnessed by P. W. 3, as the whole incident took place in her presence. The accused having threatened P. W. 3 to kill her also if she were to intervene, she could not have risked her life to apprehend such a desperate character. She however screamed and cried for help, but none came to their rescue at that time. The accused then left the place with the sickle and disappeared in the sugarcane field. P. w. 3-Smt. Shobha came crying to her house and informed about the incident to P. W. 4, who also went along with others to the spot and saw the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, P. W. 3 accompanied by P. W. 4 went to the police station and lodged her complaint without undue delay. P. w. 3-Smt. Shobha came crying to her house and informed about the incident to P. W. 4, who also went along with others to the spot and saw the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, P. W. 3 accompanied by P. W. 4 went to the police station and lodged her complaint without undue delay. The prompt lodging of the 'fir' by P. W. 3 would also lend corroboration to her evidence in court. As we have already noticed, the Dr. , P. W. 1 who held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased found as many as 13 ante-mor- tem injuries, of which one was a total severance of the neck from the rest of the body except that it was attached by a skin tag, the rest of the injuries according to the Dr. , p. w. i were lacerated injuries. The injury which became fatal or proved to be fatal has the following description: "entire neck was separated from the body at c7-t1 vertebrae level. All the neck structure were cut at the same level including trachea, oesophagus, spinal cord and big vessels with muscles and fascia. Except the 1" size attachment of the skin was present just below the left ear. The encircling measurement was about 17" in size". (emphasis supplied) ( 19 ) THE evidence of P. W. 3-shobha would receive substantial support from the medical evidence. We find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P. W. 3. According to us, every word of what P. W. 3 has stated in court was nothing but true. The defence suggestion that the accused was mentally unsound etc. , has not been substantiated from the material placed on record. It is no doubt true that except the injury no, 1, the remaining injuries have been described by the Dr. , P. W. 1 in his postmortem report as lacerated wounds. But the Dr. , P. W. 1 who held autopsy has specifically stated that all the injuries could be caused by a sharp weapon. In fact the Dr. , P. W. 1. Who had an occasion to examine the sickle, with reference to the injuries noted in the post-mortem report, has clearly opined in his report ex. P-2 that the wounds noted in the post mortem report could be caused by the sickle. In fact the Dr. , P. W. 1. Who had an occasion to examine the sickle, with reference to the injuries noted in the post-mortem report, has clearly opined in his report ex. P-2 that the wounds noted in the post mortem report could be caused by the sickle. That apart, it is also quite possible that the accused might have inflicted injuries both with sharp edge and blunt edge of the sickle. It has to be pointed out that it was an indiscriminate assault made on the deceased by the accused as has been described by P. W. 3. It is not the case of P. W. 3 that the accused had only used the cutting edge of the sickle for inflicting the injuries on the deceased. She has only stated that the accused assaulted the deceased indiscriminately with the sickle. We find that P. W. 3-Smt. Shobha being the companion of the deceased, is the most natural and the most probable witness to speak about the murder of the deceased. What P. W. 3 has stated in court is apparently in consonance with the narration of the prosecution story. P. w. 3-Smt. Shobha who is the most natural and probable witness to the occurrence in the case has stated about the role which the accused had played in the murder of the deceased. Smt. Sunanda as far as she had witnessed it. Her evidence in our view admits of no other hypothesis except the exclusive involvement of the accused in the murder. From the evidence of P. W. 3-Smt. Shobha as corroborated from the other evidence on record, we have no speck of doubt that the accused was the murderer of the deceased Smt. Sunanda. Though she is the sole eye-witness to the incident, we find no difficulty in accepting her evidence as true and genuine. That being so, the conviction of the accused can be recorded on the sole testimony of p. w 2. In this connection, a reference may be made to a decision la me case of vahula bhushan alias vehuna krishnan v state of tamil nadu , wherein it is held as under:"8. In the case of vadivelu thevar v state of Madras, the appellant was convicted on a charge of murder on the sole testimony of a witness. The question arose whether such a conviction can be sustained or not. In the case of vadivelu thevar v state of Madras, the appellant was convicted on a charge of murder on the sole testimony of a witness. The question arose whether such a conviction can be sustained or not. It was held that there was no statutory requirement that a conviction cannot be made on the testimony of a single witness unless it is corroborated. The court can accept the evidence of a single witness though uncorroborated and convict an accused except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself required, as a matter of prudence, that corroboration should be insisted upon, as in the case of a child witness, an accomplice or any others of an analogous character". ( 20 ) WHILE drawing our attention to Section 273 of the criminal procedure code, the learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the evidence has to be taken in the presence of the accused in the course of the trial and that in this case some of the material witnesses for the prosecution including P. W. 3 not being examined