BILAL NAZKI, J. ( 1 ) THESE are three appeals filed by two accused. Two appeals have been filed by them separately, whereas one appeal is common appeal. Both of them were tried for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. A-l had also been fined Rs. 1,000/ -. ( 2 ) THE gravemen of the charge against the accused persons was that on 1 5/09/1999 at about 3 p. m. , in ponnapuram colony, Nandyal Mandal near the house of one Shaik Akbar Munna, in furtherance of common intention, the accused No. 2 caught hold of Kammari subramanya Chari and A-l stabbed on his chest and mouth with a dagger and thereby committed murder by intentionally causing his death. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses, exhibited 11 documents. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. ( 3 ) PW-1 stated that she knew both the accused. Her husband and A-l were friends. They jointly worked as carpenters. A-2 also worked under her husband prior to death of her husband. Her husband performed the marriage of A-2 with the sister-in-law of a-l. Her husband was murdered an 15. 9. 1999 at about 3. 15 p. m. , by A-l and A-2. She stated that there was a dispute between her deceased husband and A-l in connection with purchase of wood. A-l had paid rs. 1,900/- to her husband for supplying wood 20 days prior to the occurrence. Her husband could not supply the wood to A-l. A-l used to come to her house for demanding return of amount from her husband. On 14. 9. 1999 at about 8. 30 p. m. A-l came alone to her house, demanded the refund of amount from her deceased husband. Then there was an altercation between her husband and A-l for 15 minutes. Then A-l left the house. On 15. 9. 1999 she, her husband and her son proceeded to Dhone at about 3. 15 p. m. to get some money from the sister of the deceased in order to pay A-l. They started from their house along with one subbarayitdu and after reaching the main road, they boarded an Auto. When the Auto was about to start, A-l and A-2 came in opposite direction and demanded money from her husband. 15 p. m. to get some money from the sister of the deceased in order to pay A-l. They started from their house along with one subbarayitdu and after reaching the main road, they boarded an Auto. When the Auto was about to start, A-l and A-2 came in opposite direction and demanded money from her husband. Her husband told them that he was going to get some money from his sister at Dhone and would return with the amount and repay the amount. But both the accused insisted for immediate payment. A-l pulled her husband from the Auto, beat him with a chappal on his head. It was a plastic chappal. Because of this incident, they did not go to Dhone, but returned back to their house. When they reached the place near a bore well on the main road, A-2 came from behind, caught hold of the waist of her husband and A-l stabbed her husband in his chest, mouth and left side of ribs and on back of his body with a dagger. She and subbarayudu tried to intervene, but the accused threatened to kill them. Immediately after receipt of injuries, her husband fell down. She shifted him to the hospital. Subbarayudu also accompanied, her. Immediately after inflicting injuries the accused ran away. The doctors on examining her husband, declared him dead. Police came to the hospital at about S p. m. She gave a statement to them. Police reduced her statement into writing and obtained her signature. Ex. P-1 was the complaint. On that day at about 8. 30 p. m. , Police examined her and recorded her statement under section 161 Cr. P. C. In her cross-examination, she stated that the dead body of her husband was shifted to the house by 10 a. m. , on 16. 9. 1999. Usually the supply of wood would take atleast one month after the order was placed. On 14. 9. 1999 when an altercation had taken place at 8. 30 p. m. , her husband had promised to A-l that he will go to dhone, secure money and return the money. The distance between the place of occurrence and her house was half a kilometer. She had intervened when her husband was being beaten with a plastic chappal by A-l. Subbarayudu had also intervened. 