PATIL, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent-State and carefully perused the case records with their assistance. ( 2 ) THE appellants herein have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 326, 504 read with Section 34 of ipc and sentenced to under go imprisonment for life and pay fine of rs. 3000/ each and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo further R. I for a period of three months, for the offence under Section 302 IPC. They are further sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of five years and pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo further R. I for a period of five months, for the offence under Section 326 of IPC. It is further ordered that if the fine amount is recovered, the injured PW-5 Satturam shall be paid a sum Rs. 1000/ -. Further, the appellants were sentenced to-undergo r. I for one year for the offence under Section 504 of IPC. ( 3 ) THE case of the prosecution is that the appellants herein are the owners of the land Sy. No. 295 situated at Mole village, Taluk Athani, belgaum District and the land Sy. No. 296 measuring 1 acre 6 guntas belong to the deceased Mahadeva and his brothers Bharamu PW-1 and Satturam Bhadake. Another elder brother has got his own land and is residing separately. The appellant No. 1 is the cousin brother of the deceased Mahadeva and his brother. Appellant No. 2 is the wife of appellant No. 1. About 1 year 8 months back, the relationship between the appellants and the deceased Mahadeva and his brother was not in good terms. In between the lands belonging to the appellants and the deceased and his brother, there was a bund. Because of the dispute regarding the bund portion, the relationship was strained. Inspite of request and persuasion made to the appellants to remove the encroachment towards the bund of the land belonging to Mahadeva and his brother, the appellants have not yielded nor agreeable for that. At that stage, there is no option for the deceased Mahadeva and his brothers to refer the matter to the Village Panchayath. Inspite of request and persuasion made to the appellants to remove the encroachment towards the bund of the land belonging to Mahadeva and his brother, the appellants have not yielded nor agreeable for that. At that stage, there is no option for the deceased Mahadeva and his brothers to refer the matter to the Village Panchayath. The Village Panchayath considered the request made by the deceased Mahadeva and his brothers and also made spot inspection and conducted private survey of the land in question before the appellants. Thereafter, after due deliberation in the matter, the Panchayath has come to the conclusion that the appellants herein have encroached the portion of the bund belonging to the deceased Mahadeva and his brothers. Accordingly, the appellants herein was directed to remove the encroached bund portion immediately, but the appellants had not taken steps to remove the encroachment portion of the bund as between them. ( 4 ) IT is the further case of the deceased Mahadeva and others, on the fatal day of the incident i. e. on 25. 6,1995 in the morning the deceased Mahadeva, his younger brother Satturam ( PW-5) and one ahmed Aparaj (PW-3) had gone to their land to remove the said bund. At that time, the complainant PW-1 had gone to the house of sri Dattu Patil (PW-8) of their village for preparing food for about 50 persons in view of the function relating to Chinenani Mayakkadevi pooja. At about 9-30 a. m. the daughter of PW-1 Shantakka (PW-6) came to the house of Dattu Patil and intimated PW-1 that the deceased Mahadeva and Satturam -PW-5 were assaulted by the appellants-1 and 2 and requested the complainant to come to the land immediately. Accordingly, the complainant PW-1 along with his daughter went to the spot and there, he found his brothers deceased mahadeva and Satturam PW-6 had sustained injuries and Satturam told him that both the appellants herein quarreled with them in connection with the removal of the bund, abused them in filthy language and assaulted them with sickle and axe. PW-1 immediately made arrangements to remove the injured Mahadeva in a bullock cart to the village Panchayath office. By the time they reached the panchayath office, his brother Mahadeva had died. On the same day, PW-1 went and lodged his written complaint as per Ex. P-1 with the PSI PW-12 of Kagawad Police Station. PW-1 immediately made arrangements to remove the injured Mahadeva in a bullock cart to the village Panchayath office. By the time they reached the panchayath office, his brother Mahadeva had died. On the same day, PW-1 went and lodged his written complaint as per Ex. P-1 with the PSI PW-12 of Kagawad Police Station. PW-12 registered the case for offences under Sections 504, 326, 302 read with Section 34 IPC against the appellants and sent the FIR Ex. P-13 through pw-9 Chandrappa to the jurisdictional Magistrate, Athani. Accordingly, pw-9 submitted the complaint Ex. P-1 and FIR Ex. P-13 at 1-30 p. m. on the same day to the jurisdictional Magistrate. Thereafter, PW-12 went to the village and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchas and sent the dead body for P. M. examination to the concerned medical officer. Then he conducted the spot panchanama in the presence of the panchayathdars and recorded the statement of the witnesses on 30. 6. 1995. PW-12 came to know about the whereabouts of the appellants and accordingly, he went to Kavalgudda cross and arrested both the appellants and brought them to the Panchayath office of Mole village. Thereafter, on interrogations, the appellants volunteered to produce the weapons used in the commission of offence. Both the appellants led the police and panchas near their house in the land and appellant No. 1 led them to a spot where they had stored Cow-dung cakes and from that heap, appellant No. 1 picked up one sickle It was stained with blood. The same was seized under panchanama Ex. P-11. Likewise, appellant No. 2 led them near the hay-stack situated near their house and from that hay stack, she removed one axe and produced before PW-12. The same was seized under panchanama Ex. P-12. Then PW. 13 took up further investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the appellants for the offences mentioned above. ( 5 ) THE appellants were examined under Section 313 of Cr. P. C. Both of them have admitted the relationship between the deceased mahadeva and his brothers with them as cousins. Hence, the relationship was not disputed. The other plea of the appellants was one of total denial of the prosecution case. The appellants did not adduce any evidence in support of their case. P. C. Both of them have admitted the relationship between the deceased mahadeva and his brothers with them as cousins. Hence, the relationship was not disputed. The other plea of the appellants was one of total denial of the prosecution case. The appellants did not adduce any evidence in support of their case. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution had examined pws. 1 to 15. Out of 15 witnesses examined by the prosecution, pw. 1 is the complainant who is the first informant to the Police. PWs. 3, 5 and 6 are eye witnesses to the incident. PW-2 is the doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased mahadeva. PW-4 is a witness to the inquest proceedings held on the dead body of the deceased Mahadeva. PW-4 had accompanied the Kagawad police on 25. 6. 1995 at 11 a. m. , to the Panchayath office at Mole village. He saw the dead body of the deceased mahadeva kept on the katta of Panchayath office. He noticed the injuries on the neck, back of head, front chest, below the legs. In that regard, the police have drawn the panchanama Ex. P-4. He has put his signature at Ex. P-4 (a ). Thereafter, he has accompanied the police to the land of the deceased, where they saw the place, where deceased Mahadeva had fallen. He saw the blood stained mud to the extent of 3' X 3'. Accordingly, a panchanama was drawn as per ex. P-5. He had put his signature at Ex. P-5 (a ). Thereafter, the scene of crime panchanama was drawn as per Ex. P-6 and his signature is at Ex. P-6 (a ). He had seen Mos. 1 and 2 the blood stained clothes of deceased Mahadeva. The Police have seized Mos. 1 and 2 under panchanama Ex. P-7 and he had put his signature at Ex. P. 7 (a ). PW- 7 is a panch witness for the seizure panchanama Ex. P-9 under which mo-11 the blood stained clothes found on the dead body of the deceased were seized. PW-8 is a circumstantial witness. On the date of the incident, he had arranged a function relating to Chinenani mayakkadevi pooja in his house where PW-1 had gone for preparing food for about 50 persons. PW-9 the Police constable who carried the FIR Ex. PW-8 is a circumstantial witness. On the date of the incident, he had arranged a function relating to Chinenani mayakkadevi pooja in his house where PW-1 had gone for preparing food for about 50 persons. PW-9 the Police constable who carried the FIR Ex. P. 1 to the jurisdictional Magistrate and handed over to the Magistrate at about 1-30 p. m. along with Ex. P-13. PW-10 is a police constable who carried the seized articles for the chemical examination to FSL at Bangalore. PW-11 is the Police Constable who took the dead body of the deceased for its PM examination to the Medical Officer and after the PM examination was over, he produced Mos. 1 to 3 which were found on the dead body, before the investigating officer and submitted the report in writing as per ex. P-14. ( 6 ) PW-12 is the PSI of Kagwad Police Station who registered the case under Sections 504, 326, 302, read with Section 34 of IPC against the appellants as per Ex. P-13 and also recorded the statements of PWs. 1,3 and 6 and sent the dead body through PW- 11 for its P. M. examination and conducted the panchanama Ex. P-5 in the presence of the panchas where the dead body was kept, in the presence of PW-4 and CW-2. PW-6 has shown the scene of offence to PW-12. As shown by her, he conducted the spot panchanama as per Ex. P-5 in the presence of PW-4 and CW-2. During the spot mahazar, he seized the blood stained mud and control mud MOs. 7 and 8. Thereafter, he recorded the statements of PWs. 1, 3, 5 and 6 and CWs. 8 to 10. After post mortem examination, PW. 11 brought the articles Mos. 1 to 3 which were found on the dead body of the deceased Mahadeva. The same were seized under panchanama Ex. P-7. P. W-1 produced the blood stained clothes of deceased Mahadeva in the presence of PW-4 and CW. 3. Accordingly, the same were seized in their presence under panchanama Ex. P-8. On 27. 6. 1995, PW-12 handed over the case file to PW-13 for further investigation. Since PW-13 was otherwise engaged, PW-12 himself took up further investigation in the case on 30. 6. 1995. In the course of searching the accused, PW-12 came to know about the whereabouts of the appellants. P-8. On 27. 6. 1995, PW-12 handed over the case file to PW-13 for further investigation. Since PW-13 was otherwise engaged, PW-12 himself took up further investigation in the case on 30. 6. 1995. In the course of searching the accused, PW-12 came to know about the whereabouts of the appellants. Accordingly, he went to Kavalgudda cross and arrested both the appellants and brought them to the panchayath office of Mole village. In the presence of cw-4 and PW-7, he seized the clothes of both the appellants under panchanama Exts. P-9 and P - 10 as they were blood stained. Thereafter, he interrogated both the appellants. Both of them volunteered the statement stating that they will show the place where they had hidden the weapons used for the commission of the offence. The said voluntary admission of appellant No. 1 is marked at Ex. P- 16 and that of appellant No. 2 is at Ex. P-17. After the voluntary statement given by the appellants, he secured two panchas viz. ,cw4 and PW-7 and along with the appellants they proceeded in a private vehicle towards the house of the appellants. After reaching the house, appellant No. 1 got down from the vehicle and took them to a spot where they had stored the cow dung cakes. Appellant No. 1 picked up one sickle from the heap of that cow dung cakes. The said sickle was stained with blood. He seized under panchanama Ex. P-11. Then appellant No. 2 had led all of them near the hay-stack of their house and from that, she removed one axe and produced before them. The same was seized under panchanama Ex. P-12. MOs. 6 and 5 are sickle and axe respectively. He recorded the further statement of PWs-3, 5 and PW-6. Thereafter, the appellants were sent to the court with remand application and then he handed over the investigation of the case to PW-13. PW-13 who was the Dy. S. P of chikodi Police station took up further investigation of the case. PW- 14 is the medical officer, Civil Hospital, Sangli. She examined PW- 5 on 26. 6. 1995 and she found seven injuries on his person. PW-15 is a witness who wrote the complaint as per the request made by pw-1. PW-13 who was the Dy. S. P of chikodi Police station took up further investigation of the case. PW- 14 is the medical officer, Civil Hospital, Sangli. She examined PW- 5 on 26. 6. 1995 and she found seven injuries on his person. PW-15 is a witness who wrote the complaint as per the request made by pw-1. ( 7 ) THE trial Court on consideration of the relevant evidence placed on record, has convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated supra. Hence, this appeal by the convicted accused assailing their conviction and sentence. