K. C. BHANU, J. ( 1 ) THIS statutory appeal under Sec. 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment in Sessions Case no. 302 of 1999 on the file of the First additional District and Sessions Judge, Eluru, west Godavari District whereby the appellant-accused, was convicted by the learned Judge for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo Imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 200. 00 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The learned Judge also found the appellant guilty for the offence under section 354 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay a fine of Rs. 100. 00 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month and both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution may briefly be se stated as follows: The Inspector of police, tanuku Circle filed a charge-sheet before the court of II Additional Judicial Magistrate of first Class, Tanuku alleging that the deceased was a vegetable vendor and the accused was having disputes with him in regard to a pathway in front of his house. The appellant put up a fence abutting the road for which the deceased chastised him. It is also stated that the accused was teasing P. W. 8 who complained to her father. For that also P. W. 1 and the deceased chastised the accused. Therefore, the accused bore grudge against the deceased. Similarly there were disputes between the accused and P. Ws. 4,6,8 and 9. On 2-6-1999 at about 11 p. m. while the deceased was sleeping on a cot in front of his house in Samudrapugattu village the accused hacked the deceased as a result the deceased fell down on the ground and died. At the same time P. W. 1, who is the wife of the deceased, was also sleeping on a separate cot. The neighbours including the relations of the deceased witnessed the incident. Thereafter P. W. 1 proceeded to Attili police station and gave Ex. P-1 report to P. W. 17 who registered the same as Crime No. 49 of 1999 under Section 302 IPC. He visited the scene of occurrence and as it was late in the night he posted a police constable to guard the scene of occurrence. Thereafter P. W. 1 proceeded to Attili police station and gave Ex. P-1 report to P. W. 17 who registered the same as Crime No. 49 of 1999 under Section 302 IPC. He visited the scene of occurrence and as it was late in the night he posted a police constable to guard the scene of occurrence. On the next day i. e. , on 3-6-1999 at about 7 a. m. P. W. 17 observed the scene of occurrence and prepared observation report. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of P. Ws. 11 and others. During inquest P. W. 17 examined some witnesses. He also got the scene of occurrence photographed. After inquest the dead body was sent to the Government Hospital, Eluru for post-mortem examination. P. W. 14 conducted post-mortem over the dead body and opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to shock and haemorrhage due to cut injury on the throat. Just before the incident P. W. 9 went to the road to board his sister in an auto and thereafter he was returning to the house. He was also attacked. He was examined by doctor P. W. 15 on 3-6-1999. P. W. 19, the Inspector of police took up further investigation and arrested the accused on 14-6-1999 at about 4 p. m. and in pursuance of his confessional statement he seized M. O. 1. The material objects were sent to the Director of Forensic Science laboratory and after receipt of report and after completion of investigation P. W. 19 filed charge-sheet. ( 3 ) ON behalf of the prosecution P. Ws. 1 to 19 were examined and Exs. P-1 to P-15 were got marked besides case properties M. Os. 1 to 8. The lower court believed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in coming to the conclusion that the accused hacked the deceased with M. O. 1 axe and therefore he was convicted for the offence under Sec. 302 ipc and for the offence under Sec. 354 IPC for outraging the modesty of P. W. 8 and accordingly sentenced as aforesaid. The lower court believed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in coming to the conclusion that the accused hacked the deceased with M. O. 1 axe and therefore he was convicted for the offence under Sec. 302 ipc and for the offence under Sec. 354 IPC for outraging the modesty of P. W. 8 and accordingly sentenced as aforesaid. ( 4 ) ORIGINALLY charges under Sec. 307 IPC for causing injuries to P. W. 9 Boganandam and Sec. 509 IPC for intentionally insulting the modesty of P. W. 8 T. Ramadevi were framed against the accused but he was not found guilty for those two charges. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant contends that the offence under Sec. 354 IPC cannot be said to be committed in the same transaction of the alleged murder that except the interested testimony of P. Ws. 1 to 5 and p. W. 8 no independent evidence is available and all the witnesses were either related or closely associated with the deceased and p. W. 1 and therefore it is highly unsafe to base conviction on their testimony and that there was delay in sending the first information report to the court which was not at all explained, and reason is obvious as the time was taken with a view to implicate the accused falsely. It is also vehemently contended by the learn ed counsel that the deceased was attacked by an unknown person at an unknown place and after coming to know about the death of the deceased, the dead body was brought to the house of p. W. 1 and a false case is folsted against the accused and that is the reason the origin of blood could not be determined on examination of earth and the cot did not contain any blood stains at all. So, the prosecution purposefully shifted the scene of offence and the lower court without considering these aspects came to the wrong conclusion in convicting the accused and hence he prays to allow the appeal and acquit the appellant of conviction and sentence. ( 6 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor contends that the presence of P. Ws. 1 to5 at the relevant point of time is established beyond all reasonable doubt, that the incident took place in front of the house of the deceased, that p. Ws. ( 6 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor contends that the presence of P. Ws. 1 to5 at the relevant point of time is established beyond all reasonable doubt, that the incident took place in front of the house of the deceased, that p. Ws. 2 and 3, who are the parents of the deceased, were staying with the deceased at the time of the incident and there is no reason for them to implicate the accused falsely, that the death of the deceased is homicidal that the recovery of M. O. 1 axe at the instance of accused is another circumstance against him, that as P. W. 1 and the deceased used to chastise the accused for his behaviour and conduct, he bore grudge against the deceased and committed this murder, that the lower court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the right, conclusion and that though charge under Sec. 354 IPC does not form part of the same transaction but no prejudice is caused to the accused and therefore the impugned judgment cannot be set aside on the sole ground. Therefore, she prays to dismiss the appeal. ( 7 ) P. W. 1 is the wife of the deceased. P. Ws. 2 and 3 are the parents of the deceased. P. Ws. 4 and 5 who are wife and husband, are closely related to P. W. 1. The incident in question is alleged to have taken place on 2-6-1999 at about 11 p. m. in front of the house of the deceased in K. Samudrapugattu village within the limits of Attili police station. ( 8 ) IN case an eyewitness is related or even interested it becomes the duty of the court to scrutinize his statement with great care and caution. One cannot ignore the fact that the relations present at the scene of occurrence are the only natural available witnesses in case they are actually present at the scene of occurrence as new unconnected persons often are cool or hesitant to appear as a witness. At this stage, it is pertinent to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in Anwaruddin v. Shakoor that ordinarily the close relations of the deceased would not allow the real culprits to escape although the possibility of their implication of others with the real offenders need to be kept in mind. At this stage, it is pertinent to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court in Anwaruddin v. Shakoor that ordinarily the close relations of the deceased would not allow the real culprits to escape although the possibility of their implication of others with the real offenders need to be kept in mind. ( 9 ) AS the learned counsel for the appellant seriously disputes about the scene of occurrence it has to be seen from the evidence whether the place as stated by the witnesses i. e. , in front of the house of the deceased in samudrapugattu village is the actual place of occurrence or not. P. W. 17 prepared observation report Ex. P-2 on 3-6-1999 at 7 a. m. He also seized bloodstained earth and controlled earth. As seen from Ex. P-15, the serologist report, the origin of blood could not be detected. Though the bloodstained earth was seized on 3-6-1999 but the police did not send it to the Chemical Analyst till 21-6-1999. It is a serious lapse on the part of the Investigating Agency in not sending the bloodstained earth immediately to the analyst. If the evidence of the eyewitnesses is in the category of "wholly truthful", then the lapses if any committed by the investigating Agency can be ignored or condoned. ( 10 ) AS the incident took place at about 11 p. m. in the night in front of the house of the deceased whether there is any possibility for the witnesses to identify the assailant? As seen from Ex. P-10 rough sketch an electric pole is located at a distance of nineteen feet from the house of the deceased and as a matter of fact P. W. 1 also stated that an electric bulb was burning at her house at the time of the incident. To show that there was no power cut in the night of the incident p. W. 12, who is the Additional Assistant engineer of Electricity Department, was examined. He stated that after verifying the records he gave Ex. P-6 endorsement to the effect that on 2-6-1999 at about 11 p. m. there was power supply. To show that there was no power cut in the night of the incident p. W. 12, who is the Additional Assistant