30 p. m. , her husband had promised to A-l that he will go to dhone, secure money and return the money. The distance between the place of occurrence and her house was half a kilometer. She had intervened when her husband was being beaten with a plastic chappal by A-l. Subbarayudu had also intervened. While proceeding to their house on foot after the first incident of beating, the second attack was made. The accused pulled her husband from the place where he was sitting in the Auto. Within two minutes after her husband was pulled down from auto by A-l, she had also got down from the Auto and within five minutes subbarayudu had also reached the spot. By that time, her husband had not been murdered and he was beaten with chappal. Her husband did not beat the accused. The time taken for both incidents to happen i. e. , stopping while they were in Auto and the murder thereafter must have taken about 15 minutes. The earlier incident took five minutes and it must have taken them 10 minutes to reach to the second place of occurrence while walking. Several persons had gathered there, but she could not remember the exact number because she was in a hurry to shift her husband to the hospital. The first stab injury was inflicted on the chest of her husband. She did not sustain any injury in the incident. Subbarayudu also did not sustain any injury. Her son also did not sustain any injury. Her husband was walking towards East to go to the house. She was walking by the side of her husband on his left side. Her son and Subbarayudu were walking on her left side. Then A-2 came from behind and caught hold of the waist of her husband. After him, A-l came also from behind, then came on to the front side of deceased and stabbed him with a dagger. In the cross- examination by the Counsel for second accused, she stated that her husband is native of Gaggatur of Panyam Mandal. Ten years prior to his death they had shifted to ponnapuram colony. They lived in Guntur district for one year. She denied that her husband had been harassed by Police in connection with theft cases therefore, he had shifted from his native place. She did not know whether her husband had received rs. Ten years prior to his death they had shifted to ponnapuram colony. They lived in Guntur district for one year. She denied that her husband had been harassed by Police in connection with theft cases therefore, he had shifted from his native place. She did not know whether her husband had received rs. 1,900/- for supplying of wood by purchasing the wood from Forest Department or by committing theft in the forest. She did not know whether her husband was in the habit of committing theft of wood from mahanandi and Narayanapuram forests. There are timber depots in Nandyal. ( 4 ) PW-2 is Subbarayudu about whom a mention has been made by PW-1. He is also a resident of Ponnapuram colony. The deceased was his brother. He knew both the accused. A-l used to work along with his brother for a long time. A-2 had also come from Piduguralla to work with his brother. His brother was murdered by A-l and A-2 at about 3. 30 p. m. , on 15. 9. 1999. A-l stabbed his brother with a dagger. About 15 or 20 days prior to the death of his brother, a-l had advanced an amount of Rs. 1,900/- to his brother for supply of wood but his brother did not supply the wood as it was not available. Occasionally A-l used to demand supply of wood or return of money. His brother did not repay the amount nor he supplied the wood. One day prior to the death of his brother at about 9. 30 or 10 p. m. A-l had come to his house and demanded repayment of amount. His brother did not pay the amount and had promised to pay the amount by the next day after approaching his sister for getting amount from her. Then A-l had left the house. On 15. 9. 1999 his brother, PW-1 and the son of deceased started at their house to go to Dhone to secure money at about 2. 45 p. m. He followed them to just see them off. When they reached main road, an auto came there. They stopped the Auto and PW-1, the deceased and his son sat in the Auto. Then the Auto moved to a distance of 20 feet. 45 p. m. He followed them to just see them off. When they reached main road, an auto came there. They stopped the Auto and PW-1, the deceased and his son sat in the Auto. Then the Auto moved to a distance of 20 feet. Immediately A-l and A-2 came in the opposite direction, stopped the Auto which was proceeding towards hospital side, bus stand is also situated in the same direction. After the Auto started, he stayed on the road. After A-l stopped the Auto, he pulled his brother from the Auto and beat him with a plastic Chappal on the head. Thereafter, they all were returning to the house on foot due to the incident. After walking 20 feet from the place where the auto was stopped by A-l and A-2, A-2 came running from behind and caught hold of the waist of his brother. Then A-l had also come there and stabbed his brother on his chest, ribs, mouth and on the back from front side. They raised cries and went near to his brother. Both the accused threatened to stab them. Neighbours gathered there. On receipt of injuries, his brother fell down. Both the accused ran away from the place of occurrence. LW-4, LW-5 and lw-6 were among the persons who had gathered there. They stopped an Auto proceeding on road and shifted the injured to the hospital. Doctors after examination, declared him dead. Police visited the hospital at about 5. 