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended before us that the alleged witnesses PWs. 3, 5 and 6 are in one way of the other, related to the deceased and hence, they are highly interested witnesses. Further, he has contended so far as pw-3 is concerned, he has worked only for two days as a coolie in their land. Hence, he is also an interested witness. Therefore, all the material witnesses for the prosecution are not genuine nor stated the true facts. Hence, they are not reliable witnesses. He contended that in all probability, the deceased Mahadeva had not been killed by the appellants and all the eye witnesses have been planted or created for the purpose of this case in order to falsely implicate the appellants. He further contended that the selection of the witnesses made by the investigating agency would clear reveal that they had selected only the partisan and interested witnesses to support the case of the prosecution. According to the learned Counsel, the prosecution has not placed the correct or true picture of the incident. While referring to the evidence of PW-1 with regard to the lodging of the complaint, there is inconsistency in the statement made by pw-1 during the course of lodging the complaint. PW. 1 has stated that he brought the dead body of the deceased of Mahadeva to the panchayath office and did not go to the police station since PW-5 himself had gone to the police station. At about 10-30 or 11 a. m. on the same day, the Kagwad police came to their village and he narrated about the incident to the police. He being an illiterate, he did not give any written complaint but the police themselves wrote his complaint as per Ex. P-1. At about 10-30 or 11 a. m. on the same day, the Kagwad police came to their village and he narrated about the incident to the police. He being an illiterate, he did not give any written complaint but the police themselves wrote his complaint as per Ex. P-1. But as per the statement given by PW- 12 PSI, PW-1 appeared before him to lodge the written complaint as per Ex. P-1. Accordingly, he registered the case under Sections 504, 326, 302 read with Section 34 IPC against the present appellants. The learned Counsel therefore contended, these two contradictory statements made by PW-1 and PW. 12 regarding the lodging of the complaint itself proved beyond reasonable doubt that the complaint was not at all given in the police station. The said story made out by the prosecution is false and baseless because the complaint was written by PW-15 and the same was given by pw-1 not in the police station, but it is in the panchayath office after arrival of the police. Further he has contended that the motive between the deceased Mahadeva and his brothers, and the appellants was with regard to the land dispute for encroachment of bund by the appellants. Therefore, the entire prosecution case is nothing but a concocted story and the prosecution has failed to establish the offence committed by the appellants herein. Hence, an adverse inference is to be drawn against the prosecution for revealing the truth before the court The statements made by PWs 1 and 12 contradict to each other. Further he has contended as per the statement of PW I the appellants have been arrested after the arrival of the dead body of deceased Mahadeva in the village. But PW-12 has stated that the appellants were arrested on 30. 6. 1995 when he took up further investigation in the case, during the course of searching, he came to know about the whereabouts of the appellant through a police information. Accordingly, he went to Kavalgudda cross and arrested both the appellants and brought them to the panchayath office of Mole village. These statements made by PW1 and PW-12 regarding the arrest of the appellants are contradictory to each other. Accordingly, he went to Kavalgudda cross and arrested both the appellants and brought them to the panchayath office of Mole village. These statements made by PW1 and PW-12 regarding the arrest of the appellants are contradictory to each other. This itself shows that there are intentional and deliberate lapses on the part of the prosecution because as per the statement made by PW-1, the appellants have been arrested on the same day evening when the dead body of the deceased Mahadeva was brought to the village after P. M. examination. Therefore, the learned Counsel contended that on this ground also, this Court can draw an adverse inference against the prosecution for not stating the truth of the case on hand. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants has further contended that Ex. P-1 is written by PW. 15 who is nothing but a tutored one to suit the prosecution case. He has contended that the appellants were kept in police custody for about 5 days and at that time, their voluntary statements were taken by the police. He has contended that the presence of PW-6 has created a story to suit the case of the prosecution because as per the statement of PW1, when he reached the spot except appellant No. 2 there was none present. It shows that appellant No. 2 was very much present there. In view of that, it has to be stated that the prosecution has made attempt to suit their case to prove the guilt against the appellants, created PW- 6 as one of the eye witness to the scene of occurrence because as per the statement of PW-1, he has stated the truth of the case that appellant No. 2 was only present there. Hence, the presence of PW- 6 at the scene of occurrence is unbelievable. When PW-1 came to the spot, the deceased Mahadeva were lying with injuries and he died on the way to the panchayath office. If these facts are taken into consideration as a whole, the prosecution has not at all established the case against the appellants. Further he has contended that PW-3 has stated in his evidence that himself and pw-1 had lifted the dead body of the deceased Mahadeva and shifted to the bullock cart. This statement contradict the evidence of pw-1. If these facts are taken into consideration as a whole, the prosecution has not at all established the case against the appellants. Further he has contended that PW-3 has stated in his evidence that himself and pw-1 had lifted the dead body of the deceased Mahadeva and shifted to the bullock cart. This statement contradict the evidence of pw-1. Further, this Court should take into consideration when PW- 3 was present at the spot and he has not made any attempt to stop the quarrel that took place between the deceased and the appellants, he is nothing but a silent spectator to the incident. Hence, the presence of PW-3 was taken up to effect the presence and suit the case of the prosecution and to make the prosecution case stronger. Further, the learned Counsel contended that PW-5 the alleged injured eye witness speaks to the participation of PW-3 along with him and also speaks to the presence of PW-6 who came there to give water to them. This story has not come up in the complaint Ex. P. 1 given by PW-1 or in the inquest report. Further he has contended that the evidence of PW. 6 is concerned, it is a brought up story and cannot be believable. Therefore, these facts and circumstances proved beyond doubt that the prosecution has not brought up the truth of the case at all. He has contended that PW-15 has written the complaint in the panchayath office. If once he has written the complaint in the panchayath office, there is no occasion for PW-1 to go to the Police station and lodge the complaint and it proved beyond doubt that PW-1 never went to the police station at all to lodge the complaint because PW-5 specifically stated in his evidence that he along with PW-1 had gone to the police station to lodge the complaint and accordingly, they have lodged the complaint. These lapses and omissions on the part of the prosecution story to build up a case to see that the appellants would be punished. There is no truth coming out from the evidence of PW-1 and PW-12 and other witnesses. This is nothing but a concocted story made out by the prosecution and hence the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the incident that took place on that fatal day. Further, he has contended that pw. There is no truth coming out from the evidence of PW-1 and PW-12 and other witnesses. This is nothing but a concocted story made out by the prosecution and hence the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the incident that took place on that fatal day. Further, he has contended that pw. 5 has not sustained any injuries in that incident. To make a stray case, the prosecution has brought the story of PW-5 who has kept silent throughout the incident. The natural conduct of the witnesses may be taken into consideration. Hence, they have not come up before this Court nor deposed the truth. Further he has contended that PW-5 for the first time brought up the story that her daughter PW-6 has brought the water. Hence, she is nothing but a tutored witness to suit the prosecution case. Further he has contended regarding absconding of the appellants it is not at all there in the instant case. ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants also contended that PW- 5 in his cross-examination has stated that PW-6 had come to scene of crime on that day. She had brought the water as per their request in a vessel (Thambige ). After giving the water, she had went back. They have not taken the water. PW. 5 has stated that when he fell down he became unconscious. But in the examination in chief, he has stated that he was conscious. Therefore, learned Counsel submits that this contradictory statement given by PW-5 suffice for this Court to come to the conclusion that the presence of PW-5 was not at all there on the scene of offence on that fatal day. He further contended that when the prosecution witnesses could falsely implicate the appellants in this case, no implicit reliance could be placed upon the evidence of the alleged eye witness. He further contended that the eye witnesses examined by the prosecution have given a supporting evidence with regard to the incident and they are all tutored witnesses. He also contended that the conduct of the complainant must be taken into consideration. He further contended that the conduct of these eye witnesses does not inspite confidence in as much as all of them are silent spectators of the incident and they did not make either to intervene or go to the rescue of the victims. He also contended that the conduct of the complainant must be taken into consideration. He further contended that the conduct of these eye witnesses does not inspite confidence in as much as all of them are silent spectators of the incident and they did not make either to intervene or go to the rescue of the victims. He also contended that this could not have been the conduct of the eye witnesses who have witnessed the incident in question. He also contended that the complaint has been prepared after due deliberation. In this context, he referred to the evidence of PW-15 and submitted that the evidence of PW-15 would clearly indicate that after due deliberation, the complaint has been written. Thereafter, it has been lodged in the Police station and this would clearly indicate that the complaint had been lodged to the police after due deliberation and the appellants have been falsely implicated in the case. He also contended that the alleged eye witnesses had been deliberately introduced to facilitate the alleged eye witnesses to see the deceased. He also contended that all the alleged eye witnesses are consistent only with regard to the assault and on all other aspects they differ and according to the learned Counsel for the appellants, this could not have been the conduct if they had really witnessed the incident in question. According to the learned Counsel for the appellants, all these eye witnesses examined by the prosecution have given a tutored version in their chief examination with regard to the actual assault committed on the deceased. While referring to the medical evidence of PW-2, he contended that the description of the injuries given by the doctor has been spoken to by any of the alleged eye witnesses. It would clearly eliminates the deceased being assaulted in the manner as stated by the alleged eye witnesses. He also contended that the ocular evidence of the alleged eye witnesses is inconsistent with the medical evidence in the case. He further contended that though all these eye witnesses speak to every details of the assault in their chief examination, but when they have been questioned in the cross-examination as to which particular accused committed assault with what particular weapon and on which particular part of the body of the deceased, they were not able to tell and hence they are nothing but tutored witnesses. While elaborating his submission, he contended that when these witnesses were able to give the details of the assault committed by the appellants on the deceased in their chief examination, how is it that they do not give the details in the cross examination. He further contended that in the instant case, no independent witnesses were examined though available because it has come in the evidence that one female folk was present at the time of incident near the scene of offence. All the eye witnesses examined were all the relatives of the deceased or the and one coolie working along with them. He contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He also contended that the FIR is anti- timed. He further contended that the prosecution has not been able to establish that there was a prior concert or common intention on the part of the appellants to cause the death of the deceased. He also contended that it has not been established as to who actually caused the fatal injury to the deceased. Under these circumstances, he contended that the appellants had no intention to commit the murder of the deceased Mahadeva. Hence, they may be acquitted of the offences. ( 11 ) AS against this, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State while supporting the judgment of the Trial Court has contended that the facts here would clearly show that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellants. His first submission was that PW-15 who has written the complaint has been examined and also cross- examined. Therefore, there is no person who has written the complaint as suggested by the appellants Counsel. There is only one complaint in this case. Because PW-15 has admitted that there is correction in the complaint and this fact itself proved beyond doubt that he has written the complaint and he is not a relative of the deceased. Hence there is only one complaint which was lodged in the present case. Further he has contended that PW-1 has narrated the real story and not suppressed anything in his complaint. He has received information through PW-6 and then only he arrived at the spot. Hence there is only one complaint which was lodged in the present case. Further he has contended that PW-1 has narrated the real story and not suppressed anything in his complaint. He has received information through PW-6 and then only he arrived at the spot. PW-1 has stated in his complaint that the deceased and PW- 5 had sustained injuries and he has also stated, PW-5 was examined by PW-14 the doctor and there are seven injuries were found on his person. This itself establish beyond doubt the presence of