engineer of Electricity Department, was examined. He stated that after verifying the records he gave Ex. P-6 endorsement to the effect that on 2-6-1999 at about 11 p. m. there was power supply. Therefore, as an electric pole was located nearby the place of incident and the house of the deceased was also having electric service connection there was every possibility for the witnesses to identify the assailant if the incident took place in front of the house of the deceased. ( 11 ) P. W. 1 is no other than the wife of the deceased who speaks about the earlier incident in which the deceased and herself used to chastise the accused. She specifically stated that about one month prior to the date of the incident the accused quarreled with satyavathi P. W. 6 with regard to the path way and she advised the accused to get the land surveyed and settle the dispute. So also the accused had a dispute with P. W. 4. When herself and her husband chastised the accused, he abused her and her husband. Accused was also having disputes with p. W. 7. He used to peep into the bathroom at the time when the wife of P. W. 9 was taking bath and therefore P. W. 9 admonished him. She admitted in the cross-examination that neither herself nor her husband was an elder in the locality so as to settle the disputes. She also admitted that there was a Sarpanch to her village, who is an elder person to the colony. For setting of any trivial disputes one need not be a mediator or elder of the locality. The house of P. Ws. 4 and 5 is located by the side of the house of the accused. To be more precise their house is situated in the middle of the houses of the accused and the deceased. The house of P. W. 6 is located on the other side of the house of the accused. Therefore, there was every possibility for P. W. 1 and deceased to chastise the accused whenever their neighbours complained against the accused. To be more precise their house is situated in the middle of the houses of the accused and the deceased. The house of P. W. 6 is located on the other side of the house of the accused. Therefore, there was every possibility for P. W. 1 and deceased to chastise the accused whenever their neighbours complained against the accused. P. W. 1 did not state that as elders of the locality herself and her husband used to settle the dispute but she simply stated that herself and her husband used to chastise the accused with regard to any incident, be it a dispute with regard to the accused obstructing the passage or the removing of fencing or the peeping through the bathroom while the wife of P. W. 9 was taking bath. P. Ws. 4 and 5 also stated that the deceased and the P. W. 1 used to mediate the disputes of that locality. P. W. 6 also stated that the deceased and P. W. 1 used to chastise the accused in respect of the disputes in the locality. P. W. 7 stated that there were no disputes between the accused and the deceased. He also stated that a quarrel took place between himself and the accused and the accused raised a fence across the street which P. W. 1, the deceased and P. W. 7 removed. When they removed the fencing the accused proclaimed that he would kill the persons who removed the fencing. P. W. 8 stated that while she was taking bath the accused pelted the stones and the accused abused her attributing unchastity. ( 12 ) FROM the above evidence, it can be said that the accused used to quarrel with his neighbours and for those disputes P. W. 1 and the deceased used to chastise him. Because the accused was their neighbour there was every possibility for the other witnesses who lived near the house of the deceased to complain about the behaviour and conduct of the accused. Being a neighbour it was for the deceased to appease disputes. One need not be an elder of a locality or to hold any post so as to alleviate disputes between the persons. In view of the deceased s chastising the accused there was every possibility for the accused to detest the deceased. Being a neighbour it was for the deceased to appease disputes. One need not be an elder of a locality or to hold any post so as to alleviate disputes between the persons. In view of the deceased s chastising the accused there was every possibility for the accused to detest the deceased. Therefore, there was every reason for the accused to take vengeance against the deceased. ( 13 ) P . W. 1 is an eyewitness to the incident. According to her at about 11 p. m. on 2-6-1999 while she was lying on a cot, her husband was lying on another cot in front of their house and at that time the accused came there and hacked her husband on his neck and as a result he slipped from the cot and fell on the ground. Thereafter the accused darted towards the field carrying the axe. The deceased died on the spot. Thereafter she proceeded to the policestation and lodged ex. P-1 report with P. W. 17 at about 1. 