K. C. BHANU, J. ( 1 ) ACCUSED Nos. 1 to 3 in Sessions Case No. 145/2000 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool, filed this appeal, challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 1-8-2001. By the said judgment, the Trial Court convicted the appellants, and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life under section 302 IPC for causing the death of kistanna, rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for one year each under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. The Trial court found A4 not guilty of the charges levelled against him and accordingly acquitted him. ( 2 ) THE factual score depicts that on 25-1-1999 at about 9. 30 a. m. , at the hotel of PW. 5, the accused in pursuance of their common intention hurled bombs, that when Kistanna came out of the hotel and was running through Pedda Bazar A1 to A4 chased him, that when he reached the house of Bala Golla Madduleti, A3 caught hold of Kistanna, A1 cut his throat with a dagger, A2 hacked him with a hunting sickle and A3 with a sickle. The wife of kistanna, PW1, having witnessed the incident, lodged a report Ex. P1 with bethamcherla Police on the basis of which a case was registered. PW16 Inspector of police took up investigation, prepared a rough sketch of the scene of occurrence, conducted inquest in the presence of PW. 9, seized the remnants of the bombs from the hotel, examined the witnesses, and sent the dead body for conducting post-mortem examination. PW8 who sustained injuries in the bomb explosion was sent to the hospital. PW. 13- the Doctor opined that the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries. He also examined PW4, who too was injuried in the bomb explosion, and issued Ex. P13 wound certificate. PW16 arrested the accused and in pursuance of the confessional statements of A1 and A2, MOs. 12 and 13 were seized. After obtaining necessary sanction to prosecute the accused under sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances act and after completion of investigation, pw16 laid a charge-sheet. On behalf of the prosecution, 16 witnesses were examined and 22 documents were exhibited besides 14 material objects. 12 and 13 were seized. After obtaining necessary sanction to prosecute the accused under sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances act and after completion of investigation, pw16 laid a charge-sheet. On behalf of the prosecution, 16 witnesses were examined and 22 documents were exhibited besides 14 material objects. The Trial Court after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the Prosecution failed to establish the charges levelled against A4, but established the charges against A1 to A3 and accordingly acquitted A4 and convicted and sentenced A1 to A3 as aforesaid by the impugned judgment, questioning the legality and correctness whereof A1 to A3 filed the present appeal. ( 3 ) LEARNED Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellants contended that except the interested testimony of PWs. 1 to 3, who are closely related to the deceased, there was no evidence to show that the accused are the assailants of the deceased, that the presence of PW. 1 at the place of incident is highly suspicious, that the presence of pws. 2 and 3 is also doubtful as their houses were located at a far off place, that though the entire village saw the accused hurling bombs and chasing the deceased, none of such witnesses was examined, that there was absolutely no motive for the appellants to kill the deceased, that the conduct of pw1 is highly unnatural as she did not try to save her husband, that the Prosecution failed to establish how the accused came into possession of the weapons after hurlings bombs, that when the deceased did not own any land, the question of PW1 accompanying the deceased to secure labour does not arise, that PWs. 4 and 8 did not speak about the accused attacking the deceased, and that the trial Court without considering all these aspects convicted the accused, and so the judgment under appeal should be set aside. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contended that the death of the deceased was homicidal, that P. Ws. 4 and 8 spoke to the fact of bombs being hurled, that the presence of P. W. 1 at the relevant point time is quite probable as she was accompanying her husband, that on hearing the sound of bomb explosion, P. Ws. 4 and 8 spoke to the fact of bombs being hurled, that the presence of P. W. 1 at the relevant point time is quite probable as she was accompanying her husband, that on hearing the sound of bomb explosion, P. Ws. 2 and 3 rushed towards the place from where the sound emanated and saw the deceased being chased and attacked and so their presence was quite natural, and that in a case of this nature no independent would come forward to depose against the accused, and hence the appeal should be dismissed. ( 4 ) WE will first ascertain the nature of death of the deceased. P. W. 16 conducted inquest in the presence of P. W. 9. Ex. P6 is the inquest report which shows that the inquest Mediators opined that the deceased died because of the multiple injuries sustained by him. P. W. 13 conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries. 1. A cut throat injury 4 x 3" neck deep extending from middle of right side of neck up to middle of left side of neck. On dissection, all neck structures like thyroid cartilage, larynx, major blood vessels and tissues are cut and bloodstained. 2. An incised cut injury of 2 x 1" x bone deep extending from middle of right ear up to right temple. On dissection zygomatic bone and temporal bone are cut, tissues bloodstained. 3. An incised wound of 1 x " x skin deep over right forehead. 4. An incised wound of 4 x 1" x skin deep above the injury No. 3. On dissection parietal bone is found cut and meninges exposed. 5. An incised wound 2 x " x skin deep over right upper arm. 6. An incised wound 1 x " x skin deep over right side of chest. 7. An incised wound of 1 x 1/2" x skin deep over left shoulder joint. 