30 p. m. , on the same day and pw-1 gave statement to the Police. The police reduced the same into writing. Again Police came to the hospital at about 8. 30 p. m. , examined him and recorded his statement. In his cross-examination by counsel for A-l, he stated that when his brother was beaten by A-2, he turned towards the Western side and PW-1 was also coming from the Western side. By then, A-l came from his back side and stabbed his brother from his front. Nothing worthwhile was mentioned in the cross-examination, by this witness although suggestions were put to him that the deceased was a timber smuggler and was also responsible for cheating many persons, promising them supply of wood. ( 5 ) PW-3 is P. Kullai, who knew the accused and deceased. He stated that deceased was residing in a house adjacent to his house separated by a wall. ( 5 ) PW-3 is P. Kullai, who knew the accused and deceased. He stated that deceased was residing in a house adjacent to his house separated by a wall. Both the accused used to come to the house of deceased and they were working as carpenters in his house. Deceased died more than two years before. He was murdered by both the accused at about 3. 30p. m. , near a hand pump which was nearer to the main road. Just before the incident, he had come to the main road to purchase beedies. He had seen A-l and deceased quarrelling. He had also seen pw-1, PW-2 and PW-l s son present there. A-l pulled deceased from the Auto and beat him with a chappal on the head. This incident took place on the main road towards East to the bore well. They were proceeding in the Auto towards the Western side. After the incident of beating with a chappal, the Auto was sent away. While pw-1, the deceased and his son along with pw-2 were returning to their house and reached near a hand pump towards the western side, both the accused came from eastern side to Western side, A-2 caught hold of the deceased in his presence and a-l came from behind and stabbed the deceased from his front with a dagger. He can identify the dagger. M. O. I is the dagger with which A-l stabbed the deceased on his chest, ribs, mouth and back and caused bleeding injuries. A-l had threatened to kill the persons who intervened. The deceased after receipt of injuries, fell down. One venkateswarlu (LW-5), one Muslim boy who attended the Court on that day and another vysya lady also witnessed the incident of murder of deceased. PW-1 shifted the injured to the hospital in an Auto. Thereafter, he came to know that Subramanya Chari succumbed to injuries in the hospital. On the same day at about 8 p. m. , he visited the government Hospital, Nandyal. Police recorded his statement. He was also put to the cross-examination by both the accused, but nothing worthwhile come in his cross- examination. He stated that he had come to purchase beedies. He was maintaining an account with the beedy shop. The said shop was situated on the Northern side of his house at a distance of 100 yards. Police recorded his statement. He was also put to the cross-examination by both the accused, but nothing worthwhile come in his cross- examination. He stated that he had come to purchase beedies. He was maintaining an account with the beedy shop. The said shop was situated on the Northern side of his house at a distance of 100 yards. PW-1 had hugged the injured after he fell down, on the parts which were not bleeding. PW-1 waited for ten minutes there. The distance between the house of deceased and place of occurrence was 50 yards. He had seen both the accused coming opposite to the Auto from Western side to the Eastern side. ( 6 ) PW-A is the Auto driver. He stated that he was driving Auto No. AP-21u-6146. In the year 1999 at about 3 p. m. , he was proceeding to a hospital from Ponnapuram colony. One lady, a child and a gent boarded his Auto to go towards the hospital side on the main road of Ponnapuram colony. The auto moved to a distance of 20 to 25 feet. They engaged the Auto on hire to go to the bus stand. Then two persons came from the hospital side and stopped his Auto and they demanded the gent who was in the Auto, for payment of some amount. That person told them that he would pay the amount after returning from Dhone as he was proceeding to Dhone for securing the money. They quarreled and the said two persons pulled the man from Auto, they removed their chappal. In the meanwhile the two persons got down from the Auto. Thereafter, he started his Auto and proceeded towards hospital side. There were several persons at the place where the said persons boarded the Auto. Later, he came to know on the same day at about 10 or 11 p. m. , that the man had been murdered. After one month, he was examined by the Police. ( 7 ) PW-5 is the Civil Assistant surgeon, Government District Hospital, nandyal. He stated that he had examined the deceased Subramanya Chari aged 30 years, resident of Ponnapuram colony, brought to him by PW-2 at 3. 