30 a. m. on 3-6-1999. P. W. 17 registered the case and within two and a half hours after the incident the earliest version has been stated in Ex. P-1. A perusal of Ex. P-1 shows that the accused bore grudge against her as she used to admonish him with regard to the disputes and on 2-6-1999 at about 11 p. m. while her husband was lying on a cot outside their house, she was lying on his side on another cot at which time the accused came and hacked the deceased with an axe on the neck and as a result the deceased fell down from the cot and she raised cries. On hearing her cries the nieghbours came there and the accused left that place. The earliest version with regard to the actual incident is completely in corroboration with the evidence of P. W. 1. ( 14 ) THE only thing stated by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was delay in sending the original first information report to the court of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Tanuku. The distance between tanuku and the Attili is about 13 K. Ms. and it would take 20 minutes if one goes by a motor-cycle. As seen from the endorsement on Ex. P-9 by the Magistrate it was received at 11. The distance between tanuku and the Attili is about 13 K. Ms. and it would take 20 minutes if one goes by a motor-cycle. As seen from the endorsement on Ex. P-9 by the Magistrate it was received at 11. 20 a. m. on 3-6-1999. Basing on this the learned counsel for the appellant contends that Ex. P.-1 was brought into existence on 3-6-1999 with a view to implicate the accused falsely. When the first information report was actually recorded without any delay and investigation started on that basis, the delay if any cannot by itself justify the conclusion that the investigation was tainted. Immediately after the incident P. W. 17 visited the scene of occurrence and posted a sentinel there and in the early morning of 3-6-1999 he observed the scene of occurrence, got the scene of occurrence photographed and held inquest over the dead body. Thereafter, p. W. 17 was busy with the investigation. Though the first information report was registered at 1-30 a. m. there was no scope or possibility to send the same on the same night due to lack of conveyance or transport. So, on the next day morning the first information report might have been sent by the Station House Officer of Attili police station as P. W. 17 went to the scene of occurrence. So, under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that there was no material to indicate that there was any deliberate delay on the part of the investigating Officer in dispatching the report. No question was put to the investigating Officer about the delay when he is the best person to explain the delay in dispatching the First Information Report. ( 15 ) EXCEPT suggesting that the accused did not hack the deceased and that there were several enemies to the deceased nothing has been elicited in surfacing any material discrepancy or deviation during the course of cross-examination of P. W. 1. She was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination but she stood the test of touch-stone of probabilities in her cross-examination. No suggestion was put to her that she was deposing falsely on account of the enmity with the accused or for some other reason the accused was falsely implicated. ( 16 ) P. WS. 2 and 3 are the parents of the deceased. No suggestion was put to her that she was deposing falsely on account of the enmity with the accused or for some other reason the accused was falsely implicated. ( 16 ) P. WS. 2 and 3 are the parents of the deceased. They claimed that they were residing with the deceased and P. W. 1 in one house. When it is suggested to P. W. 2 that himself and his wife were staying five houses away from the house of the P. W. 1 and the deceased, he denied the same. No specific suggestion was put to P. W. 3 that she was not residing with the deceased at the time of the accident. P. Ws. 2 and 3 specifically stated that they were sleeping in the verandah whereas the deceased and P. W. 1 were sleeping on two separate cots in front of the house. At about 11 p. m. the accused came there and hacked the deceased. On hearing the cries of P. W. 1, they woke up and found the accused holding M. 0. 1 and left that place. ( 17 ) WITH regard to the residence of p. Ws. 2 and 3 P. W. 4 admitted in her cross- examination that P. Ws. 2 and 3 were living in the house constructed by them near the house of Muppisetti Venkanna at the time of the incident. Even assuming for a moment that p. Ws. 2 and 3 were residing four or five houses away from the house of the deceased there was possibility for them to rush to the scene of occurrence and see the accused holding a knife though not seeing the causing of actual injury. To the extent that they saw the accused holding a knife can be taken into consideration. Nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony. ( 18 ) THE evidence of P. Ws. 4 and 5 who are wife and husband would also go to show that their house is located on the right side of the house of the deceased that is to say in middle of the houses of the accused and the deceased. ( 18 ) THE evidence of P. Ws. 4 and 5 who are wife and husband would also go to show that their house is located on the right side of the house of the deceased that is to say in middle of the houses of the accused and the deceased. According to P. W. 4, on 2-6-1999 p. W. 9 accompanied his sister to the road to arrange an auto for her to go to Athili and therefore herself and P. W. 5 were waiting for the return of P. W. 9 Boganandam. It is at that time the accused came to the cot of the deceased holding an instrument like axe and hacked on the neck of the deceased with that axe. She admitted in the cross-examination that she did not state before the police about their waiting for arrival of P. W. 9 She also admitted that on hearing the alarm raised by p. W. 1 they both went there. As P. Ws. 4 and 5 are adjacent neighbours to the deceased there was every possibility for them to witness the incident. They also specifically stated that the deceased was lying on one cot in the street whereas P. W. 1 was lying on another cot. P. W. 5 specifically stated about the attack made by the accused on the deceased with M. 0. 