in the presence of the accused, it would vitiate the trial. It was however contended on behalf of the respondent-state by the learned state public prosecutor that it is no doubt true that P. W. 3 was partly examined on 2-8-1996 during the temporary absence of the accused. But her evidence was completed on 13-9-1996 in the presence of the accused and that being so in the absence of any prejudice being caused to the accused, it does not vitiate the trial. He also contended that the said irregularity pointed out by the accused is a curable irregularity and the same having not been taken at the earliest point of time, it cannot be raised for the first time in the appeal before this court. We find considerable force in the submission of the learned state public prosecutor. That apart, Section 273 has to be read along with Section 278 of the Criminal Procedure Code in order to understand its object. We find considerable force in the submission of the learned state public prosecutor. That apart, Section 273 has to be read along with Section 278 of the Criminal Procedure Code in order to understand its object. Section 278 of the Criminal Procedure Code prescribes that the deposition must be read over to the witness in the presence of the accused if the accused is in attendance and if the accused is absent and represented by a counsel it could be read over in the presence of the counsel for the accused when the accused is duly represented by ? Counsel, then the reading over of evidence in presence of counsel sufficient. That is to say, the disposition may be read over in the presence of the counsel during the temporary absence of the accused. The object of Section 273 read with Section 278 of the Criminal Procedure Code is to enable the accused or his counsel to suggest corrections, if any. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that during the temporary absence of the accused on a particular date, the deposition of P. W. 3 and others were taken partly in the presence of the counsel for the accused and the same was completed on the next hearing date in the presence of both, the accused and his counsel. In fact it is only when the counsel for the accused stated that the accused does not dispute his identity, the deposition of witness including P. W. 3 was taken in part and completed on the next hearing date. Even otherwise, the non-compliance with the Provisions of Section 273 or 278 does not in our view vitiate the trial. It would not by itself be a ground sufficient for quashing conviction. The bare fact of such irregularity, unaccompanied by any probable suggestion of any failure of Justice having been thereby occasioned, is not enough to warrant the quashing of conviction. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant has no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. In that case, the evidence recorded in one case was sought to be relied upon by the prosecution in the other case and it was held that the same cannot be done. But that is not the case here. In that case, the evidence recorded in one case was sought to be relied upon by the prosecution in the other case and it was held that the same cannot be done. But that is not the case here. In the instant case, we have not been shown whether the accused had been prejudiced in any way. On the other hand, the material available on record would show that when the counsel for the accused made a submission that the identity of the accused is not disputed, the evidence of P. W. 3 and others were taken in part in the presence of the learned counsel for the accused and the same was completed on the next hearing date in the presence of both the accused and the counsel. Section 273 of the Criminal Procedure Code says that except as otherwise expressly provided, all evidence taken in the course of the trial or other proceedings shall be taken in the presence of the accused or when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in presence of his pleader. This section by implication empowers the court to dispense with personal attendance of the accused. It would be of some relevance to note here itself that Section 205 deals with initial appearance and Section 273 deals with the presence during trial and by implication this Section empowers the court to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and in that event the evidence can be taken in the presence of his pleader. It is to be seen therefore that Section 273 of the Criminal Procedure Code by necessary implication confers power on the court to dispense with the personal presence or attendance of an accused and when his personal attendance is dispensed with, the evidence can be taken in presence of his pleader. The reference in the Section 273 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the power of a trial court to dispense with the personal attendance of an accused clearly implies that the trial court has such power of granting exemption and in that event the evidence can be taken in the presence of his counsel. If the witnesses are examined in temporary absence of the accused, as in this case and when the material on record would show that his personal attendance in the circumstances was by necessary implication dispensed with by the trial court. If the witnesses are examined in temporary absence of the accused, as in this case and when the material on record would show that his personal attendance in the circumstances was by necessary implication dispensed with by the trial court. The trial cannot be said to be invalid and the conviction cannot be set aside and more so when on the next hearing date, the evidence of P. W. 3 was further taken and concluded in the presence of both the accused and his counsel. Therefore, we find no illegality in the procedure adopted by the trial court while recording the evidence of P. W. 3 and others. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the conviction of the accused is to be quashed only on that ground. ( 21 ) IT was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the conduct of P. W. 6 after seeing the accused and not reporting the same to any other persons in the village is highly unnatural. It has to be stated that the post-event conduct of a witness cannot be predicted as it varies from person to person. Different people react differently. If an authority is required on this point, a reference may be made to decisions in rammi alias rameshwar v state of Madhya Pradesh and leela ram v state of haryana and another. The court cannot expect a set of reactions from a witness on seeing certain facts or events. Hence, a reaction not improbable or inconceivable from any human being in similar situation cannot be dubbed as unnatural. Further, the delay in ex- amining the material witnesses by the police by itself cannot be a ground to discard their testimony or to disbelieve the prosecution case, which is substantiated by the other reliable evidence on record. In this connection, a reference may be made to a decision in ramesh v state of Madhya Pradesh and others. Corroboration with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in a criminal trial. What is required is a general corroboration to the witness on the material aspects of the case. No doubt P. W. 3 is a close relative of the deceased. But there is no general Rule that the evidence of relations of the deceased must be corroborated for securing conviction. Each case depends on its own facts. What is required is a general corroboration to the witness on the material aspects of the case. No doubt P. W. 3 is a close relative of the deceased. But there is no general Rule that the evidence of relations of the deceased must be corroborated for securing conviction. Each case depends on its own facts. On the other hand the close relative of the deceased, who is most natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness. The evidence of P. W. 3- Smt. Shobha is quite consistent and convincing. Her presence at the spot established from the materials placed on record and corroborated by the medical evidence as well as the other circumstantial evidence cannot be discarded. There may be minor embellishments, but such embellishments do not render the evidence of the eye-witness, P. W. 3 unbelievable, which is otherwise found to be reliable and acceptable. Giving more details while deposing before the court cannot be treated as improvements. On going through the entire evidence of P. W. 3 coupled with the other material placed on record, we are unable to come to the conclusion that she is not speaking the truth or that she cannot inspire confidence in the mind of any reasonable man to adjudge the disputed question of fact so as to eschew entirely her evidence from consideration whatsoever. There is no reason for her to either implicate or depose falsely against the appellant and we see no valid reason to disbelieve her evidence. We are pursuaded to believe her evidence as has been corroborated from the other circumstances available on record. There is absolutely no reason to discard the testimony of the eye-witness, P. W. 3 to the incident. On going through the evidence on record, we do not find any material from which it can be said that other independent eye-witnesses were available and the same were not examined by the prosecution. Recovery of bloodstained sickle and the clothes of the accused: ( 22 ) THE asi, P. W. 12 has deposed that on 27-11-1995 (six days after the incident), he apprehended the accused near harogere cross and produced him before the cpi. It would be of some relevance to note here itself that pn-6 had seen the accused going towards harogere road. It would be of some relevance to note here itself that pn-6 had seen the accused going towards harogere road. In this backdrop the apprehension of the accused by the asi, P. W. 12 near harogere cross would lend some assurance. P. w. 12 has denied the suggestion of the defence that the accused was apprehended and brought from his house. The evidence of the cpi, P. W. 15 would show that on 27-11-1995 at about 7 a. m. in the morning while he was in the police station, the asi, P. W. 12 produced the accused before him and he caused his arrest. He interrogated the accused, who furnished information to him as per ex. P-13. Thereafter, he says that the accused had led him and the panchas to his land and from inside the hut, he produced the sickle m. o. 1 which was seized in the presence of the panchas under a panchanama and so also the clothes m. os. 14 and 15. They had left the police station along with the accused around 9 a. m. to the land situated within the limits of halingali village and there inside the hut, the accused produced the sickle. On 19-12-1995 he had sent all the incriminating articles to the forensic science laboratory and the report of the chemical examiner received from the forensic science laboratory as per exs. P-14 and 15 would show that the clothes of the deceased viz. , the shirt and the dhoti and also the sickle were found to be stained with blood. Even the bloodstained earth obtained from the spot was found to be similar to the specimen soil obtained from the spot. This would fix the place of incident. ( 23 ) UNDER the cross-examination he has stated that at the time of the spot panchanama, he noticed two bundles of grass lying on the spot, but he did not seize the same though he has mentioned this fact in the spot panchanama. The non-seizure of the grass bundle would only speak of the negligence or lapse on the part of the investigating officer. On the other hand his evidence that the two grass bundles were lying on the spot would lend sufficient corroboration to the evidence of P. W. 3. The non-seizure of the grass bundle would only speak of the negligence or lapse on the part of the investigating officer. On the other hand his evidence that the two grass bundles were lying on the spot