PW-5 on the scene of occurrence and he was treated by the medical for more than one month as an inpatient in the Civil hospital, Sangli. Further he has stated that PW-5 was very much there. PW-5 has gone there along with PW-1 with bullock cart to the village Panchayath office. Further he has contended as stated in the examination in chief that he was conscious and he has seen the incident. ( 12 ) THE learned Government Pleader has stated that PW-3 has come to work to the lands of the deceased on daily wages as a coolie. He is an independent witness and he was very much present at the time of incident. He has spoken to the real truth of the incident. Hence, his natural conduct should be taken into consideration as he followed to the panchayath office while carrying the dead body of the deceased Mahadeva along with PW-1 and PW-5. PW-3 has worked for only two days. His statement itself proves his natural conduct. PW-6 also speaks to the presence of PW-3 but he did not know his name. The learned Counsel further contended that the presence of PW-6 is not in dispute in the instant case, because she was very much there as she came along with her senior uncle the deceased Mahadeva and PW5 to the land. Her presence also stated by PW-3 and PW-5. She was very much present in the land at the time of incident. Further it is proved beyond doubt that her presence establish she had gone to bring her father from PW-8's house. Her presence also stated by PW-3 and PW-5. She was very much present in the land at the time of incident. Further it is proved beyond doubt that her presence establish she had gone to bring her father from PW-8's house. Hence, the question of tutoring and creating PW-6 as an eve witness to establish their case by the prosecution does not arise, because she has gone there to PW-8's house and informed her father about the incident that took place and asked him to come to the land immediately. These facts if taken into consideration, her presence in the land on the fatal day of the incident proved beyond doubt. ( 13 ) FURTHER the learned Counsel has contended regarding the arrest of the appellants it has been clearly stated in the charge sheet and also spoken to by PW-12 and PW-13 that he has arrested the appellants on the same day. There may be some typographical error at the time of recording the evidence. Hence, much significance cannot be given to the statement of PW-12 regarding the abscondence of the appellants. Further he has contended that the eye witnesses examined by the prosecution are the most natural and probable witnesses who witnessed the incident from different angles and hence if there be any discrepancy in the evidence of these witnesses that by itself is not sufficient to discard their evidence. He contended that there was conjoint assault by these appellants who were armed with sickle and axe and brutally attacked the deceased. He further contended that the doctor PW-2 who examined the weapons with reference to the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased Mahadeva has stated that such injuries could be caused with axe and sickle. Hence, the ocular evidence given by the eye witnesses with regard to the incident is quite consistent with the medical evidence. He also contended the evidence of the doctor pw-2 regarding this opinion has not been impeached by drawing his attention to any medical authority to prove contra. He further contended that the eye witness account given by the prosecution evidence finds corroboration from the recoveries effected at the instance of these appellants. He also contended the evidence of the doctor pw-2 regarding this opinion has not been impeached by drawing his attention to any medical authority to prove contra. He further contended that the eye witness account given by the prosecution evidence finds corroboration from the recoveries effected at the instance of these appellants. He contended that PW-4 and CW-8 the co-panch are the witnesses for the panchanama and the witnesses has clearly stated that the blood had fallen at the scene of offence and the same was seized by the Police which clearly fixes the place of incident in the land in question. He therefore contended that the theory of the defence that all these witnesses are tutored has got no force because in view of the fact that the blood stains were found at the scene of incident in the land. He further contended that the mud collected from the scene of incident was sent along with the clothes of the deceased and also the weapons recovered at the instance of the appellants to the FSL for their chemical examination and the report received from the Chemical examiner which is admissible in law without examining the Chemical examiner would show that the same group of human blood was found on all these articles which clearly fixes the place of incident in the land in question and also the crime weapons and ultimately the appellants with the crime. He further contended that all the material witnesses for the prosecution being rustic villages, merely because their evidence suffers from some inconsistencies here and there, the whole of their evidence cannot be rejected and on the other hand, the chaff has to be separated from the grain. Therefore, the presence of these eye witnesses cannot be disputed. They are trustworthy witnesses in the case because they knows the reality of the incident. Hence, they are natural and probable witnesses to the incident in question. Therefore, he contended that their presence at the time of incident is most natural and probable. He further contended the attack on the deceased with sickle and axe conjointly by the appellants was in view of the long standing enimity regarding the land dispute and hence having regard to the manner in which assault has been committed by these appellants on the deceased would clearly attract the offence under Section 302 IPC and not lesser offence. He further contended the attack on the deceased with sickle and axe conjointly by the appellants was in view of the long standing enimity regarding the land dispute and hence having regard to the manner in which assault has been committed by these appellants on the deceased would clearly attract the offence under Section 302 IPC and not lesser offence. Lastly, he contended that there is no delay for lodging the complaint as contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants. ( 14 ) IN the light of the submissions made on both sides, we shall now proceed to consider the question whether the trial Court was justified in convicting the appellants for the offences under Sections 302, 326, 504 read with Section 34 IPC. On the basis of the evidence of doctor PW2 who held autopsy ( 15 ) ON the dead body of the deceased Mahadeva and issued the P. M. report as per Ex. P-2 and having regard to the nature of suggestion made by the defence to the prosecution witnesses, the conclusion is irresistable that the deceased Mahadeva had died due to fatal blow given by the appellants. Therefore, it can safely be concluded that the deceased Mahadeva died a homicidal death. It is further pertinent to note that the doctor PW-2 who had an occasion to examine the weapons MOs. 5 and 6 with reference to the injuries sustained by the deceased has specifically stated that they are capable of causing the injuries that were found on the dead body of the deceased. Thus there is positive evidence of the doctor PW-5 that the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased could be caused by MOs. 5 and 6. In this context, it may be useful to state that an incised wound on the front side of the neck may be produced by heavy sharp edged weapon like axe. In fact the doctor PW-2 has also clearly stated that the internal injury mentioned as against the skull and vertabrae, membrane and spinal cord corresponding to injury No. 7. The internal injury mentioned as against column p. M. report corresponding to external injury No. 1 and injury Nos. 1, 2, 7 and 8 are grievous injuries and fatal and they would cause the death. The incised injury could be caused with sharp edged weapons like axe. The internal injury mentioned as against column p. M. report corresponding to external injury No. 1 and injury Nos. 1, 2, 7 and 8 are grievous injuries and fatal and they would cause the death. The incised injury could be caused with sharp edged weapons like axe. The doctor has noticed the internal and external injuries on, the person of the deceased:"1. An incised wound on the front of the side of the neck, on the right obliquely situated, the upper and is above right side. The lower end was below the medial side. The treachea was cut opened, sized 3 1/2" x 1/2" depth, muscles exposed. 2 1/2" depth, cut edges were sharp, wound surface was reddish, and contracted edges;2. Incised wound was deep on the front of the chest at upper end, cutting the clavicle bone, into two pieces at the middle, obliquely exposing the deep muscles, size 4"x 2 1/2" x 3 1/2" ;3. An incised wound on the back of the neck, arch shaped at the middle of the neck medially and transversely size 4 1/2" x 2" x depth 3 1/2" exposing deep muscles and back bone i. e,, cervical bone ;4. On the just above the right ear, an incised wound transversely, situated anterior posteriorly, size 2 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/4"5. Just behind the right ear at middle aspect, an incised wound 1 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/4" depth 2" bone exposed;6. An incised wound on the behind and below the ear, transversely size 3" x Vz" x 14". 7. On occipital region the skull 3" behind and at the level of the upper part of the right ear, transversely situated size 1 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" skull bone was exposed;8. An incised wound on the 2 1/2" above the 7th wound 2 1/2" x 1/2" x depth bone exposed, brain was exposed;9. An incised wound on the back of the right thigh below the buttock transversely 1 1/2"x 1/2" x1/4";10. An incised wound on the back of the left thigh at the middle aspect, obliquely from above downwards medially below grown to the laterally, size 6" x 1" x at middle and 1/4" at the end, depth was 1/4";11. An incised wound on the medial side of the thigh at middle 3 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" transversely;12. An incised wound on the back of the left thigh at the middle aspect, obliquely from above downwards medially below grown to the laterally, size 6" x 1" x at middle and 1/4" at the end, depth was 1/4";11. An incised wound on the medial side of the thigh at middle 3 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/4" transversely;12. An incised wound on the middle of right leg, medially 2" below the knee level size 2 1/2"x 1/2"x 1/4" transversely situated" ( 16 ) ON dissection he found the skull and vertebrae were cut at the sites mentioned in the injuries. Membranes was cut as mentioned in the injuries. Brain and spinal cord - exposed. Thorax - chest wall was cut. Wall ribs, cartilage at the left side chest on the front clavicle was cut completely at middle in two pieces. Further the doctor has opined on dissection that the time since was between 12 to 24 hours. He opined that the cause of death due to haemorrhage shock and severe grievous incised deep wounds on the body. Further he has issued P. M. report as per Ex. P-2 His signature is at Ex. P-2 (a ). The internal injury mentioned as against the skull and vertebrae, membranes and spinal cord corresponds with internal injury No. 7. The internal injuries mentioned as against Thorax, column of P. M. report corresponds to external injury No. 1 and injury Nos. 1, 2, 7 and 8 are grievous and fatal and they would cause the death. The incised injury could be caused with sharp edged weapons, like axe and sickle. Further he has stated he has given opinion relating to the injuries and the weapons. He has opined that the injuries present on the dead body could be caused by Mos. 5 and 6. His opinion is at Ex. P-3 and his signature is at P-3 (a ). The doctor PW-2 has in unequivocal terms stated that by the landing of forcible blow on may succumb to the death. Under the cross examination, the doctor pw-2 has further asserted that even the sharp edged weapon may cause incised injuries. 5 and 6. His opinion is at Ex. P-3 and his signature is at P-3 (a ). The doctor PW-2 has in unequivocal terms stated that by the landing of forcible blow on may succumb to the death. Under the cross examination, the doctor pw-2 has further asserted that even the sharp edged weapon may cause incised injuries. In the face of such positive evidence given by PW-2 who has an opportunity to examine the weapons with reference to the injuries that were found on the dead body of the deceased and in view of the fact that the blow on neck may be produced by heavy sharp edged weapons, it cannot be said that the injuries that were found on the dead body of the deceased mahadeva could not have been caused with the axe and sickle Mos. 5 and 6. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the injuries sustained by the deceased could not have been caused by axe and sickle. Hence, there is no force in the contention of the learned Counsel. Further, pw-2 in his cross examination on the suggestion made by the defence has stated that after sustaining injury No. 1 it would possible to say that the person will fall to the ground. Like wise in the case of injury No. 2 and he admits that injury Nos. 7 and 8 are on the vital parts of the body. Further he has stated if injury Nos. 7 and 8 were inflicted it was possible for the victim to go in the state of shock. The medical evidence and ocular evidence are consistent in nature and they are trustworthy witnesses to the scene of occurrence and it proved beyond doubt that the deceased had died due to the fatal blow given by appellants 1 and 2 respectively. ( 17 ) NOW let us go into the core of the matter in order to ascertain whether reasonable doubts about the prosecution are available on the record. Have we credible eye witnesses evidence? Have we corroborating circumstances? Have the appellants a plausible explanation for incriminating discoveries ? ( 18 ) AS stated earlier, there are three consistent eye witnesses evidence on behalf of the prosecution. Eye witnesses must naturally figure most promptly in a judicial search for truth. Have we credible eye witnesses evidence? Have we corroborating circumstances? Have the appellants a plausible explanation for incriminating discoveries ? ( 18 ) AS stated earlier, there are three consistent eye witnesses evidence on behalf of the prosecution. Eye witnesses must naturally figure most promptly in a judicial search for truth. ( 19 ) THE investigating officer PW-12 has stated that on 21. 