30 p. m. , on 15. 9. 1999. He examined him and declared him dead. He had given the death intimation to the Police. Ex. P-2 is the death intimation. He stated that he had examined the deceased Subramanya Chari aged 30 years, resident of Ponnapuram colony, brought to him by PW-2 at 3. 30 p. m. , on 15. 9. 1999. He examined him and declared him dead. He had given the death intimation to the Police. Ex. P-2 is the death intimation. According to his certificate, the deceased had sustained injuries by known persons. In his cross-examination, he stated that the body of the injured had been carried by some persons from Auto to the bed and the distance between the Auto and the bed was about 20 feet. PWs. l and 2 had carried the body of deceased from auto to the bed. The deceased sustained bleeding injuries. The clothes of deceased were stained with blood. The total "body of deceased was stained with blood. If a person with bleeding injuries was carried by other person, there was a chance of other person also getting his clothes stained with blood. ( 8 ) PW-6 is another Auto driver, who according to the prosecution, had carried the injured to the hospital, but he turned hostile. But in his cross-examination he accepted that on 15. 9. 1999 at about 3. 15 p. m. when he reached a place near a hand pump in Ponnapuram colony, he found a person with bleeding injuries by name Subramanya chari and he was surrounded by several people. He had shifted the injured to the hospital along with his wife and his brother. The said injured died while being shifted by him to the hospital, but with a hope of survival, he took him to the hospital along with PWs. 1 and 2. He had stated the same facts to the Police. ( 9 ) PW-7 is the Village Administrative officer. He stated that on 16. 9. 1999 at about 7. 30 a. m. , he was called by Police to nandyal hospital, requesting to act as the inquest panchayatdar. Accordingly, he went to the hospital. One Madhava Swamy and one Mohdhussain Reddy also accompanied him while proceeding to the hospital. By the time they reached the hospital, the C. I. and S. I. were present at the mortuary. They found the dead body of Subramanya chart, S. I. and C. I. held inquest. Accordingly, he went to the hospital. One Madhava Swamy and one Mohdhussain Reddy also accompanied him while proceeding to the hospital. By the time they reached the hospital, the C. I. and S. I. were present at the mortuary. They found the dead body of Subramanya chart, S. I. and C. I. held inquest. During the inquest, they found five injuries on the body of deceased and the clothes of deceased were stained with blood. Police seized the clothes of deceased during inquest. M. O. 2 was the blood-stained terricotton full shirt, m. O. 3 was the blood-stained full banian, m. O. 4 was the blood-stained terricotton trouser, M. O. 5 was the blood-stained cross- thread. The Police seized the said M. Os. 2 to 5 under the cover of inquest report Ex. P-3. On the same day at about 11 a. m. , he, madhava Swamy, S. I. and C. I. went to the bore situated near to the house of Adi lakshmi at Ponnapuram colony. There the Police had observed the scene of offence in their presence. They found blood stains on the ground. Police seized blood-stained earth and control earth (M. O. 6) under the cover of mediators report Ex. P-4. He had signed Exs. P-3 and P-4. On 10. 10. 1999 at about 4 p. m. , he, Mohd. Hussain, C. I. and s. I. went to Viswanagar of Nandyal to the house of Pujari Lakshmi Devi, where they found A-l and A-2. Then the Police arrested both the accused. They gave statement to the Police and that was reduced into writing. A-l assured that he will show the weapon concealed, if somebody accompanied him. Ex. P5 was the admissible portion in the mediators report. A-l and A-2 lead all of them to the house of Lokanatha Goud at ponnapuram colony. They reached the said house at about 5. 