8. An incised wound 1 x " x skin deep over right parietal bone. 9. Multiple abrasions of 1/4 x " extending from middle of left forearm up to 1" above left wrist joint and also on left side of lower back, surrounding area blackened. On dissection, underneath skin structures are found congested, skin over the injury is preserved for chemical analysis. 10. 9. Multiple abrasions of 1/4 x " extending from middle of left forearm up to 1" above left wrist joint and also on left side of lower back, surrounding area blackened. On dissection, underneath skin structures are found congested, skin over the injury is preserved for chemical analysis. 10. Multiple abrasions of x " extending from middle of back of right thigh up to back of right calf muscle. Surrounding area blackened; on dissection underneath structures found congested; part of skin preserved for chemical analysis. ( 5 ) P. W. 13 issued Ex. P. 12-post-mortem certificate. He opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple injuries. Practically the evidence of P. Ws. 16, 9 and 13 and the recitals in Exs. P6 and P12 remain unchallenged. Therefore, we hold that the deceased met with a homicidal death due to the injuries sustained by him. ( 6 ) P. WS. 1 to 3 are eye-witnesses to the incident. P. W. 1 is the wife, P. W. 2 is the sister and P. W. 3 is the brother of the deceased. P. W. 2 stated that the entire village saw the incident. P. W. 3 stated that number of villagers witnessed the incident. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused-appellants contends that though admittedly several persons witnessed the incident, only P. Ws. 1 to 3, who are closely related to the deceased, were examined and their evidence cannot be relied upon because of their relationship with the deceased, and non-examination of independent witnesses throws any amount of doubt on the prosecution case. ( 7 ) IT is well settled that merely because the evidence of independent witnesses is available, the evidence of so-called interested witnesses cannot be rejected outright, if they are natural witnesses and if their evidence is truthful, credible and inspires confidence. The caution to be exercised in appreciating their evidence is that it should be scrutinized with care and circumspection in the light of the material on record including corroborative circumstances, and if, thus evaluated, their evidence points to the guilt of the accused, conviction of the accused can be based upon. The caution to be exercised in appreciating their evidence is that it should be scrutinized with care and circumspection in the light of the material on record including corroborative circumstances, and if, thus evaluated, their evidence points to the guilt of the accused, conviction of the accused can be based upon. On this aspect, it is also pertinent to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in Appabhai v. State of gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696 , wherein it is held as under:"it is no doubt true that the Prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witnesses to the incident that took place at the bus stand. There must have been several of such witnesses. But the Prosecution cannot be thrown out or doubted on that ground alone. Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensible when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilant. They keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there every where whether in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the investigation agency has to discharge its duties. The Court, therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witnesses must consider the broad spectrum or the prosecution version and the search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probabilities, if any, suggested by the accused. " ( 8 ) THOUGH several villagers witnessed the incident, non-examination of all such witnesses cannot throw the prosecution case, but we shall certainly consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution case and the veracity of the witnesses. It may be noted here that the Prosecution did examine P. W. 6 who can be termed as an independent witnesses, though did not examine all independent witnesses. ( 9 ) P. W. 9 is a mediator for the scene of observation report. According to him, the police seized M. Os. 8 to 10-remnants of the bombs-from a place near "maddileti swamy Coffee, Tea and Bhojanam Vilas" which had advertising board with that name and showing Hussain Peeran as its proprietor. ( 9 ) P. W. 9 is a mediator for the scene of observation report. According to him, the police seized M. Os. 8 to 10-remnants of the bombs-from a place near "maddileti swamy Coffee, Tea and Bhojanam Vilas" which had advertising board with that name and showing Hussain Peeran as its proprietor. P. W. 5 was the son of Hussain who was running the hotel. M. Os. 8 to 10 were sent for chemical analysis. Ex. P22- report shows that these material objects were components of explosive mixture of potassium Chlorate, Arsenic Sulphide and sulphur after explosion and the explosive mixture was used in country-made bombs of throw-down type. P. W. 9 was not cross-examined. P. Ws. 4 and 8, who were projected as witnesses who were injured in the incident, though did not support the Prosecution on the main attack, did state that bombs were hurled at the hotel. Thus, it is clear that a bomb explosion took place in the hotel of p. W. 5. ( 10 ) WE will now proceed to scrutinize the evidence on record to decide as to who hurled the bombs and also find out whether the accused attacked the deceased. ( 11 ) THE evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 has to be evaluated with care and caution, as they are closely related to the deceased, to ascertain whether they were present at the time of incident and there is anything inherently improbable and unreliable in their evidence. ( 12 ) ACCORDING to P. W. 1, she along with her husband was going to Harijanawada to procure labour for working in their field. As they reached the hotel, her husband desired to have a cup of tea and went inside the hotel. She