K. C. BHANU, J. ( 1 ) ACCUSED in Sessions Case No. 99/2000 on the file of Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV additional District and Sessions Judge, chittoor at Tirupathi, filed this appeal, aggrieved by the judgment, dated 6-9-2001, whereby the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fineof Rs. 3,000. 00 in default of payment of which to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under section 307 IPC, and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of which to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, with a direction to run the substantive sentences concurrently. ( 2 ) THE Prosecution case in brief is as follows. Accused is the husband of P. W. 2. The deceased in this case is the mother of p. W. 2. P. W. 1 is maternal aunt of P. W. 2. The marriage of the accused and P. W. 2 took place 11 years prior to the incident. They begot three children during their wedlock. One day prior to the incident in question, the deceased took paddy from the field in a gunny bag, brought the gunny bag to her house and unloaded the paddy at her house. After the paddy was unloaded, the accused wanted to take the gunny bag with him, for which P. W. 2 raised an objection. Thereupon the accused abused her in filthy language and beat her. The deceased intervened and asked the accused not to beat P. W. 2. Later, the accused asked his wife to accompany him to Thandlam. P. W. 2 refused to do so. Then the accused asked his three children to accompany him. Two children accepted to accompany him, but his daughter Kavitha refused to accompany him. Saying that kavitha was not born to him, he went away on his bicycle with his two children. He came back at 6 p. m. and again asked his wife to accompany him to Thandlam. His wife again refused to do. Then he took away Rs. 600. 00 from his wife and left the house threatening that he would see her end. On 17-8-1999 the deceased and P. W. 2 slept at 11 p. m. in the verandah of their house. His wife again refused to do. Then he took away Rs. 600. 00 from his wife and left the house threatening that he would see her end. On 17-8-1999 the deceased and P. W. 2 slept at 11 p. m. in the verandah of their house. At about 1 a. m. on 18-8-1999, the accused came to the house of the deceased and pressed the neck of P. W. 2. Due to that, she woke up and opened her eyes and saw the accused. He closed her mouth and took her to a distance of about one "bara". He again pressed her neck. P. W. 2 tilted her head. The accused thought that she had died. He left her there. He picked up a stick and beat the deceased on her head, nose, mouth, back of her head and ribs. P. W. 2 then raised cries. On hearing her cries, the neighbours, P. Ws. 3 to 5 and p. W. 7 came there. On seeing them the accused ran away. The deceased succumbed to the injuries. P. W. 1 is the brother of the deceased. On being informed by P. W. 4 about the incident, P. W. 1 came to the house of the deceased at 4 a. m. P. W. 2 informed him about the incident. He lodged a report with the police which is marked as Ex. P-1. P. W. 14 took up investigation. He conducted inquest. After the inquest was over, he sent the dead body for conducting post-mortem examination. P. W. 12 conducted post-mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the death of the deceased was due to the injuries sustained by her. He issued Ex. P-5-post-mortem certificate. During the course of investigation, p. W. 14 arrested the accused on 20-8-1999 and in pursuance of his confessional statement, he recovered the stick-M. O. 1. On completion of investigation, he filed a chargesheet. Two charges - one under Section 307 ipc for attempting to commit the murder of p. W. 2, and the other under Section 302 IPC for committing the murder of the deceased - were framed against the accused. He denied to have committed the crime. On its behalf, prosecution examined 14 witnesses and exhibited 10 documents. Two charges - one under Section 307 ipc for attempting to commit the murder of p. W. 2, and the other under Section 302 IPC for committing the murder of the deceased - were framed against the accused. He denied to have committed the crime. On its behalf, prosecution examined 14 witnesses and exhibited 10 documents. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the trial court came to the conclusion that the Prosecution proved both the charges beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly it convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid by the impugned judgment. Challenging the legality and correctness of the said judgment, the accused filed the present appeal. ( 3 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Public prosecutor. ( 4 ) P. W. 11 is one of the mediators for the inquest over the dead body of the deceased conducted by P. W. 14. Ex. P-4 is the inquest report. The inquest mediators opined that the cause of the death of the deceased was due to head injury. The recitals in Ex. P-4 and the evidence of P. Ws. 11 and 14 remain unchallenged. ( 5 ) P. W. 12 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries. 1. Laceration of 6 x 2 cm. bone deep, horizontal over the right eyebrow and root of nose. 2. Laceration of 3 x 0. 5 cm. bone deep, vertical over the middle of nose with fracture of nasal bones. 3. Laceration of 2 x 0. 5 cm. tissue deep, vertical over the right side of nose. 4. Contusion of 4 x 3 cm. horizontalbelow the right eye. 5. Laceration of 6 x 1. 5 cm. scalp deep, horizontal over the left frontal region in the hairline. ( 6 ) LACERATION of 4 x 1. 