6. 1995 at 10-30 a. m. , he registered the case under Sections 302, 326, 504 read with Section 34 IPC against the appellants. He has submitted the FIR to the Court as per Ex. P-13. Thereafter, he has sent Ex. P- 13 to the JMFC, Athani through PW. 9. After sending PW-9, PW-12 went to Mole village where he secured two panchas CWs. 2 and 4 and conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased as per Ex. P-4. During inquest he recorded the further statements of pw-1, PW-6 and PW-3. Thereafter he sent the dead body for p. M. examination through PW-11. In the presence of panchas he conducted the Panchanama in respect of the place where the dead body was kept. The evidence of Investigating officer PW-12 is substantially supported by the panch witnesses for the inquest viz, cw-2 and PW-4. Even the defence does not seriously dispute this fact. The investigating officer PW-12 has further stated in the presence of some panchas that he conducted the spot panchanama ex. P-6 and in the presence of some panchas during the spot mahazar, he seized the blood stained mud and control mud and the same were marked as MO. 7 and MO-8. Thereafter, PW-11 brought three articles MOs. 1 to 3 after P. M. examination was over. He seized them under panchanama under Ex. P-7. PW-1 produced blood stained clothes of PW-5 in the presence of PW-4 and CW-2. Accordingly, he seized them under Ex. P-8 on 27. 6. 1986 and handed over the case file to PW-13 for further investigation. Since PW-13 was otherwise engaged, PW-12 has took up further investigation in the case. During the course of searching the appellants, he came to know through the police informant about the whereabouts of the appellants. Accordingly, he went to Kawalgudda cross and arrested both the appellants and brought them to the Panchayath office of mole village. Since PW-13 was otherwise engaged, PW-12 has took up further investigation in the case. During the course of searching the appellants, he came to know through the police informant about the whereabouts of the appellants. Accordingly, he went to Kawalgudda cross and arrested both the appellants and brought them to the Panchayath office of mole village. In the presence of panchas CW-4 and PW-7, he seized the clothes of both the appellants as there were blood stains on the clothes. The seizure panchanama Ex. P-9 and P-10 respectively. Thereafter he interrogated both the appellants. Appellant No. 1 gave his voluntary statement stating that he would show the place where the weapons are hidden. The admissible portion of the voluntary statement of appellant No. 1 is marked as Ex. P-16 and the voluntary statement of appellant No. 2 is marked as Ex. P. 17. After recording the voluntary statement he secured two panchas viz. ,cw-4 and PW- 7 and thereafter both the appellants took the panchas and the police in a private vehicle near their house situated in the land. After they reached there, appellant No. 1 got down from the vehicle and led them to a spot where they had stored the cow dung cakes. Appellant no. 1 took up one sickle from that cow dung cakes heap. It was stained with blood. He seized it under a panchanama Ex. P-11. Thereafter, he brought him to the vehicle Appellant No. 2 led them near the haystack situated near their house and from that, she removed one axe and produced before them. Accordingly, the same was seized and marked under panchanama Ex. P-12. The sickle and axe are MOs. 6 and 5 respectively. Thereafter, he has recorded the further statements of PW-6, PW-3 and PW-5. Then be sent the appellants to the Court with remand application and handed over the further investigation of this case to the Dy. S. P. Chikkodi - PW-13 since the CPI post was vacant. After he was transferred he conducted the investigation. He has conducted the investigation as per the directions of PW-13 the Dy. S. P. Chikkodi, ( 20 ) APART from making certain suggestions, no valuable suggestion has been made in the cross examination of PW-12 by the defence counsel and which was clearly denied by PW-12. After he was transferred he conducted the investigation. He has conducted the investigation as per the directions of PW-13 the Dy. S. P. Chikkodi, ( 20 ) APART from making certain suggestions, no valuable suggestion has been made in the cross examination of PW-12 by the defence counsel and which was clearly denied by PW-12. Nothing substantial has been made in the cross examination by the defence so as to disbelieve or discard his evidence. There is nothing on record to show that the incident in question had occurred at some other place as sought to be suggested by the defence. We are therefore of the clear view that the incident in question had occurred in the land in question at Mole village. ( 21 ) PW-1 Bhramu is the complainant who has lodged the complaint. He has stated that they are four brothers viz. , himself, the deceased mahadeva, PW-5 Satturam and one Shidarai. They have got 1 1/2 acres of land in Mole village. Himself and deceased Mahadeva are the joint owners. His other brothers have got their lands separately. PW-6 Shantakka is his daughter and he knows PW-3 Ahmed and he also further stated that he knows panchas CW-9 and CW-10 and also CW-11. Appellant No. 1 is his senior uncle's son. Appellant No. 2 is the wife of appellant No. 1. The appellants have got the land on either side of their land. Four months prior to incident in question, the relationship between themselves and the appellants was strained since the appellants have put up a bund in their land. Therefore, he made a report to their village panchas viz. , CW-9 and CW-10. In pursuance of the matter referred to the village panchayath, the panchayathdars have made a spot, inspection to their land and saw the bund. By erecting the bund, the appellants have encroached their land by 2. The panchayathdars told the appellants to remove the encroached bund. But inspite of directions given by the panchayathdars they have not obliged nor removed the encroached portion bund. About 1 year eight months, back at about 8 a. m. , his elder brother deceased Mahadeva and his younger brother PW-5 and his daughter PW-6 Shantakka and PW-3 Ahmed went to their land to remove the bund. At that time, his daughter PW-6 Shantakka was present in the land. About 1 year eight months, back at about 8 a. m. , his elder brother deceased Mahadeva and his younger brother PW-5 and his daughter PW-6 Shantakka and PW-3 Ahmed went to their land to remove the bund. At that time, his daughter PW-6 Shantakka was present in the land. On that fatal day, he has gone to the house of PW-8 Dattu Patil as there was a pooja. He left the house at 8 a. m. The house of PW-8 was, situated at a distance of 2 furlongs from his land. When he was, in the house of PW-8, his daughter shantakka PW-6 came and told him that his elder brother Mahadeva and PW-5 Satturam were assaulted by the appellants and she has requested PW-1 to come to the land immediately. Thereafter, PW-1 immediately came to the spot and saw the dead body of his elder brother Mahadeva in their land and further he noticed the injuries around the neck and head of deceased Mahadeva. There were also bleeding injuries. PW-5 Satturam was not present. PW-3 was present. Both the appellants were present on the spot. He has stated that appellant No. 2 was present and one more lady Sonawa also had came there, PW-1 brought the dead body of the deceased Mahadeva to the panchayath office. By 10-30 or 11 a. m. On the same day, the kagwad Police came there, he narrated about the incident to the police. He has stated that he is an illiterate and hence he has given the complaint in writing. He has admitted the contents of complaint ex. P-1 which was read over to him. He has identified MOs-1 to 3 the blood stained banian, dhoti and waist thread respectively of his brother deceased Mahadeva. He has also identified MO-4 the blood stained shirt of his brother Satturam PW-5. Further in the cross examination, PW-1 stated that appellant No. 1 has purchased the adjoining land about 12 years back. That land was also purchased by his cousin brother and when appellant No. 1 had purchased the land there was a partition bund between their lands. Sy. No. 296 was allotted to three brothers except the elder brother. Himself and deceased Mahadeva have purchased the land from Satturam but no sale deed was drafted in that regard. Though the sale consideration paid, no sale deed was executed. Sy. No. 296 was allotted to three brothers except the elder brother. Himself and deceased Mahadeva have purchased the land from Satturam but no sale deed was drafted in that regard. Though the sale consideration paid, no sale deed was executed. As on the date of deceased Mahadeva the agreement of sale was oral. PW-1 has stated that his brother Satturam PW-5 was telling with them that the sale deed will be executed. PW-5's wife was from Mudalagi situated in Gokak taluk. She was staying in Mudalagi village itself and PW- 5 was also staying there but when he used to come to their village, he was staying with them. He has stated that PW-5 was suffering from T. B. and he was taking treatment at Ghataprabha hospital. He has stated that his house was situated in the Northern direction whereas the scene of offence was in the Southern direction. The house of PW-8 was situated in the Northern direction i. e. ahead of his house. He has also stated that in between his house and the land of PW-8 there were 6-7 lands. In between the said lands, the owners were not staying in their lands. One person by name Sonavva was only staying. They are residing near their house. PW-1 has asked appellant No. 1 to remove the bund from their land about 2 or 3 months prior to the incident. When he has not removed the same, he intimated the same to the elders of his village. When the elders of the village came near the land he was present. In the presence of the elders, appellant No. 1 told that he would remove the bund if there was any encroachment. On the previous day of the incident, pw-1 and his brothers started to remove the bund. For the purpose of removing the bund they carried two pick axes, two spades and two axes. PW-3 was doing work for them and he was in cordial terms with them. Prior to the incident, he was paying the wages of rs. 45/- per day to PW-3. PW-6 Shantakka his daughter was studying in 7th standard and the school was situated at a distance of 2 1/2 kms. from their garden house. PW-8 asked him to come to his house on Saturday. Prior to the incident, he was paying the wages of rs. 45/- per day to PW-3. PW-6 Shantakka his daughter was studying in 7th standard and the school was situated at a distance of 2 1/2 kms. from their garden house. PW-8 asked him to come to his house on Saturday. For the purpose of preparing food he had gone to the house of PW-8 on the date of incident. When he has gone there, there are 8 to 10 persons in the house of PW-8. At the time of preparing food, her daughter PW-6 came there and told him that her junior uncle and senior uncles were assaulted by the appellants and senior uncle Mahadeva was lying dead. On hearing that, he left the spot and came to the land. PW-6 went towards his house. The deceased Mahadeva was lying in the land on his left side. At that time, no one was present there. He brought the cart of one kempawad and he lifted Mahadeva and put him in the cart in supine position. There were many persons near the panchayath office, but he cannot mention who were they. He has stated that at that time, cws. 2 to 4 and 9 to 11 might have been present near the panchayath office. They had informed the Police to come to the village. There was a telephone in the panchayath office. Accordingly, the Police came to the panchayath office after five or 51/2 hours. When the police asked him he told that he brought the deceased mahadeva in a cart. Accordingly, the Police wrote his report. Thereafter, he affixed his LTM. Further he has stated that he do not know who wrote the complaint and also he do not know who was asked to write the complaint. He knew one person by name Siddayya g. Hiremath residing in their village but he has no avocation. When the Police came there. Siddayya was also there but he do not know whether he wrote the report or not. He has also stated that he do not know where Ex. P-1 was written. He did not go to the hospital along with the dead body of the deceased Mahadeva. The hospital was situated in their village itself. The dead body of his brother was given back to them after the sunset. By that time, appellants had been arrested. He has also stated that he do not know where Ex. P-1 was written. He did not go to the hospital along with the dead body of the deceased Mahadeva. The hospital was situated in their village itself. The dead body of his brother was given back to them after the sunset. By that time, appellants had been arrested. Further he has stated that he do not know whether there are any overwritings or corrections in Ex. P-1. 5 or 6 days after the incident, Kagwad police called him to the police station. On that day, the clothes of the appellants were shown to him and the same were not packed. There are 2-3 persons in the police station. The police had not recorded his further statement. He has denied the suggestion that 2 or 3 days prior to the incident his brother Satturam was insisting to pay the cash price of the land and register the sale deed. He has also denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely that incident took place at about 8 a. m. and he has foisted a false case against the appellants. ( 22 ) FURTHER PW-1 has stated that he went by walk where he has written the complaint Ex. P-1 and presented the same to the Police. He gave the complaint to the PSI PW-12 at 10-30 a. m. in the morning. He has further stated that he has identified the clothes of deceased Mahadeva and PW-5 Satturam as MOs. 1,2,3 and 4 respectively. The fact that the scene of incident finds support from the evidence of PWs. 3, 5 and 6. The contents of Ex. P-1 substantially support the version of PW-1 given in the Court. The FIR was lodged without any due deliberation at the Police Station. Further, mere delay in lodging the FIR by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case. Human nature is as it is the kith and kin who have witnessed the occurrence cannot be expected to act mechanically with all promptitude of giving the complaint to the police. After all, it is but natural in these circumstances for the complainant pw-1 to take some time to go to the police station for giving the complaint. Human nature is as it is the kith and kin who have witnessed the occurrence cannot be expected to act mechanically with all promptitude of giving the complaint to the police. After all, it is but natural in these circumstances for the complainant pw-1 to take some time to go to the police station for giving the complaint. Unless there are definite indications of fabrications, the court cannot reject the prosecution version as given in the FIR and later substantiated by the evidence merely on the ground of some delay. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that there was any deliberation and consultation for implication of innocent persons with guilty ones. Merely because they had some consultation before lodging the complaint to the Police, that does not imply that the said consultation was to implicate the innocent persons in the commission of the offence. The complainant Bharamu PW-1 was an illiterate and uneducated and he was not present at the scene of occurrence. That being so, if he had consulted some other elderly persons and went to the police station to give a complaint, that by itself does not mean that there was some deliberation to implicate innocent persons in the commission of the offence. In this connection, a reference may be made to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court reported in STATE OF KARNATAKA vs K. YARAPPA REDDY in this case, the Supreme Court held thus:"f. Criminal Trial - Investigation -Murder case - suspicious role of the to the prosecution - The Court if convinced of truthfulness of the testimony of a witness to the occurrence, held, can act on such testimony irrespective of the suspicious role of the investigating officer - Penal Code, 1860 Section 302 appreciation of evidence - Criminal Case, 1973, Sections 172 and 162. . " ( 23 ) THE Supreme Court further observed thus:"19. But can the above finding (that the station house diary is not genuine) have any inevitable bearing on the other evidence in this case? If the other evidence, on scrutiny, is found credible and acceptable, should the Court be influenced by the machinations demonstrated by the investigating officer in conducting investigation or in preparing the records so unscrupulously? But can the above finding (that the station house diary is not genuine) have any inevitable bearing on the other evidence in this case? If the other evidence, on scrutiny, is found credible and acceptable, should the Court be influenced by the machinations demonstrated by the investigating officer in conducting investigation or in preparing the records so unscrupulously? It can be a guiding principle that as investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial, the conclusion of the court in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation. It is well nigh-settled that even if the investigation is illegal or even suspicious the rest of the evidence must be scrutinized independently of the impact of it. Otherwise the criminal trial will plummet to the level of the investigating officers ruling the roost. The Court must have predominance and pre-eminence in criminal trials over the action taken by investigating officers. Criminal justice should not be made a casualty for the wrongs committed by the investigating officers in the case. In other words, if the Court is convinced that the testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true the Court is free to act on it albeit the investigating officer's suspicious role in the case. " ( 24 ) BUT in the instant case, there are some overlappings as contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants but it does not take away the fatal case of the prosecution. Therefore the said contention raised by the appellants Counsel is liable to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected. ( 25 ) PW-3 was one of the persons who was doing the work along with the deceased Mahadeva and PW-5 Satturam in the land in question. He has stated that he knows PW-1 and his family members including the deceased Mahadeva and also stated that he knows the present appellants and also stated that he know about the incident in which the deceased Mahadeva was killed and PW-5 satturam sustained injuries about 1 year 8 months back. On the date of the incident, PW-1 Bharamu called him for coolie work in his land. He was asked to come by 8 a. m. He himself and PW-5 satturam, deceased Mahadeva and PW-6 Shantakka together went to the land of PW-1. The land of the appellants was adjoining to the bund. On the date of the incident, PW-1 Bharamu called him for coolie work in his land. He was asked to come by 8 a. m. He himself and PW-5 satturam, deceased Mahadeva and PW-6 Shantakka together went to the land of PW-1. The land of the appellants was adjoining to the bund. They reached the land by 8 a. m. When they started to remove the bund, appellants came there. Appellant No. 1 came started with abusive words against PW-5 Satturam asking that why they were removing the bund. Then appellant No. 1 was armed with a sickle. He assaulted with sickle on PW-5 Satturam on his left hand, right hand, above the right ear, left ear and back of head. As a result of which, he sustained bleeding injuries and he fell down. After PW-5 fell down, deceased Mahadeva came there. At that time, appellant no. 2 assaulted the deceased Mahadeva with axe on both right and left side of the neck. Appellant No. 1 assaulted Mahadeva on right and left side of the ear, back of head, front of head and below the right knee. He assaulted about 10 to 12 times. When himself and pw-6 Shantakka tried to intervene both the appellants ran away from the scene. The deceased Mahadeva also sustained bleeding injuries. It was about 9 a. m. Thereafter, PW-6 left to bring her father pw-1 to the house of PW-8. After PW-1 came there he tied the neck of the deceased Mahadeva with the help of lungi as there were cut injuries. PW-6 brought the quilt and it was spread on the bullock cart and himself and PW-1 lifted Mahadeva and shifted him to the cart. Thereafter, PW-5 got up and accompanied them to the village panchayath office. By the time they reached the panchayath office, deceased Mahadeva succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter pw-1 and PW-5 went to Kagwad Police Station. Further he has stated that the incident has occurred on account of the disputed relating to the bund situated in between the two lands. The land of appellant No. 1 is adjoining to the land of PW-1. He has identified the sickle and axe and stated that appellant No. 1 was armed with sickle MO-6 and appellant No. 2 was armed with axe MO-5. He had seen the sickle and axe at the panchayath office also. The land of appellant No. 1 is adjoining to the land of PW-1. He has identified the sickle and axe and stated that appellant No. 1 was armed with sickle MO-6 and appellant No. 2 was armed with axe MO-5. He had seen the sickle and axe at the panchayath office also. Further, he has stated in the cross examination, only for two days he had been for coolie work in the land of PW-1. Earlier to that he was not going for work and he had not seen the bund prior to the date of incident. Only on that day, he came to know that there was a dispute relating to the bund and he has stated before the police with regard to the dispute between the appellants and PW-1 relating to the bund. Since the grass had grown on the land, it could be said that bund had existed earlier. He has stated that he know the lands of PW-1 and the appellants and he also knows that PW-1 and his brothers have got lands. He also stated that the disputed land belongs to PW-1 and his three brothers. Except this land, PW-1 and his brothers had no other land. Further he has stated that for the purpose of work, they carried two spades, two pick axes and two axes. The said agricultural implements were used for removing the bund. They removed the bund and put the same into the land of the deceased mahadeva. He also stated to the extent of 2 feet he removed the bund and he do not know to what extent, the deceased Mahadeva and PW-5 removed the bund. He has further stated that they use the axe for the purpose of uprooting the plaints grown on the bund. They removed the plaints and dumped there only. They also removed barigidad kanti and Vatavati kanti (plants ). PW-6 Shantakka was just observing them. She came to the land with them. PW-3 has stated that he left the house by 7-30 a. m. on that day. It was two kms. distance from his house. He did not meet anyone when he was come from house to the land of the deceased on that day. After the appellants came to the spot he saw them. At that time, he was having pick-axe in his hand. At that time, none of them were using the axe. It was two kms. distance from his house. He did not meet anyone when he was come from house to the land of the deceased on that day. After the appellants came to the spot he saw them. At that time, he was having pick-axe in his hand. At that time, none of them were using the axe. They were kept on the bund. They were using two pick-axes and one spade when the appellants came to the spot. Appellants abused from their land. Then PW-5 went towards the appellants. The moment PW-5 went towards the appellant, appellant no. 1 assaulted him with sickle four times. But he did not made attempt to pacify the quarrel going on between them. At the time of the incident, he was at a distance of 8 to 10 feet away. Thereafter the deceased Mahadeva went towards the appellants questioning appellant No. 1. When he went towards that place, he did not carry any weapon. Both the appellants assaulted the deceased Mahadeva. Even at that time he did not made any attempt to separate them. Further he has stated that after the deceased fell down, both the appellants ran away from the scene. There were no blood stains on his clothes at the time of the incident. Further he has stated PW-1 brought the bullock cart. The cart men did not assist them to shift injured Mahadeva on the cart. When they shifted Mahadeva to the bullock cart, he was alive because he was breathing. When they shifted Mahadeva to the cart, there was no bleeding. When they reached the panchayath office, they came to know that the deceased mahadeva was no more. At that time, all the members were there. Thereafter he went towards his house. He denied the suggestion that on the date of the incident he had not gone for coolie work in the land of PW-1. Further he has stated that he had seen the weapons. Mos. 5 and 6 in the panchayath office. The evidence of this witness corroborates with the evidence of PW-1 the complainant. ( 26 ) NOW, we have the evidence of PW-5 Satturam the eye witness. He has stated that he know PW-1, the deceased brother Mahadeva, pw-3 CW-6 and the appellants herein. He has further stated that since one year eight months the relationship between the appellants and themselves was not cordial. ( 26 ) NOW, we have the evidence of PW-5 Satturam the eye witness. He has stated that he know PW-1, the deceased brother Mahadeva, pw-3 CW-6 and the appellants herein. He has further stated that since one year eight months the relationship between the appellants and themselves was not cordial. Their land bearing Sy. No. 296 measures 1 acre 30" guntas. The land bearing S. No. 295 belongs to the appellants. In between their land and the appellants there was a bund. In respect of that bund, their relationship were strained. About 1 year eight months back, himself, PW-3 and his brother deceased mahadeva along with PW-6 had been to their land by 8 a. m. They were removing the bund as per the instructions of the panchas CWs9 and 10. The panchas had told them to remove the bund about four months back. Inspite of instructions given by the panchas, the appellants did not remove the bund on the disputed land. Therefore, they wanted to remove the bund because the appellants have encroached their land. At about 9 a. m. the appellants came there and abused them in vulgar language. Therefore, he went ahead towards them asking them whey they were abusing him. At that time, appellant No. 1 was armed with sickle and he assaulted PW-5 on left side, right side and back of his head. He fell down. At that time, his elder brother deceased Mahadeva came there to rescue him. Appellant No. 12 assaulted the deceased with the axe on the left and right side of neck. Thereafter, appellant No. 1 came there and assault the deceased Mahadeva on the back of the head with the sickle four times and on his legs. Again, appellant No. 1 assaulted with the sickle about 10 to 12 times. At that time, PW-6 Shantakka and PW-3 Ahmed came there telling to leave deceased Mahadeva. After seeing them, both the appellants ran away from the scene. Though he fell down he was conscious. Thereafter PW-6 Shantakka went to bring his brother PW-1. PW-1 came there and tied the neck of Mahadeva with a lungi as there was bleeding. PW-1 also brought a cart and after spreading over the quilt in the cart, deceased mahadeva was shifted to the cart by PW-1 and PW-3. Thereafter, all of them went to the village. On the way to panchayat office, mahadeva died. PW-1 came there and tied the neck of Mahadeva with a lungi as there was bleeding. PW-1 also brought a cart and after spreading over the quilt in the cart, deceased mahadeva was shifted to the cart by PW-1 and PW-3. Thereafter, all of them went to the village. On the way to panchayat office, mahadeva died. They kept the dead body of Mahadeva on the panchayath katta. Thereafter PW-1 and himself left or Kagawad police Station. PW-12 lodged a complaint. After lodging the complaint, kagwad Police took PW5 to the Civil Hospital, Sangli. He was treated as an inpatient in that hospital. In that incident, his both palms were cut. He has identified the weapons armed by the appellants as MOs. 5 and 6. MO. 5 the axe was in the hand of appellant No. 2 and MO6 the sickle was in the hand of appellant No. 1. At the time of the incident he was wearing a shirt. His shirt was stained with blood. He has identified the same as MO-4. He has also identified the quilt and lungi with which the neck of the deceased