45 p. m. A-l took out a dagger from thorny bushes and produced the same before the Police in their presence. Then the Police seized the same under the cover of mediators report Ex. P-6. M. O. I was the dagger. In his cross-examination he stated that as an inquest panchayatdar he had acted in five or six cases. He had also acted as panchayatdar at the time of observation of scene of offence. He denied the suggestion that Ex. P-3 was drafted at ponnapuram colony. P-6. M. O. I was the dagger. In his cross-examination he stated that as an inquest panchayatdar he had acted in five or six cases. He had also acted as panchayatdar at the time of observation of scene of offence. He denied the suggestion that Ex. P-3 was drafted at ponnapuram colony. His house was at a distance of five kilometers from the Police station. He woke up from the bed at about 4. 30 a. m. , on 16. 9. 1999, within one or one and half hours he had his breakfast. He received the phone call from the C. I. of police at about 8 a. m. , requesting him to come to the hospital to act as inquest panchayatdar. He owned a Moped. He went to the hospital on his Moped. The distance between his house and the hospital was three kilometers. He must have taken 10 or 15 minutes to reach the hospital. After his arrival at the hospital, Police started inquest. One Madhava Swamy and Hussain Reddy were also present. ( 10 ) PW-8 is the Civil Assistant surgeon, Government Hospital, Nandyal at the relevant point of time. She stated that on 16. 9. 1999, she received requisition from c. I. of Police for conducting post-mortem on the body of Kammari Subramanyam whose body was produced by P. C. 960. During the post-mortem examination she found the following injuries on the body of deceased:"1. Lower lip cut obliquely from left to right by an incised wound, separated into two parts, 4 cms. in length, extending up to the lower gum and left lower incisor teeth loosened from its socket. 2. An elliptical incised wound situated at right side of chest, 6 cms. to the right side of the right nipple, 3x2x4 cms. vertically placed, wound track directed downwards and right side, muscle deep. 3. An elliptical incised wound situated on the left side of chest, 4 cms. below the left collar bone, 3x2x4 cms. obliquely placed, wound track directed downwards and backwards, muscle deep. 4. An elliptical incised wound situated at left infra axillary region, 4 cms. left and above the left nipple obliquely placed, 4 x 3 x 9 cms. wound track directed backwards and right side towards heart. 5. An elliptical incised wound situated at left lumbar region of the back, 4x3x6 cms. All the above injuries are ante-mortem in nature. 4. An elliptical incised wound situated at left infra axillary region, 4 cms. left and above the left nipple obliquely placed, 4 x 3 x 9 cms. wound track directed backwards and right side towards heart. 5. An elliptical incised wound situated at left lumbar region of the back, 4x3x6 cms. All the above injuries are ante-mortem in nature. Internal Examination: thorax- Bony cage normal. External Injury No. 2 is placed between the subcutaneous tissue and intercostals muscles. About 100 ml. of clotted blood present in the wound. External Injury No. 4 - Wound track passed through the left pleural cavity, piercing the left lung and entered the left ventricle of the heart causing oblique incised wound of 2 cms. in length with extravasation of blood into the left pleural cavity. About 100 ml. of blood present in left pleural cavity. Heart-chambers empty. Lungs-Pale, cut section pale. Abdomen: Stomach contained about 300 ml. of partly digested rice particles. Liver pale, cut section pale, kidneys- pale, cut section pale. Spleen- pale, cut section pale. Bladder empty spine and long bones normal. " ( 11 ) ACCORDING to her opinion, the deceased appeared to have died of injury to vital organ i. e. , heart. Time of death according to her was about 12-24 hours prior to post-mortem examination. Ex. P-7 was the post-mortem certificate issued by her. The injuries referred in Ex. P-7 could have been caused with a double edged sharp weapon. In her cross-examination, she stated that the length of M. 0. 1 blade portion was 15 cms, width was 2 cms. , thickness was 1 to 2 mm. If any injury was caused with m. O. I, the length of injury would be 4 cms. deep and 1 1/2 cms. in length. If the length of 6 cms. of M. 0. 1 is inserted in the body, the length of the wound could be 2 cms. The measurements according to her, of wounds and dagger did not tally. It was noted by the Trial Court that the witness gave the measurements taking the measurements of M. O. I with a scale. ( 12 ) PW-9 is Sub-Inspector of Police, nandyal Taluk Police Station. He stated that on 15. 9. 1999 at about 4. 45 p. m. , while he was in the Police Station on duty, he received death intimation from n-Town police Station (Ex. P-2 ). ( 12 ) PW-9 is Sub-Inspector of Police, nandyal Taluk Police Station. He stated that on 15. 9. 1999 at about 4. 45 p. m. , while he was in the Police Station on duty, he received death intimation from n-Town police Station (Ex. P-2 ). Immediately he left the Police Station and reached the hospital and recorded the statements of PW-1 under ex. P-1 at about 5. 