was standing outside the hotel. At that time, A1 to A3 and some others were sitting under a tree in front of the hotel. A3 having seen the deceased instigated the other accused to hurl bombs against him. Accordingly A1 and A2 hurled bombs which exploded. And A1 and A3 also hurled bombs. The accused cried that the deceased died. But, within a short time thereafter, the deceased came out of the hotel and began to run towards the west of the village. Then all the accused chased him. As the deceased reached the house of Bala Madduleti, A3 caught hold of him and fell him down. The accused cried that the deceased died. But, within a short time thereafter, the deceased came out of the hotel and began to run towards the west of the village. Then all the accused chased him. As the deceased reached the house of Bala Madduleti, A3 caught hold of him and fell him down. A1 gashed the throat of the deceased. A2 chopped him with a hunting sickle and A3 hacked him with a sickle. As a result of these injuries, the deceased died. ( 13 ) IT was elicited in the cross- examination of P. W. 1 that her husband did not possess any property, except the house which he constructed by occupying a site in the village, whereas in her chief-examination she stated that she and her husband were going to Harijanawada to procure labour for working in their field. Therefore, it is highly improbable that she was accompanying her husband at the time of incident to hire labour to work in their field when they did not possess any property other than the house, contends the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused. ( 14 ) THE purpose for which P. W. 1 was accompanying her husband as stated by her may not be correct, but on that unimportant ground, her evidence cannot be rejected. It may be that they were cultivating land on lease, or they were going to attend coolie work. Most probably it was for the latter, because P. W. 2 stated that P. W. 3 came to her house so that both of them could go together for doing mining work and that p. W. 3 informed her that P. W. 1 and the deceased went towards Harijanawada whereas he had come to her house. It is pertinent to note that there is no evidence on record that they were not cultivating any land on lease, since P. W. 1 only stated that her husband did not possess any property except the house. Within two hours after the incident, P. W. 1 lodged Ex. P1-F. I. R. in which she narrated the sequence of events in detail. It may be that she is the wife of the deceased, but was there any reason for her to implicate the accused falsely, leaving the real assailants, is the question. Nothing has been elicited in her cross-examination to suggest such reason. P1-F. I. R. in which she narrated the sequence of events in detail. It may be that she is the wife of the deceased, but was there any reason for her to implicate the accused falsely, leaving the real assailants, is the question. Nothing has been elicited in her cross-examination to suggest such reason. On the other hand, P. W. 1 stated that there were no ill-feelings or dispute between the accused and her husband. It is also elicited in her cross-examination that the deceased and the father of A3 were accused in the murder case of one Pullela venkataswamy. Nothing has been suggested to show that this witness had any reason to implicate falsely the accused. As seen from her evidence, she appears to have witnessed the incident in question and she is a witness of truth. ( 15 ) COMING to the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3, according to them, at the time of incident they were at the house of P. W. 2. They heard sound of bomb explosion from the side of main bazaar of the village. Therefore they scuttled towards that side. It is at that time the deceased was running in the opposite direction being chased by the accused and P. W. 1 was following him. The house of P. W. 2 is at a distance of 200 yards from the hotel, as stated by P. W. 3 in his cross-examination who also stated that the hotel is not visible from the house of P. W. 2. When a person hears a sound of bomb explosion and goes towards the side from where the sound has emanated, it is nothing unusual. Nothing has been suggested to these witnesses as to why they should speak false against the accused. P. W. 3 stated that he could not state the exact place where the bombs were exploded, since by the time the bombs were exploded he was in the house of P. W. 2 from where the hotel was not visible. Had they wanted to implicate the accused, they would have stated that they saw the accused hurling bombs as well. The evidence of these witnesses shows that they did not exaggerate the version of the incident. They appear to have stated what they had seen only. Thus their evidence corroborates the evidence of P. W. 1. Had they wanted to implicate the accused, they would have stated that they saw the accused hurling bombs as well. The evidence of these witnesses shows that they did not exaggerate the version of the incident. They appear to have stated what they had seen only. Thus their evidence corroborates the evidence of P. W. 1. ( 16 ) THE evidence of P. W. 1 is further corroborated by P. W. 6. He stated that while he was sitting at the tea shop of P. W. 5, A1 to A3 hurled bombs into the hotel. The deceased came out of the hotel and began to scoot towards the village. All the accused chased the deceased. Nothing has been elicited from the cross-examination of this witness to suggest that he was speaking false. His evidence inspires confidence and can be relied upon. ( 17 ) COMING to the actual incident, the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 shows that after the accused hurled bombs, the deceased came out of the hotel and was darting towards the western side of the village. P. W. 1 dogged him. When A3 caught hold of the deceased in front of the house of bala Madduleti, he fell down. The evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 further depicts that A1 gashed the throat of the deceased, A2 chopped the throat of the deceased, and a3 hacked the