Mahadeva was tied. They are MOs. 9 and 10. He had seen Mos. 5 and 6 at the time of the incident and also when he was undergoing treatment in the hospital. In the cross examination, he has stated that the land measures Sy. No. 296 measuring 1 acre 6 guntas and Sy. No. 295 measures 1 acre 10 guntas. He has also stated that the land sy. No. 296 was given to his brother deceased Mahadeva and PW-1 bharamu. He has not executed any sale deed releasing the land in favour of the deceased Mahadeva PW-1 Bharamu. Except the land sy. No. 296 found in his name, he has no other land. He has also stated that his brother Shidarai has been living separately since about 20-25 years and he has purchased the other land in the same village and living there. He has stated he was suffering from TB since 5 years and he has taken treatment in Ghataprabha hospital spending a sum of Rs. 12,000/ -. He has also stated that Sy. No. 296 is a fertile land and the same costs at Rs. 1,50,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/ -. All his family members are in Mudalagi village in Gokak taluk. He has stated he was suffering from TB since 5 years and he has taken treatment in Ghataprabha hospital spending a sum of Rs. 12,000/ -. He has also stated that Sy. No. 296 is a fertile land and the same costs at Rs. 1,50,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/ -. All his family members are in Mudalagi village in Gokak taluk. When he came to know that he was suffering from TB he did not go to mudalagi. He has not paid any amount to his wife to meet her expenses. Further he has specifically stated that he has given up his right in favour of his brothers about 8 years back. He has stated that his brothers were looking after him. He has denied the suggestion that he was insisting his brothers to pay the price of the land and get the sale deed executed. ( 27 ) PRIOR to the date of incident, he himself and PW-1 deceased mahadeva and PW-3 Ahmed have gone to the land. They have worked in the land from morning till 1 p. m. They had removed the bund on the previous day to the extent of 300' They had also removed the plants on the bund by cutting the roots. They did not call any panch before removing the bund on that day. On the second day, when they were removing the bund, the appellants came there by 9 a. m. . He has removed the bund to the extent of 5' in length. While removing the bund, he had removed some plants grown on the bund. Likewise, PW-3 had also done it. PW-3 Ahmed and his deceased brother Mahadeva were working together in the same place and accordingly, both of them have removed the bund to the extent of 10' in length. He noticed the appellants at a distance of five feet. The appellants came there and started abusing him in vulgar language asking why he was removing the bund from their land side. In turn, himself told to the appellants that they were removing the bund wherever there was encroachment towards their land. Further, he has stated that the appellants came and abused them, when they were working. All of a sudden, the appellants came and assaulted him. At the time of assaulting him, his deceased brother mahadeva left the work and came to rescue him. Further, he has stated that the appellants came and abused them, when they were working. All of a sudden, the appellants came and assaulted him. At the time of assaulting him, his deceased brother mahadeva left the work and came to rescue him. Thereafter the appellants assaulted his deceased elder brother Mahadeva when he came there. At that time, the deceased Mahadeva was in their land. He had seen the deceased at a distance of 5 to 6 feet. After pw-5 fell down he was seeing the deceased Mahadeva from the place where he had fallen. The blood had also fallen there. The place where the deceased Mahadeva fell down, there was also blood. Further, he has stated that PW-3 did not try to rescue them. At the time of assault from appellant No. 1, he was working with the axe but he did not use the axe to retaliate. Even the deceased did not came with axe to assault the appellants to rescue PW-5. ( 28 ) PW-6 Shantakka had came to the scene of offence on that day as she had brought the water as per their request. She had brought the water in a vessel (Tambige ). After giving the water, she had gone back. They had not taken water. When they were attacked, water was there. He has stated that when he fell down he became unconscious. All their agricultural implements carried there for the purpose of removing the bund were there. PW-3 Ahmed did not do anything for them nor he made any attempt to call the person who were present nearby. He has stated that he regained his consciousness by the time bullock cart came there. His brother PW- 1 came with the cart alone and it was at 9 a. m. Thereafter, it took nearly one hour to go to the panchayath office. He followed the cart and in the cart, the deceased Mahadeva, PW-1 and PW-3 were present. By the time, when they reached the panchayath office, his brother deceased Mahadeva has breathed his last. When they reached panchayath office, there were many persons. He did not narrate about the incident to anyone near the panchayath office. He left the panchayath office by 10-30 a. m. to go to Kagwad Police station in a jeep of Ainapura village. By the time, when they reached the panchayath office, his brother deceased Mahadeva has breathed his last. When they reached panchayath office, there were many persons. He did not narrate about the incident to anyone near the panchayath office. He left the panchayath office by 10-30 a. m. to go to Kagwad Police station in a jeep of Ainapura village. Some of his relative had brought it with an intention to take him to the hospital. He did not go to PHE in Mole village. He has not taken any treatment before he went to sangli. Further, he has stated that he has narrated about the incident to Kagwad Police and it was reduced to writing. He was an illiterate. He affixed his LTM to the report. After he left for Sangli PW-1 went to the village back. He has stated that he did not know how PW-1 went. It is further stated that appellant No. 1 was going for coolie work in Ugar Sugar factory. It is stated that Mos. 5 and 6 may be available in the villages. There are no special marks of identification of Mos. 5 and 6. They were brought to Sangli hospital and they were not covered with any paper or clothes. He has denied that he was having ill-will against the appellants and also denied 6n that day, none of the appellants came there and assaulted him and his brother deceased Mahadeva with Mos. 5 and 6. He has also denied that they have foisted a false case against the appellants. P. W-5 is the injured witness on the scene of occurrence. He has narrated the entire history in detail how the incident took place. He is a trustworthy witness for the scene of occurrence and the evidence of PW-5 corroborates with the evidence of PW-3 and the contents of the complaint given by PW-1. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the presence of PW-5 was not at all there at the time of incident is devoid of merits. Hence, the said contention is rejected. Now, we have the evidence of PW-6 Shantakka. She has stated that PW-1 is her father deceased Mahadeva is her senior uncle and pw-5 Satturam is her junior uncle. She also knows PW-3 Ahmad and the appellants. Hence, the said contention is rejected. Now, we have the evidence of PW-6 Shantakka. She has stated that PW-1 is her father deceased Mahadeva is her senior uncle and pw-5 Satturam is her junior uncle. She also knows PW-3 Ahmad and the appellants. About one year 8 months back at about 8 a. m. , herself, deceased Mahadeva and PW-5 Satturam along with PW-3 had been to their land. After going there, while deceased mahadeva, PW-3 and PW-5 were removing the bund, she was standing by their side. At about 9 a. m. , both the appellants came there and they abused PW-5 Satturam. Then PW-5 went ahead asking why they were so abusing in a vulgar language. At that time, appellant No. 1 came and assaulted him on the left and right palms with the sickle. Further, he has assaulted on left and right side and back side of the head. As a result of which, PW-5 Satturam sustained bleeding injuries and fell down. On seeing that, deceased Mahadeva came there. At that time, appellant No. 2 assaulted deceased mahadeva on the right and left side of the neck with the axe appellant No. 1 also came and assaulted deceased Mahadeva with the sickle on the back of neck, both sides of head and also on lower limbs. While appellant No. 1 assaulted deceased Mahadeva on 7 or 8 times, appellant No. 2 assaulted only twice. As a result of which, he sustained bleeding injuries and fell down. After seeing herself and PW-3 went towards them, the appellants ran away from the scene. Further, she has stated that she went to the house of pw-8 Dattu Patil and informed her father about the incident and requested him to come to the spot. After intimating her father, she went to the house and brought a quilt to the land. Thereafter, the deceased Mahadeva was taken in a bullock cart to the village panchayath office. PW-1 and PW. 5 accompanied the deceased mahadeva till panchayath office. From there, PW-1 and PW-5 left for Kagwad police station to lodge the complaint. She has identified the weapons used in the commission of offence as MOs. 5 and 6 and the quilt as MO. 9. Further, she has stated in her cross examination that nobody stayed in her house. On the date of incident she did not know the name of PW-3. She has identified the weapons used in the commission of offence as MOs. 5 and 6 and the quilt as MO. 9. Further, she has stated in her cross examination that nobody stayed in her house. On the date of incident she did not know the name of PW-3. She has stated that she did not work in the land on that day. PWs. 3 and 5 and deceased mahadeva were doing work in different portions. They were doing the work with the help of axe and spades. There were two spades and one axe. She has also stated that the axe was like that of MO- 5. MO-5 is the same axe with which they were working. They were removing the bund from their land side and putting the removed mud in their land itself. Further, she has stated no one came there before appellants reached the spot. She did not say from which direction, the appellants came to the land. At the time of the incident, there were no crops in the land. When the appellants started abusing, she saw towards them. Only appellant No. 1 abused them and he was standing on the bund. She has stated that she cannot tell who was working in between PW-3 and PW-5. The appellants came near pw-5 and stated abusing in vulgar language. She did not see at what distance from PW-5 and PW-3 were working and also at what distance the deceased was working. Further, she has stated that she was standing in their land seeing the appellants abusing. The 1st appellant came and assaulted PW-5 on his left palm. When PW- 5 fell down, the deceased Mahadeva was at a distance of 10'. Thereafter, appellant No. 1 went towards Mahadeva. Further, she has stated that while going to the house of PW-8, she did not meet anyone. When she reached the house of PW-8, her father PW-1 and PW-8 were present. After informing the incident to his father, she went to her house. She had Kept the water in the land but she did not serve neither PW-3 nor the deceased. She has denied the suggestion that she has stated before the Police that she came home and carried quilt to the land. She herself carried the water to the land and no body has asked her to bring. She had Kept the water in the land but she did not serve neither PW-3 nor the deceased. She has denied the suggestion that she has stated before the Police that she came home and carried quilt to the land. She herself carried the water to the land and no body has asked her to bring. She has stated that she went to the land to do work but she did not do any work on that day. Further she has stated that she accompanied to panchayath office along with the bullock cart. She has not narrated the incident to anybody near the panchayath office. She was there till the sun set. The police came there by 12 noon and the police questioned and recorded her statement at 1 PM, She has in unequivocal terms denied the suggestion that on that day she was not at all present at the time of incident and also denied the suggestion that she do not know who assaulted whom She also denied that she was deposing falsely as a tutored witness. The evidence of PW-6 Shantakka is consistent and corroborative with the evidence of PW-3 and PW. 5 and the version of the complaint given by the PW-1 the complainant. As we have already stated the evidence of the above said eye witnesses would clearly implicate the appellants in the commission of offence. Their evidence would also lend assurance from the circumstances regarding the recovery and medical evidence. ( 29 ) WITH regard to the arrest of the appellants and the recovery of the weapons of offence at the instance of the appellants, this is what the investigating officer PW - 12 has stated in his evidence:"2. Thereafter I went to the Mole village where I collected two panchas CW-2 and PW-4 and conducted inquest over the deceased as per Ex. P-4. During inquest I recorded the further statement of Bharamu, statement of PW-6, PW-3 Ahmed. . Thereafter I sent the dead body for PM examination through PW- 11. In the presence or the panchas I conducted the panchanama in respect of the place where the dead body was kept. It is Ex. P- 5. I conducted Ex. P-5 in the presence of PW-4 and CW-2. 3. PW-6 showed the place of scene of crime. As shown by her we conducted spot panchanama, as per Ex. In the presence or the panchas I conducted the panchanama in respect of the place where the dead body was kept. It is Ex. P- 5. I conducted Ex. P-5 in the presence of PW-4 and CW-2. 3. PW-6 showed the place of scene of crime. As shown by her we conducted spot panchanama, as per Ex. P-6, in the presence of same panchas CW-2 and PW-4. During spot mahazar we seized blood stained mud and control mud MOs. 7 and 8. Thereafter I recorded further statement of PW-1 and statement of PW-6, and PW-3, PW-5 and CW. 9, CW. 10, CW-8. Thereafter pw-11 brought three articles Mos. 1 to 3 after the P. M. examination was over. I seized them under a panchanama, under Ex. P-7 MOs. 1 to 3 were given by P. M. doctor after PM. examination. PW-1 produced blood stained clothes of PW-5 in the presence of PW- 4 and CW-2 and I seized them under Ex. P-8. I subjected the seized article to P. P. On 27. 