1. He also admitted that on hearing the alarm raised by P. W. 1 he went there. So they being the neighbours could be in a position to witness the incident after hearing alarm of P. W. 1. Their relationship with P. W. 1 need not necessarily mean that they are speaking falsehood. There must be some reason for them to implicate the accused falsely leaving the real assailant. Except giving a suggestion that due to relationship with P. W. 1 they were giving false evidence nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony. It may not be possible for them to catch hold of the accused because he was armed with a deadly weapon and if they had tried to do so the accused might have also attacked them. P. Ws. 6 and 7 came to the scene of occurrence after the accused hacked the deceased on hearing the cries of P. W. 1. By the time P. W. 6 went there P. Ws. P. Ws. 6 and 7 came to the scene of occurrence after the accused hacked the deceased on hearing the cries of P. W. 1. By the time P. W. 6 went there P. Ws. 1 to 3 were already present and they came to know about the incident. Their evidence would go to show that the deceased and P. W. 1 used to chastise the accused in respect of the disputes in the locality and their evidence does not incriminate anything against the accused in so far as actual incident. The evidence of p. W. 7 further goes to show that the fence put up by the accused was removed by the deceased, P. W. I, P. W. 7 and himself and therefore the accused proclaimed that he would kill the persons who removed the fence. By the time P. W. 7 went to the scene of occurrence the deceased was in the lap of p. W. 1. ( 19 ) COMING to the evidence of P. W. 8 it is relevant in so far as the offence under sec. 354 IPC is concerned. Under Sec. 354 IPC the prosecution has to prove that there is an assault or use of criminal force on any woman with an intention or knowledge that the woman s modesty would be outraged. The word "modesty" is not defined in the Indian penal Code. The Oxford English Dictionary iii Edition defines as. ( 20 ) "decorous in manner and conduct, not forward or lewd, sham past". Modesty therefore has some relation with the signs of proprietary behaviour in relation to woman against whom the offence is said to have been committed. According to P. W. 8 while she was going to the shop for purchase of milk at about 8 p. m. the accused caught hold of her hand and solicited for intercourse. P. W. 1 and the deceased who witnessed the same chastised him. The accused also attributed unchastity and just before the incident she saw the accused moving in the street holding M. O. 1 axe. As her husband went to the road point at about 11 p. m. to send his sister to go to Attili herself and p. W. 4 were waiting in front of the house observing the movements of the accused. As her husband went to the road point at about 11 p. m. to send his sister to go to Attili herself and p. W. 4 were waiting in front of the house observing the movements of the accused. At that time the deceased and P. W. 1 were sleeping on two separate cots and the accused came from the statute side and hacked on the neck of the deceased, as a result he fell down from the cot. She admitted that she did not give any report when the accused caught hold of her hand and misbehaved with her. Except suggesting that she is deposing falsely at the instance of P. W. I nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to discredit her testimony. No doubt she also admitted that on hearing the cries of P. W. 1 they all went there but the fact that herself and p. W. 4 were waiting in front of the house for arrival of P. W. 9 who is no other than the husband of P. W. 8 and so there was every possibility for them to witness the incident. This witness has no grouse or enmity with the accused so as to speak falsehood against him. Therefore, P. W. 4 is a natural witness to be present at the house of P. W. 4. ( 21 ) COMING to the evidence of P. W. 9 he stated that on 2-6-1999 at about 9 p. m. when he returned from the shandy his wife informed him that the accused pelted stones against her while she was taking bath and also caught hold of her hand while she was going to field. Then he chastised the accused. He also corroborated the evidence of P. W. 8 with regard to taking his sister to secure an auto for her to go to Attili. While he was returning home the accused assaulted him with an axe on his