5 cm. scalp deep, horizontal over the left frontal region in the hairline. ( 7 ) LACERATION of 6 x 2 cm. scalp deep vertical over the left side of occipital region. ( 8 ) TWO lacerations of 0. 5 x 0. 5 cm. apart over the right side of upper lip. ( 9 ) LACERATION of 4 x 2 cms. tissue deep, horizontal over the inner aspect of middle of upper lip. ( 10 ) TWO lacerations of 2 x 1 cms. tissue deep and 1. ( 8 ) TWO lacerations of 0. 5 x 0. 5 cm. apart over the right side of upper lip. ( 9 ) LACERATION of 4 x 2 cms. tissue deep, horizontal over the inner aspect of middle of upper lip. ( 10 ) TWO lacerations of 2 x 1 cms. tissue deep and 1. 5 x 1 cm. tissue deep, vertical 2 cms. apart over the chin. ( 11 ) ABRASION of 10 x 5 cms. vertical over the outer aspect of left side of lower part of chest and upper part of abdomen. ( 12 ) TWO abraded contusions of 1 cm. diameter each over the middle of back of right 4th and 5th fingers. ( 13 ) FISSURE fracture of 6 cms. length extending from wound No. 1 into right anterior cranial fossa. ( 14 ) FRACTURE dislocation of both upper central incisor teeth with fracture of maxilla at this level. ( 15 ) FRACTURE dislocation of four incisor teeth of lower jaw with fracture of mandible at this level. ( 16 ) SUBDURAL and sub Arachnoid haemorrhages over right frontal right parietal and left parietal lobes of brain. ( 17 ) FRACTURE of left 6th, 7th and 8th ribs in midaxillary line. 6. The cause of death according to the doctor was the injury to head. He stated that the injuries as mentioned in Ex. P-5-post-mortem certificate could be caused by a heavy blunt object. The cause of death as spoken to by P. W. 12 and as recited in Ex. P-5 remains unchallenged. So the homicidal nature of death of the deceased has been established beyond all reasonable doubt. 7. The allegations against the accused are that in the intervening night of 17/18-8-1999 at 1 a. m. at Brahmanapattu village in front of the house of Sankaramma he attempted to murder his wife by squeezing her neck and committed the murder of Sankaramma. 8. P. W. 1 is the brother of the deceased. According to him, on 18-8-1999 at 4 a. m. , p. W. 6 informed him that the accused killed the deceased. Then he went to the house of the deceased and on enquiry came to know from P. W. 2 about the assault made on her. Thereupon he went to the police station and lodged Ex. P-1-report. According to him, on 18-8-1999 at 4 a. m. , p. W. 6 informed him that the accused killed the deceased. Then he went to the house of the deceased and on enquiry came to know from P. W. 2 about the assault made on her. Thereupon he went to the police station and lodged Ex. P-1-report. Admittedly this witness did not witness the incident, and about three or four hours after the incident he came to know through P. Ws. 6 and 2 about the murder of the deceased and the assault on P. W. 2. His evidence does not lead us anywhere except that at 7 a. m. on the elate of incident he set the criminal law in motion by lodging Ex. P-1-report. 9. P. W. 2 is the wife of the accused. She stated that on 17-8-1999 till 10 or 11 p. m. she and the deceased were chit chatting, and later slept in the varandah of their house. An electric light was burning thereat. At about 1 a. m. on 18-8-1999 the accused pressed her neck due to which she opened her eyes and saw the accused. He again pressed her neck. She titled her head. The accused thought that she had died. He then picked up a stick and beat the deceased on her head, nose, mouth, back of her head and on ribs. Then P. W. 2 raised cries. P. Ws. 3 to 7 came there and on seeing them the accused ran away. 10. The fact that the incident in question took place in front of the house of the deceased has not been specifically disputed or denied. P. W. 14 is the Investigating Officer. He stated that the dead body of the deceased was lying in a pool of blood in front of her house. He prepared Ex. P-7-rough sketch. He also seized bloodstained earth and control earth and clothes of the deceased from that place. P. W. 11 is the Sarpanch of the village. He was present at the time of inquest. He also categorically stated that the dead body of the deceased was lying in front of the house of the deceased. Nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of these witnesses on this aspect. 11. EX. P. W. 11 is the Sarpanch of the village. He was present at the time of inquest. He also categorically stated that the dead body of the deceased was lying in front of the house of the deceased. Nothing has been elicited to discredit the testimony of these witnesses on this aspect. 11. EX. P-7-ROUGH sketch prepared by the investigating Officer shows that the dead body was lying at a distance of 123 ft from the hut of the deceased. This appears to be incorrect, in view of the recitals in Ex. P-4-inquest report wherein it has clearly been stated that the house of the deceased and the place where the dead body of the deceased was lying in only 12. 3 ft. Therefore, it appears that the Investigating Officer inadvertently did not put "decimal (.)" between "12" and 3". Thus, it is clearly established that the incident in question took place in front ot the house of the deceased. 