6. 1995 I handed over the case file to cw-18 for further investigation. 4. On 30. 6. 1995, since CW-18 was otherwise engaged I took up further investigation in this case. During the course of searching the accused I came to know through Police informant about whereabouts of the accused. Accordingly, I went to kavalgudda cross and arrested both the accused. I brought them to the panchayat office of Mole village. In the presence of panchas cw-4 and PW-7 I seized the clothes of both the accused as there were blood stained on the clothes. The seizure panchanamas are Ex. P-9 and P-10. Thereafter I interrogated both the accused. A-1 gave his voluntary statement stating that he would show the place where the weapons are hidden. The admissible portion of voluntary statement of A-1 is marked as ex. P-16. A-2 has given voluntary statement as per Ex. P-17. (The admissible portion of voluntary statement of A-2 is marked at ex. P-17 ). After recording voluntary statement I secured two panchas CW-4 and PW. 7. Thereafter both the accused took the panchas and police in a private vehicle near their house in the land. After we reached there A-1 got down from the vehicle and led us to a spot where they had stored cow-dung cakes. The accused No. 1 picked up one sickle from cow-dung cake heap. 7. Thereafter both the accused took the panchas and police in a private vehicle near their house in the land. After we reached there A-1 got down from the vehicle and led us to a spot where they had stored cow-dung cakes. The accused No. 1 picked up one sickle from cow-dung cake heap. It was stained with blood. I seized it under a panchanama Ex. P-11. Thereafter I brought him to the vehicle and then A-2 led us near hay-stack situated near their house and from that she removed one axe and produced before us and I seized it under a panchanama Ex. P 12. The sickle and axe are Mos. 6 and 5 respectively. I recorded the further statements of PW-6, PW-3, pw-5. I subjected the seized articles to P. P. I sent the accused to the Court with remand application. I handed over the investigation of this case to the D. S. P. Chikodi. Since C. P. I post was vacant after he was transferred I have conducted investigation. I did investigation as per the direction of CW-18 dy. S. P. " ( 30 ) PW-4 is a panch witness. He has stated that he knows co-panch hanamant. On 25. 6. 1995 at about 11 a. m. Kagawad Police called him near the panchayath office in Mole village where the dead body of Mahadev had been kept on the katte of the office. He noticed the injuries around the neck, back of head, front chest below the legs of the deceased Mahadeva. ' In that regard, police drew a panchanama. It is Ex. P-4. He has put his signature at Ex. P4 (a ). Thereafter they went to the land of the deceased Mahadev. They saw the place where the deceased Mahadev had fallen. They also saw the blood stained mud. To the extent of 3' x 3' blood had fallen. Regarding that a panchanama was drawn. It is a Ex. P5 and he has put his signature at Ex. P-5 (a ). Thereafter the scene of crime panchanama was drawn as per Ex. P-6. Ex. P- (a) is his signature. Further, he has stated that he had seen MOs. 1 and 2 in their village. They are blood stained clothes of deceased Mahadev. The Police seized MOs. 1 and 2 under panchanama Ex. P-7 and his signature is at Ex. P-7 (a ). P-6. Ex. P- (a) is his signature. Further, he has stated that he had seen MOs. 1 and 2 in their village. They are blood stained clothes of deceased Mahadev. The Police seized MOs. 1 and 2 under panchanama Ex. P-7 and his signature is at Ex. P-7 (a ). On the same day, the Police seized MO-4 the blood stained shirt of pw-5 under panchanama. It is at Ex. P-8 and his signature is at P- 8 (a ). Further, in the cross examination he has stated that himself and CSW-2 are the co-panch for all the five panchanamas. During the inquest panchanama, the police collected MOs. 1 and 2 from the person of deceased Mahadev. He has stated that he did not remember what time they went to the scene of crime. At the scene of crime, he had noticed one plant which had been uprooted. It was a neem plant. That plant was lying towards southern side of the bund. While leaving for spot the Police had brought measuring tape. He has stated that the place where the blood had fallen was measured. After taking measurement they came back near the panchayat office. Further he has stated that from the scene of occurrence viz. the place where the blood had fallen the police seized blood stained mud. The blood stained mud is at MO-7 and control mud is at M08. No detail cross examination was done from the defence side. The evidence of PW-4 and PW-6 substantially supports the evidence of the Investigating officer PW-12. The discovery of the incriminating materials pursuant to the confessions made by the appellants would lend credence to the evidence of the eye witnesses account given by PWs. 3, 5 and 6. Even the medical evidence lends support to their evidence. ( 31 ) NOW coming to the motive it is stated that this is not a case where there is any dearth of motive. The evidence on record would show that in respect of dispute regarding the bund existing between the land Sy. No. 295 and 296 situated at Mole village. Accordingly, pw-1 made report to the elders of the village regarding the dispute. In pursuance of the report made by PW-1 regarding the dispute of the bund encroached by the appellant, panchayathdars came and saw the bund. No. 295 and 296 situated at Mole village. Accordingly, pw-1 made report to the elders of the village regarding the dispute. In pursuance of the report made by PW-1 regarding the dispute of the bund encroached by the appellant, panchayathdars came and saw the bund. By erecting the bund, the appellants have encroached into the lands of PW-1 and the deceased Mahadeva by 2'. The panchayathdars told the appellants to remove the encroached bund but the appellants did not remove the bund. Since the non removal of the encroached portion of bund existing between the land belonging to the appellants and PW-1 and his brothers as directed by the panchayathdars, by the appellants, PW-1 and his brothers had gone to the land on the date of incident to remove the encroached portion. At that time, the appellants came there and the incident in question had taken place. This fact has not been disputed by the defence. When the prosecution has been able to place the record the possibility of some hostility or ill feelings of the appellants towards the deceased Mahadeva, the inability to further put on record the manner in which such hostility or ill- feelings would have swelled up in the mind of the appellants to such a degree as to impel them to commit the offence cannot be construed as a fatal weakness of the prosecution. It is almost impossible for the prosecution to unravel the full dimension of the mental disposition of the case towards the deceased. One cannot normally see into the mind of another. The adequacy of the motive is of little importance as we know from experiences of criminal Courts that atrocious crimes of this sort have been committed from very slight motives. The above being the position with regard to the materials placed on record by the prosecution, we are of the view that the Trial Court was justified in convicting the appellants under Sections 302, 326, 504 read with section 34 IPC. The very fact that both the appellants came near the place where the deceased was working on the bund in land sy. No. 295 and 296 situated at Mole village, appellant No. 1 being armed with lethal weapon like sickle and appellant No. 2 armed with axe and committed conjointed assault on the deceased would clearly manifest, they came with prior concert to commit the murder of the deceased. No. 295 and 296 situated at Mole village, appellant No. 1 being armed with lethal weapon like sickle and appellant No. 2 armed with axe and committed conjointed assault on the deceased would clearly manifest, they came with prior concert to commit the murder of the deceased. ( 32 ) IN this connection, a reference may be made to the decisions reported in 2000 SCC (Crl.) 845 and to 1975 Mad. L. J. 57. In 2000 SCC (Crl.) 845 the Supreme Court has held thus: "it is not possible to accept the view that motive may not be very much material in cases depending on direct evidence whereas motive is material only when the case depends upon circumstantial evidence. There is no legal warrant for making such a hiatus in criminal cases as for the motive for committing the crime. Motive is a relevant factor in all criminal cases whether based on the testimony of eyewitnesses or circumstantial evidence. The question in this regard is whether the prosecution must fail because it failed to prove the motive or even whether inability to prove motive would weaken the prosecution to any perceptible limit. No doubt, if the prosecution proves the existence of a motive it would be well and good for it, particularly in a case depending on circumstantial evidence, for such motive could then be counted as one of the circumstances. However, it is generally a difficult area for any prosecution to bring on record what was in the mind of the respondent. Even if the investigating officer would have succeeded in knowing it through interrogations that cannot be put in evidence by them due to the ban imposed by law. "when the prosecution succeeded in showing the possibility of some ire for the accused towards the victim, 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. In 1977 Mad. LJ. 57, the Supreme Court has held thus: " (C) Criminal trial- Murder case -Motive - -lust for land. In a murder trial even if motive was not proved, if the evidence of the eye witnesses is accepted the question of motive pales into insignificance and becomes absolutely academic. In 1977 Mad. LJ. 57, the Supreme Court has held thus: " (C) Criminal trial- Murder case -Motive - -lust for land. In a murder trial even if motive was not proved, if the evidence of the eye witnesses is accepted the question of motive pales into insignificance and becomes absolutely academic. But it must be remembered that lust of land is a very sensitive matter. There are a very large numbers of cases resulting in serious disputes culminating in murders over small land disputes. Various persons react differently in similar circumstances and one cannot therefore exclude the possibility of the appellant in the present cases having reacted very sharply against what he considered to be an inequitable distribution of property in partition he would undoubtedly provide an adequate motive for the murder. (Underlined by us) ( 33 ) BOTH these decisions are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It has to be stated that the position is now well settled that the evidence of the eye witnesses who were caste fellows or the relatives of the deceased cannot be discarded on that ground alone. On the other hand, in the instant case, nobody was available from the neighbour lands when the incident took place. When no persons available at the spot, the question of taking evidence of independent witness does not arise. The prosecution has examined all the eye witnesses in this case who were present at the spot and also recorded the statements of the appellants. It is only a person related to the deceased whose interest in bringing the real offenders to the book will come forward to give evidence. Further the testimony of the eye witnesses whose presence at the spot in the fact and circumstances of the case cannot be disputed. It is clear they had described the incident in a clear and graphic manner. PW-7 is a panch witness for the recovery of the incriminating materials at the instance of the appellants. He has stated as under "i know CW-4 Annappa and CW-9. I know PW-1 and his brothers and the present accused. About 1 year 7 months at 8-30 a. m. The police had called me to the panchayath office in my village. CW-4 also had come there. The present accused were present with the police. The clothes of the accused No. 1. Maruti had stained with blood. I know PW-1 and his brothers and the present accused. About 1 year 7 months at 8-30 a. m. The police had called me to the panchayath office in my village. CW-4 also had come there. The present accused were present with the police. The clothes of the accused No. 1. Maruti had stained with blood. The blood stained baniyan of accused No. 1 was seized in our presence and a panchanama was drawn in that regard. The panchanamas is at Ex. P-9. Ex. P-9 (a) is my signature. I can identify the blood stained baniyan of A-1. Now I see blood stained baniyan. This belongs to A-1 (It is marked as mo. 11) 2. Now I see blood stained saree, This saree was secured through a woman who assisted A-2 and got the saree. The witness identified the saree. It is marked MO-12. In this regard a panchanama was drawn. It is Ex. P10. Ex. P-10 (a) is my signature. Ex. P-10 was also drawn in our village panchayath office. The contents of Ex. P-9 and P-10 are correct. Thereafter, accused no. 1 led us to his garden land. There accused No. 1 removed a sickle which he had kept in heap of cow dung cakes. (The witness identified the sickle) It is already marked as MO-6. In that regard a panchanama was drawn as per Ex. P-11. Ex. P-11 (a) is my signature. The contents of Ex. P-11 are correct. Fx. P-11 was drawn at the spot itself. Again we came back to panchayath office. There a-2 led us to their land. There A-2 produced one axe from hay stack near the hut and that was seized under the panchanama at Ex. P-12. Ex. P-12 (a) is my signature. The witness identifies axe which is already marked as MO-5. The contents of Ex. P-12 are correct. Ex. P-12 was also drawn at the spot. 3. I know the dispute between the accused on one side and PW- 1 on the other. It is a dispute relating to the bund and the dispute was there since 4 months prior to the incident. PW-1 had informed about the dispute tome. He also told about that CW-9. CW-9 was the panchayath Chairman. I was the member of the Village panchayath. Thereafter we went to the land and measured the land by securing a private surveyor and found and that accused no. PW-1 had informed about the dispute tome. He also told about that CW-9. CW-9 was the panchayath Chairman. I was the member of the Village panchayath. Thereafter we went to the land and measured the land by securing a private surveyor and found and that accused no. 1 had encroached the land of PW-1. Therefore I told A-1 to remove the bund. CW-9 also told A-1 like that. But the accused did not remove the bund. " ( 34 ) PW-14 the doctor who has examined Satturam as per the request of Kagwad Police on 25. 