head. P. W. 15 is the doctor who examined P. W. 9 and found the injury on the right parietal region. According to p. W. 15 P. W. 9 informed him that he was assaulted by unknown persons and perhaps that is the reason why the lower court has not convicted the accused under Sec. 307 IPC. P. W. 15 is the doctor who examined P. W. 9 and found the injury on the right parietal region. According to p. W. 15 P. W. 9 informed him that he was assaulted by unknown persons and perhaps that is the reason why the lower court has not convicted the accused under Sec. 307 IPC. Except the solitary statement of P. W. 9 that he was attacked by the accused there is absolutely no evidence to show that he received injuries at the hands of the accused. Further he did not give any report to the police. But the fact remains that he sustained head injury and immediately after the incident he went to the clinic of the doctor m. Veera Reddy where initially the compounder applied sutures. P. W. 10 is a resident of Rajiv Nagar colony and he is having a house in the street on the back side to the house of the accused and on hearing the cries of P. W. 1 he was proceeding to the house and then it is at that tine he saw the accused coming with an axe. So this evidence also goes to show that immediately after the incident the accused was seen. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is established beyond all reasonable doubt that the incident in question in fact took place in front of the house of deceased. We are unable to agree with the contention raised by the learned defence counsel, in the absence of any circumstances contra. ( 22 ) THERE fore from the evidence on record it can safely be held that the accused is the assailant of the deceased and the deceased sustained a cut injury of 6" x 3" on front of the neck starting from the middle of the right collar bone running in front and above the supersternal notch to the posterior border of the left sternomstoid upper margin. P. W. 14 is the doctor who conducted autopsy and opined that the deceased died of haemorrhagic shock due to cut injury on throat involved bleeding vessels, muscles, trachea and cerical vert bra. The evidence of p. W. 14 and the recitals in Ex. P-7 remain unchallenged. So, the medical evidence is completely in corroboration with the ocular testimony. ( 23 ) P. W. 16 is the corpse constable who took the dead body to the Government hospital, Eluru. The evidence of p. W. 14 and the recitals in Ex. P-7 remain unchallenged. So, the medical evidence is completely in corroboration with the ocular testimony. ( 23 ) P. W. 16 is the corpse constable who took the dead body to the Government hospital, Eluru. P. W. 18 is the Photographer who took photographs at the scene of occurrence. P. W. 19 is the Inspector of police who arrested the accused in the presence of p. W. 11 and another. According to P. W. 19 the accused was arrested on 4-6-1999 at about 4 p. m. near the house of one K. Rama Rao in kodamanchili village. In pursuance of the confessional statement M. O. 1 was seized under Ex. P-5 mediator s report. The axe contained humanblood as per Ex. P-15 report, but blood group could not be determined. M. O. 1 was exclusively within the knowledge of the accused and he took out the same from the eves of the roof of his house. The evidence ofp. W. 11 and 19 on this aspect is not seriously disputed except suggesting that the mediator s report was drafted in the police station. Therefore, from the evidence on record it is clear that it is the accused who caused injury on the throat of the deceased with the axe M. O. 1 in front of the house of deceased only. There is no reason for disbelieving the eyewitnesses account of the incident. The lower court after appreciating the evidence on record came to the right conclusion in convicting the accused for the offences under Section 354 and 302 IPC. ( 24 ) NO doubt the offence under Sec. 354 ipc does not form part of the same transaction of the murder but at the same time there is no prejudice caused to the accused on account of the joint trial of charges. Furthermore, section 465 of Code of Criminal Procedure is a residuary section in the Chapter which is intended to cure any error omission or irregularity committed by the court of competent jurisdiction in the course of trial though inadvertence or even illegality infraction of any mandatory provision of law, unless such irregularity has in fact occasioned failure of justice. Furthermore, section 465 of Code of Criminal Procedure is a residuary section in the Chapter which is intended to cure any error omission or irregularity committed by the court of competent jurisdiction in the course of trial though inadvertence or even illegality infraction of any mandatory provision of law, unless such irregularity has in fact occasioned failure of justice. It is not the case of the accused that failure of justice has been occasioned for joint trial of charges of different transactions and therefore we do not find any irregularity for the joint trial of two charges. ( 25 ) IN the result, we confirm the conviction and sentence awarded against the appellant by the trial court and we dismiss the appeal.