deceased with a sickle. The overt acts committed by the accused have consistently been deposed by P. Ws. 1 to 3. The medical evidence would go to show that the deceased sustained as many as eight injuries besides cut injuries to throat and right ear. Thus, the ocular evidence of p. Ws. 1 to 3 is completely in corroboration with the medical evidence. Their evidence is further corroborated by Ex. P1 which can be used to corroborate the evidence of p. W. 1. ( 18 ) LEARNED Senior Counsel contends that none of the witnesses speaks as to how the accused came into possession of the weapons allegedly used in the commission of the offence and that no weapons were seized by police in this case, and it only goes against the Prosecution. The intention of the accused to slay the deceased is clear from the fact that they hurled bombs in the first instance and later chased him and attacked with knives. The intention of the accused to slay the deceased is clear from the fact that they hurled bombs in the first instance and later chased him and attacked with knives. They first tried to finish the deceased by exploding bombs at him, which is clear from the fact that after the bombs were exploded they cried that the deceased had died. But when within a short time after the bombs had been exploded the deceased came out of the hotel, they realized that their first attempt had failed. They then resorted to the second attempt of chasing and attacking the deceased. They wanted to get rid of the accused somehow or the other. That is the reason why they must have concealed weapons underneath their clothes so that the weapons would not be visible to any other person. Simply because the Prosecution did not explain as to how the accused came into possession of the weapons, it cannot be a ground to discredit the testimony of the witnesses which is found otherwise reliable and believable. ( 19 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants further contended that the conduct of p. W. 1 in not going to the rescue of her husband raises any amount of doubt with regard to her presence. As we have already held above, the presence of PW1 was natural. However, we would answer this contention otherwise also. When the husband of a woman is in a hotel and bombs are hurled into the hotel and the bombs are exploded, the woman unaware of such attack standing outside the hotel can never rescue him. The only way P. W. 1 could have rescued her husband was by flying through the explosion into the hotel and to take him out of the hotel in the same manner. There is evidence on record to show that several male persons in and around the hotel ran helter-skelter to save their own lives. In such situation, being a helpless lady she was not expected to sprint through the explosion and save her husband. If at all she had made any such attempt, she would have done so only at the risk to her life. Similarly, after the bomb explosion, when the deceased was chased and being attacked with lethal weapons, nobody would dare to intervene in, or prevent the accused from making, the attack. If at all she had made any such attempt, she would have done so only at the risk to her life. Similarly, after the bomb explosion, when the deceased was chased and being attacked with lethal weapons, nobody would dare to intervene in, or prevent the accused from making, the attack. So also P. W. 1 did not dare. Therefore, the conduct of P. W. 1 in not interfering in the attack is not unnatural. ( 20 ) IT is next contended by the learned senior Counsel that there was absolutely no motive for A1 and A2 to attack the deceased. A feeble attempt has been made by the Prosecution to show motive on the part of the accused by alleging that 15 days prior to the incident in question, an altercation had taken place between the deceased on one hand and A1 to A3 on the other. They hurled abuses against each other. Finally the deceased beat A3 with a chappal. So, if at all there was any motive, only A3 must have had motive to kill the deceased, but A1 and A2 cannot be said to have motive to do away with the life of the deceased only because of the previous incident. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution failed to prove motive for A1 and A2 to kill the deceased, but there is motive for A3 to take vengeance against the deceased as the deceased slapped him due to which he felt insulted. One cannot normally see into the mind of another. Therefore, what A1 and A2 had in their mind cannot be guessed. However, where there is a clear proof of motive, that lends additional support to the finding of the Court that the accused was guilty, but absence of clear proof of motive does not necessarily lead to the contrary conclusion. ( 21 ) THE Prosecution relied upon the recovery of M. Os. 12 and 13-bloodstained clothes of A1 and A2-in pursuance of their confessional statement-Ex. P9. One of these two items contained human blood of group "a". Similarly, the clothes of the deceased, which were seized at the time of inquest, also contained blood group "a". Though PW. 16 stated that M. Os. 12 and 13 were recovered at the instance of A1 and a2 in pursuance of their confessional statements, but which item was seized from which accused is silent. Similarly, the clothes of the deceased, which were seized at the time of inquest, also contained blood group "a". Though PW. 16 stated that M. Os. 12 and 13 were recovered at the instance of A1 and a2 in pursuance of their confessional statements, but which item was seized from which accused is silent. Therefore, in the absence of such specific evidence, this circumstance cannot be used against any one of the accused. ( 22 ) THE evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 clearly shows that the A1 to A3 hurled bombs and they caused the death of the deceased. On proper appreciation of the evidence on record, the Trial Court rightly convicted the appellants herein. We do not find any merit in the appeal and it is liable to be dismissed. ( 23 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court against the accused-appellants.