15 p. m. The he returned to the Police Station and registered the same in cr. No. lll of 1999 under Section 302 of i. P. C. Ex. P-8 was the original F. I. R. issued by him. He had submitted the same to j. M. F. C. , Nandyal. He had also sent the copies to the higher officials. Immediately he left the Police Station and reached government Hospital and learnt that all the witnesses had left the hospital and gone to their houses. The dead body was kept in mortuary. He could not hold inquest on the dead body on the same day. Then, he left the hospital and reached scene of offence situated at Ponnapuram colony near the house of Shaik Abdul Rahim infront of the Kirana bunk of Yadarthudu near a bore well. As it was late in the night and due to darkness, he could not observe the scene of offence. He posted a guard at the scene of offence and then he secured the presence of LWs. l to 6 at the scene of offence on the same day and recorded their statements. Then he moved in the surrounding area to trace the whereabouts of the accused, but he could not find. Then he returned to the police Station at about 1 a. m. , on 16. 9. 1999. On 16. 9. 1999 at 6 a. m. , the C. I. , Nandyal taluk headquarter came to the Police Station and tookover the investigation from him. He assisted the C. I. in the investigation. In his cross-examination he stated that the scene of offence was not cordoned off, but he instructed the P. C. to safeguard the scene of offence. The Magistrate received the original F. I. R. at 9. 30 p. m. , on 15. 9. 1999. The distance between Police Station and the court was about one furlong. He registered the F. I. R. under Ex. The Magistrate received the original F. I. R. at 9. 30 p. m. , on 15. 9. 1999. The distance between Police Station and the court was about one furlong. He registered the F. I. R. under Ex. P-8 at about 20 hours i. e. , 8 p. m. He despatched the F. I. R. immediately to the Magistrate. It is not true to suggest that he did not register the F. I. R. at 8 p. m. , on 15. 9. 1999 and that he did not record any statements of witnesses. ( 13 ) PW-10 is the C. I. of Police, who tookover investigation from PW-9. He stated that on 16. 9. 1999 at about 6. 15 he returned from Court duty and received copy of F. I. R. and took up investigation in this case. He left the Circle office at 6. 45 a. m. , and reached the Government Hospital, nandyal at 7 a. m. He secured the presence of blood relations of deceased and panchayatdars and held inquest on the body of the deceased. He examined the blood relations and eye-witnesses during the inquest. As their statements were recorded previously, he did not record their statements again. He had also sent the dead body for post-mortem. On 22. 9. 1999 he received post-mortem certificate from the Government hospital, Nandyal. On 2. 10. 1999 he sent material objects along with letter of advise to J. M. F. C. , Nandyal for onward sending them to R. F. S. L. , Ananthapur. Ex. P-10 was the letter of advice. The J. M. F. C. , Nandyal received R. F. S. L. report under Ex. P-11. On 10. 10. 1999, he received information about the accused. Then he secured Sub-Inspector, staff, PW-7, Mohd. Hussain (LW-13) and left the Circle office at about 15. 30 hours and proceeded to Viswanagar in the Police jeep. They reached Viswanagar at about 4 p. m. , and arrested A-l and A-2 in front of the house of Pujari Lakshmi Devamma. He had recorded the confessional statement of accused. During interrogation, A-l disclosed that he would show the dagger if anybody accompany him. Ex. P-5 was the admissible portion of the mediators report. Then both the accused lead them to the house of Ediga lokanatha Goud situated in Ponnapuram colony. He had recorded the confessional statement of accused. During interrogation, A-l disclosed that he would show the dagger if anybody accompany him. Ex. P-5 was the admissible portion of the mediators report. Then both the accused lead them to the house of Ediga lokanatha Goud situated in Ponnapuram colony. Then A-l picked out a dagger from the bushes and produced the same before him and he seized the same under mediators report Ex. P-6. M. O. l is the dagger. ( 14 ) IN the light of this evidence, the defence has attacked the judgment of the trial Court convicting the accused, mainly on two grounds. According to learned counsel for appellants, the opinion of the doctor and the eye-witnesses for the occurrence shows that the injuries are on the front side of the body of the deceased. All his clothes were soaked in blood. Allegedly the deceased was accompanied by his wife and brother who shifted him to the