would lend sufficient corroboration to the evidence of P. W. 3. It is further elicited in the cross-examination of P. W. 15 that at the time of seizure of the sickle and clothes, the brother of the deceased by name shankar was also present, but he was not taken as the panch witness for the recovery. He denied the suggestion that ex. P-9 was prepared at the police station. ( 24 ) P. W. 11-ajit is one of the panch witnesses for the recovery. He has deposed that he was called to the police station and told that the accused intends or desires to produce the sickle and he was requested to act as one of the panchas. The accused was then in the custody of the inspector. Thereafter, the accused took them to a sugarcane field within the limits of halingali village and there, from inside the hut, he produced the sickle, m. o. 1 and clothes, m. os. 14 and 15 which were found to be bloodstained. Under the cross-examination, he has stated that "roudi" from where the accused produced m. os. 1, 14 and 15 was situated inside the hut in the land of the accused. He is however not aware as to whom the said hut belonged to. He did not also observe whether the said hut had any shutter or not. He has stated that anybody could have access to the said hut. There was one more panch, but he could not recollect his name. He has stated that one shankar was also present at that time. The evidence of these two witnesses, p. ws. 11 and 15 read as a whole would clearly indicate that m. os. 1,14 and 15 were produced by the accused from the place where they, were concealed in consequence to a voluntary statement made by the accused to the cpi, P. W. 15 during the court of interrogation. The place where these articles were concealed was within the exclusive knowledge of the accused. It is difficult to believe that they could have been planted by the police. At any rate there is no such material on record to so infer. The place where these articles were concealed was within the exclusive knowledge of the accused. It is difficult to believe that they could have been planted by the police. At any rate there is no such material on record to so infer. The disclosure statement was made by the accused to the investigating officer during the course of interrogation. In consequence of such disclosure statement made by the accused, the recoveries were effected from the place where they were concealed. There is nothing in Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act which renders the statement of the accused inadmissible if recovery is effected from any place which is open or accessible to others. It is incorrect to hold that when the recovery was effected from a place which is open or accessible to others, it would vitiate the recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Any object can be concealed in places which are open or accessible to other unit such article is disinterred, its hidden state would remain unhampered. The person who hit it alone knows where it is until he discloses that fact to any other person. Therefore, crucial question would be whether the incriminating articles were visible to others. If it is not visible to others, then it is immaterial whether the concealed place is accessible to others or not. It is now well-settled that the discovery of fact under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is not the object recovered but the fact embraces the place where it was concealed and the knowledge of the accused to it. In the instant case, the sickle and the clothes which were found to be bloodstained were discovered by the investigating officer in consequence of the disclosure statement made by the accused to the investigating officer from the place where they were concealed, which was within the exclusive knowledge of the accused. The recovery effected on the basis of such statement is that it was the accused who concealed them at the hidden place. When the accused points out the place where the incriminating articles were concealed pursuant to a statement made by him, it is to be held that the concealment was made by himself. The recovery effected on the basis of such statement is that it was the accused who concealed them at the hidden place. When the accused points out the place where the incriminating articles were concealed pursuant to a statement made by him, it is to be held that the concealment was made by himself. This is because it is only the accused who can offer explanation as to how he came to know of such concealment and if he fails to offer any explanation, the presumption is that the concealment was made by the accused himself. The recovery of the bloodstained sickle and the clothes at the instance of the accused from the place where they were concealed by him is a most formidable circumstance against the accused which in our view has been substantially proved by the prosecution. ( 25 ) THEREFORE, from the materials brought on record by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused, we are of the firm view that the trial court had taken a correct view which cannot be called illogical or unreasonable. ( 26 ) FOR all these reasons, we have no hesitation to agree with the finding of the trial court, holding the appellant to be guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for committing the murder of his own wife Smt. Sunanda. The trial court therefore committed no illegality in convicting the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him accordingly. We do not see any infirmity with the judgment of the trial court in convicting the accused under Section 302 of the IPC, warranting interference by this court in the appeal. There is absolutely no merit in any of the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant. ( 27 ) IN the result, therefore, this criminal appeal filed by the appellant fails and is accordingly dismissed as devoid of merits. --- *** --- .

JINNAPPA PAREESH HULAKUND v. STATE OF KARNATAKA