6. 1995 has found the following injuries on his person:"on 25. 6. 1995, I have examined one Satturam (PW-5) as per the Kagwad Police. I noticed the following injuries on his person. 1. Contused lacerated wound over palm aspect of left hand near thinar eminance, extending from base of proximal phalanyx to first web space. Tendon exposed measuring 4 x 2 cms. Bleeding, tenderness present. 2. Multile C. L. W. over base of middle finger, tendon exposed (flexor)bleeding present on left hand; 3. Right hand: (1) C. L. W. over palmar aspect of thumb at the base on thenor region, bone deep; 4. Incised wound behind ear left side 10 x 2 cms. Scalp deep; 5. C. L. W. over frontal region 4 x 2 cms. , scalp deep; 6. C. L. W. over occipital region right side 3 x 2 cms. 7. C. L. W. over right occipital parietel region 3 x 2 cms. ; injury No. 1 grievous. 2. X-ray skull, left hand and right hand and chest were taken. Nothing abnormal detected in the x-ray of skull, and x-ray of right hand. X ray of left hand disclosed fracture of base of first metacorpal left side. All the four X-rays are together marked as ex. P-23. " ( 35 ) THE evidence of PW-14 established beyond reasonable doubt that the presence of PW-5 on the scene of occurrence because he sustained seven injuries on his person at the time of incident. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that PW-5 was not at all present at the spot is proved beyond a doubt by the prosecution. Hence, she said contention of the learned counsel has no sanctity in the eye of law. PW-15 who wrote the complaint Ex. P-1 at the request of PW-1. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants that PW-5 was not at all present at the spot is proved beyond a doubt by the prosecution. Hence, she said contention of the learned counsel has no sanctity in the eye of law. PW-15 who wrote the complaint Ex. P-1 at the request of PW-1. He has stated that he wrote the complaint at the panchayath office of Mole village and he did not go to Kagwad Police station. He admits that Ex. P-1 (a) is his signature and PW-1 has affixed his LTM to Ex. P-1 and also admitted in the cross examination that there are some corrections made at the time of writing the complaint. The contention of the appellant's counsel is that there is no complaint in the instant case and if at all there, it has been given as per the prosecution case and it is nothing but tutored. Hence, the complaint lodged by PW-1 is not admissible and there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. But the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State contended that the complaint written by ( 36 ) PW-15 itself established beyond reasonable doubt there is only one complaint given to the police. We have already discussed this aspect of the matter. Hence, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants has no force and the same is rejected. ( 37 ) PW-13 is the Investigating Officer who has conducted further investigation in the case. He has stated in his evidence as under:"1. From 1. 6. 1995 I am working as Dy. S. P. Chikodi. On 27. 5. 1995 after I received express report in this case I visited the Kagwad P. S. and discussed with PSI Kagawad in this case and took up further investigation from him. I verified the investigation so far done by PW-12. I visited the scene of crime in Mole village. I made efforts to trace the accused but in vain. I instructed my staff to apprehend the accused. On 30. 6. 1995 at about 6-15 a. m. , I received phone call from PW-12 about the information and whereabouts of the accused. I instructed him to continue the investigation until further orders as I was busy with law and order situation'. I instructed my staff to apprehend the accused. On 30. 6. 1995 at about 6-15 a. m. , I received phone call from PW-12 about the information and whereabouts of the accused. I instructed him to continue the investigation until further orders as I was busy with law and order situation'. On the same day night PW-12 gave me a report stating that he arrested the accused and conducted seizure mahazar and seized properties and handed over them to me. I kept the properties seized in this case in the a Kagwad p. S. itself. 2. On 9. 7. 1995 I deputed PW-10 Head Constable and another p. C. to carry seized articles in this case to C. E. Bangalore along with my letter. On the same day, I received the Record of Rights of land bearing R. S. No. 295 and 296. They are at Ex. P 19 and p. 20. On 11. 7. 1995, PW-10 returned from Bangalore and gave his report regarding submitting the articles to the C. E. He has given written report. It is at Ex. P-14 already marked. 3. On 14. 7. 1995, I received P. M. report of the deceased. On 12. 8. 1995 I received wound certificate from Civil Hospital, Sangali relating to PW-5. That certificate is at Ex. P-21. On 14. 8. 1995 I deputed PC 1057 to carry MO-5 and MO-6 to Medical Officer, mole for furnishing opinion regarding the injuries with reference to the weapons. On 21. 8. 1995 I received the opinion from PW-2 and also articles back. After the investigation was over I laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences mentioned therein. C. E. report is at Ex. P-22. During that period C. P. I was not working in Athani. " ( 38 ) IN his cross examination, he has stated that the complainant is illiterate and one person by name Siddayya PW - 15 has written the complaint Further he has stated that on 27. 6. 1995 when he visited kagwad Police Station both the appellants were in the custody of pw. 12. On 26. 6. 1995 PW-12 also incharge of the instant case. He took up further investigation from PW-12 on 27. 6. 1995 at about 9 a. m. Till then, PW-12 was incharge. 6. 1995 when he visited kagwad Police Station both the appellants were in the custody of pw. 12. On 26. 6. 1995 PW-12 also incharge of the instant case. He took up further investigation from PW-12 on 27. 6. 1995 at about 9 a. m. Till then, PW-12 was incharge. He has also stated, PW-12 was independent investigating officer to this case till he took investigation once again from, him on 30. 6. 1995 at 6-15 a. m. as per his direction. He was in the headquarters on 30. 6. 1995 and making arrangements regarding the visit of the Chief Minister. On the night of 30. 6. 1995, pw-12 again gave him a report at 10 p. m. The articles seized were under seal. Further he has stated that after filing the charge sheet in the above case, the Serology report pertaining to chemical analysis of the property sent in this case has been received and that Serology report is at Ex. P-24. As per Ex. P. 24, all the articles sent to FSL were stained with human blood. Item No. 5 was stained with human blood group A. The sickle used by appellant No. 1 and the munda item Nos. 8 and 9 are the property sent to FSL disclose that human blood stains were found on them and item Nos. 10 and 11 are of appellant No. 2 the saree and axe disclose that human blood stains were found on them. The evidence of PW-13 further supports the case of the prosecution with regard to the Serology report Ex. P-14 and the articles seized viz. , Item No. 5 was stained with human blood group 'a' and also the saree of appellant No. 2 which was also stained with blood. Therefore, the evidence of this witness is trustworthy. They have categorically stated that the appellants have assaulted the deceased and the PW-5 with sickle and axe on the disputed land in question. Though these witnesses were subject to searching cross examination, nothing material could be elicited from them which may cast a doubt on the credibility. The fact that they were present near about the scene of incident cannot be discarded having regard to the fact that the incident took place in the land in question. The mere fact that they are the relatives of the deceased, cannot be dubbed as interested witnesses. The fact that they were present near about the scene of incident cannot be discarded having regard to the fact that the incident took place in the land in question. The mere fact that they are the relatives of the deceased, cannot be dubbed as interested witnesses. If they had seen the occurrence, they would certainly have the interest to bring the offenders of their relative. Normally, the relatives of the deceased, if they had seen the occurrence would not absolve the real offender and involve innocent persons for that murder. Reading the statements of the eye witnesses and the evidence of the doctor PW-2, we do not find any serious contradictions between the two which may be form the basis for discarding the testimony of the eye witnesses. Thus we find there is no in consistency between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence in this case. Even otherwise, it has to be stated that the ocular evidence cannot be discarded on grounds of being in conflict with the medical evidence. ( 39 ) IN this connection, a reference may be made to a decision reported in AIR 2000 SCW Page 4300. In the instant case, the eye witnesses watched the occurrence from a close distance in a broad day light. As we have already stated, the assault was so dastardly and gruesome that it must have made a definite and lasting impact on the memory of the eye witnesses that made them to remember the assault with its grotesque details. More over, it is not a question of giving photographic details but the witness have described what they actually saw. The eye witnesses in unequivocal term have stated in their examination in chief that the appellants were armed with a particular weapon and they have committed the assault on the decease and PW-5. It cannot be said that their evidence is a tutored version. Therefore, we are of the view that the evidence given by all the eye witnesses is corroborated from the other materials placed on record. It is pertinent to note here itself that the weapon of offence which were recovered at the instance of these appellants were to be stained with the same group of blood as that of the deceased. Therefore, we are of the view that the evidence given by all the eye witnesses is corroborated from the other materials placed on record. It is pertinent to note here itself that the weapon of offence which were recovered at the instance of these appellants were to be stained with the same group of blood as that of the deceased. Under the circumstances, therefore it cannot be, said that the prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt against the appellants beyond any shadow of doubt. A close relative of the deceased in a murder case who is a very natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness. Further, it is pertinent to note here itself that one of the eye witness PW-5 is none other than the brother of the deceased. The term "interested" postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing that the accused persons are somehow or the other convicted either because he had some animus against the accused or for some other reason. Such is not the case here. With regard to the nature of the offence, the heinous offence has been committed by the appellants, as has been rightly contended by the learned Govt. Pleader, the way in which the assault has been committed by the appellants would clearly indicate that the appellants wanted to commit the murder of the deceased and hence, it would attract the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. It has to facts and in the circumstances of each case. The nature of the injury whether it is on the vital or non-vital part of the body, the weapons used, the circumstances in which the injury is inflicted are all relevant factors which may go to determine the required intention or knowledge of the appellants and the offence committed by them. In the instant case, the deceased was telling the appellants why they people were assaulting PW-5 and tried to console the matter, but the appellants have assaulted axe indiscriminately and thus brought the end of the deceased. These facts clearly establish that the appellants had the intention to kill the deceased. In the instant case, the deceased was telling the appellants why they people were assaulting PW-5 and tried to console the matter, but the appellants have assaulted axe indiscriminately and thus brought the end of the deceased. These facts clearly establish that the appellants had the intention to kill the deceased. In any event, they can safely be attributed the knowledge that the axe and the sickle blows given by them were so imminently dangerous that they must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Having regard to the medical evidence regarding the injuries and also having regard to the fact that the appellants had acted in a most cruel and unusual manner and also having regard to the conduct of the appellants carrying the weapons and assaulting the person who working in the disputed and in question. Hence, it would clearly attract the offence under section 302, 326, 504 read with Section 34 IPC. Therefore, having given our anxious consideration to the entire matter in issue, we find no merit in any of the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants. ( 40 ) NOW, it is well settled law laid down by the Apex Court in series' of decisions. A reference may be made to a decision reported in soharab vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH. The Supreme Court held thus:"evidence - appreciation of evidence prosecution witnesses - discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of some or all the witnesses, it does not mean that the entire evidence of the prosecution has to be discarded. It is only if, after exercising caution and care and sifting the evidence to separate the truth from untruth, exaggeration, embellishments and improvement, the court came to the conclusion that what can be accepted implicates the accused it will convict them" ( 41 ) FOR all the reasons stated above, we are of the clear view that the appellants have been rightly convicted and sentenced by the trial Court under Sections 3-2, 326, 504 read with Section 34 IPC. ( 42 ) IN the result, therefore, this criminal appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence made by the Trial Court is confirmed. --- *** --- .