12. P. W. 2 also clearly stated that the accused attacked them while they were sleeping in front of their house. Except giving a suggestion that the accused did not beat the accused with M. O. 1, nothing has been elicited to discredit her testimony. She is the wife of the accused. She appears to have no animosity against her husband to implicate him falsely leaving the real assailants. No reason has even been suggested to her as to why she spoke against her husband. The presence of p. W. 2 at the scene of occurrence has been established beyond all reasonable doubt. There is nothing for her to speak false against her own husband. The persons who went to the scene of occurrence did so only on hearing her cries. 13. P. W. 4 is a neighbour of the deceased. He stated that he saw the deceased lying with injuries in front other house. He further stated that he was informed by P. W. 2 that the accused beat the deceased with a stick. Because he did not testify the fact that he saw the accused running away from the scene of occurrence, he was declared hostile. It does not mean that his entire evidence would be wiped out from the record. Such part of his evidence which inspires confidence can be taken into consideration. Because he did not testify the fact that he saw the accused running away from the scene of occurrence, he was declared hostile. It does not mean that his entire evidence would be wiped out from the record. Such part of his evidence which inspires confidence can be taken into consideration. Therefore, the fact that P. W. 2 informed him that the accused was the assailant of the deceased can be taken into consideration. 14. P. Ws. 5 and 7 also came to the scene of occurrence on hearing the cries of P. W. 2. They saw the accused running away from the scene of occurrence with a stick in his hand. They also stated that P. W. 2 informed them that the accused killed the deceased. The presence of these witnesses is quite natural and convincing, because their houses are very close to the house of the deceased. They are immediate neighbours of the deceased. P. W. 6 came to know about the incident much later. Therefore, his evidence is not of much relevance. Now the question is whether the evidence of P. Ws. 5 and 7 is admissible in evidence?15. Section 6 of the Evidence Act pertains to the Doctrine of res gestae. This Doctrine is an exception to the rule of hear-say. Facts which may be proved as a part of res gestae must be such facts other than those in issue. Furthermore, these facts must form part of the very same transaction and be thus connected with the facts in issue. Evidence regarding facts in issue disclosed by a transaction can be given under Section 5 of the Evidence Act, whereas the evidence regarding such facts which must be connected with the facts in issue in a manner so as to form part of the same transaction can be given under Section 6 of the Act. Such evidence of P. Ws. 5 and 7 is admissible in evidence under Section 6 of the Act and is fully covered by illustration (a) to Section 6 of the Act. It is also well-settled that a statement in order to be a part of res gestae must have been made substantially contemporaneously with the act or immediately after it so that there is no opportunity for reflection or fabrication. It is in this background that the interval between the act and the statement assumes significance. It is also well-settled that a statement in order to be a part of res gestae must have been made substantially contemporaneously with the act or immediately after it so that there is no opportunity for reflection or fabrication. It is in this background that the interval between the act and the statement assumes significance. In no case the statement should be in the nature of a mere declaration or narration of a past event. In view of the above, the evidence of P. Ws. 5 and 7 can be taken to corroborate the evidence of P. W. 2. 16. Learned counsel for the accused vehemently contended that the allegation that the accused squeezed the neck of P. W. 2 is clearly an improvement, inasmuch as that has never been stated by any witnesses before the police or in the FIR and in view of the fact that P. W. 2 was not examined by Doctor to know the injuries she allegedly sustained and that no medical certificate has been filed, and, therefore, no credence should be given to her testimony in order to maintain conviction of the accused. Impliedly she contended that the entire testimony of p. W. 2 must be rejected as a whole, on the basis of the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus. 17. We regret our inability to accept the said contention. In a situation like this, it is the duty of the Court to closely scrutinize the evidence of P. W. 2 and if possible separate falsehood from truth. However, if the truth and falsehood are so inextricably mixed up that it is not possible to disassociate the two from each other, then only the entire statementhas to be rejected. In case, however, it is possible to disengage the grains of real from the chaff of deception and lies, then the court must undertake that exercise for doing justice. ( 18 ) P. W. 1 is the brother of P. W. 2. On coming to know about the incident at 4 a. m. he proceeded to the village of P. W. 2 and on enquiry from P. W. 2 came to know about the incidentand lodged Ex. P-1-report. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused, P. W. 1 did not state in Ex. On coming to know about the incident at 4 a. m. he proceeded to the village of P. W. 2 and on enquiry from P. W. 2 came to know about the incidentand lodged Ex. P-1-report. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused, P. W. 1 did not state in Ex. P-1 about p. W. 2 informing him that the accused squeezed her neck and attempted to kill her. If really P. W. 2 informed about such attempt, he would have certainly not omitted to mention such important factor in Ex. P-1. Therefore, this allegation appears to be an improvement. This observation gains support from the evidence of P. Ws. 4,5 and 7. They did not testify that P. W. 2 informed them that the accused attempted to kill her. Therefore, this part of the evidence of P. W. 2 cannot be relied upon. Her statement on this aspect has not been supported by medical evidence, because she was not examined by the Doctor and no medical certificate has been filed. ( 19 ) IT is next contended by the learned counsel for the accused that the incident took place at 1 a. m. and therefore it was not possible for P. W. 2 to identify her assailant in the absence of light. For that proposition, she relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Saragula Bapiraju and others v. State of A. P. ( 20 ) IN the said case there was no electric supply at the house of the deceased. There was no electricity facility in and around her house, but there was a streetlight. The streetlight was situated at a distance of 5-6- ft. from the house of the deceased. Only with the help of the streetlight, the witness witnessed the incident. Without the streetlight it would not have been possible for the witness to witness the incident. Basing on the report that there was no electricity supply throughout the night, this Court held that the identification of the accused during nightime would be difficult for the witness. ( 21 ) THE above decision has no application to the facts of the present case, because p. W. 2 categorically stated that a light was burning at the verandah of their house. As seen from Ex. P-7-rough sketch, a electric police was situated at a distance of 13 ft. ( 21 ) THE above decision has no application to the facts of the present case, because p. W. 2 categorically stated that a light was burning at the verandah of their house. As seen from Ex. P-7-rough sketch, a electric police was situated at a distance of 13 ft. from the scene of occurrence. The statement of p. W. 2 that a light was burning at the time of the incident has not been specifically denied or disputed in the cross-examination. Though p. W. 2 did not state before the police that light was burning, it is nothing unusual to put on a bulb during nightime in the verandah. It is not the case of the accused that there was no electricity supply on the date of incident in the village and that the house of the deceased was not electrified. Furthermore, it is not that difficult for P. W. 2 to identify her own husband even in slightest illumination of light. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that P. W. 2 could not have identified the accused is wholly untenable and devoid of merits. ( 22 ) THE accused wasarrested on20-8-1999 in the presence of P. Ws. 9 and 10. According to these witnesses, they were called to the police station and while they were going towards thandlam village in a jeep, they found the accused on the way who on seeing the police tried to run away, but was apprehended. On interrogation, he offered to show the place where he hid the stick used in the commission of the offence. Police seized blood stained shirt on the body of the accused under a mediators report. Except giving a suggestion that they did not accompany the police and the police did not arrest the accused and the panchanamas were prepared in the police station, nothing has been suggested to p. Ws. 9 and 10 to discredit their testimony. In pursuance of the confessional statement of the accused, the police went to Yellamma temple and seized the stick from the bushes with bloodstains on it under Ex. P-3-Mahazar. Human blood was detected on the shirt and the stick, as per Ex. P-9. This is yet another circumstance against the accused to show his involvement in the commission of the offence. P-3-Mahazar. Human blood was detected on the shirt and the stick, as per Ex. P-9. This is yet another circumstance against the accused to show his involvement in the commission of the offence. From the evidence of these witnesses, we have no hesitation in holding that the accused caused injuries to the deceased as noted by the Doctor as a result of which the deceased died. The F. I. R. was lodged within six hours after the incident by P. W. 1 wherein the name of the accused was shown as the assailant of the deceased. Though P. W. 1 was not an eyewitness to the incident, immediately after being informed by P. W. 2 he lodged Ex. P-1. P. W. 2 also informed p. Ws. 4,5 and 7 about the incident. In view of the above discussions, the conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant under section 302 IPC is unassailable. ( 23 ) COMING to the charge under Sec. 307 ipc, P. W. 2 did not sustain any injuries. She did not reveal immediately to the witnesses who rushed to the scene of occurrence that the accused attempted to murder her. She also did not inform this fact to P. W. 1 who lodged the F. I. R. The evidence of P. W. 2 is not substantiated by medical evidence to prove that she sustained injuries caused on account of her neck being squeezed by the accused. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the Prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge under section 307 IPC. ( 24 ) IN the result, while we confirm the conviction and sentence of the accused under section 302 IPC, we set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 307 IPC. The impugned judgment is accordingly modified. The appeal is thus allowed in part.