hospital in an Auto, but neither the brother nor the wife of deceased had any stains of blood on their clothes. He submits therefore, the presence of PWs. l and 2 itself at the scene of occurrence becomes suspect. No question was put to PW-1 even in the cross-examination as to whether her clothes were stained with blood or not, and it depends as to how a body is lifted by the persons lifting the body of injured or a dead person. One can lift a body without getting his own clothes stained by the blood oozing out from the body of injured person or the dead person. Similarly, PW-2 was also not asked any question as regards staining of his clothes. It is true that clothes of PWs. l and 2 were not seized by the police. PW-3 had stated in his statement that PW-1 hugged the injured after he fell down on the ground, but he had stated, PW1 hugged the injured on the parts which were not bleddmg. Curiously, such a question was not put either to PW1 or PW2. Therefore in our view, this is not sufficient to discredit the evidence of PWs. l to 4 and 6. PWs. l and 2 are close relations of deceased, PWs. 3 and 4 are independent witnesses. PW-6 is the Auto driver who shifted the injured to the hospital. Curiously, such a question was not put either to PW1 or PW2. Therefore in our view, this is not sufficient to discredit the evidence of PWs. l to 4 and 6. PWs. l and 2 are close relations of deceased, PWs. 3 and 4 are independent witnesses. PW-6 is the Auto driver who shifted the injured to the hospital. He turned hostile, but in the cross-examination by Additional Public prosecutor he accepted the prosecution story. He had reached immediately to the place of occurrence and he had found not only the deceased there, but also PWs. l and 2 and he accepted that he had shifted the injured to the hospital along with wife and brother. Therefore in our view, the absence of blood-stains on the clothes of PWs. l and 2 would not discredit otherwise cogent and consistent testimony of eye-witnesses pws. l to 4. In this connection, however, the learned Counsel for appellants has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Vanravan Anandji v. Koli vashram Punja, 2001 (2) ALD (Crl.) 162 (SC ). A passage from the said judgment is quoted below :"according to PW-4 and PW-8, they removed the deceased in the lorry, first to the government Hospital and then took the deceased in the car of PW-4 to sugar factory hospital. Both of them stated that they alone had lifted the deceased who was lying injured and put him in the lorry while taking him to the Government Hospital and again lifted him from the lorry and put him in the car while taking him to the sugar factory hospital from the compound of Government hospital. Strangely enough, however, their clothes did not get stained with blood. It is not a case where the Investigating Officer may have failed to notice bloodstains on their clothes but both PW-4 and PW-8 admitted during their cross-examination, that their clothes did not get blood-stained though their hands were soaked with blood and those hands also did not touch any part of their clothes. The absence of bloodstains on their clothes, if their version is to be believed, creates a doubt about the entire prosecution case. The possibility, therefore, that PW-4 actually did not see the occurrence and being brother of the deceased came forward to depose in favour of the prosecution cannot be ruled out. The absence of bloodstains on their clothes, if their version is to be believed, creates a doubt about the entire prosecution case. The possibility, therefore, that PW-4 actually did not see the occurrence and being brother of the deceased came forward to depose in favour of the prosecution cannot be ruled out. " ( 15 ) WE do not know what were the injuries sustained by the deceased in that case before the Supreme Court and perhaps there was no other evidence than the brother of the deceased. In the present case, we have seen the list of the injuries ; one injury was on the lower lip, second injury was on the right side of the chest, third injury was on the left side of the chest, fourth injury was at the left infra axillary region above the left nipple obliquely placed and there is an incised wound at the left lumbar region of the back. One can safely presume that whatever blood has oozed out of the body, it was only from front side of the body. The head, the back side of the neck, the back of the deceased, the back of the whole body, the legs, the hands, the feet would have not been stained with blood and it is possible to lift such a body without getting the clothes of a person stained with blood, who lift such a body. In the absence of any questions having been put to PWs. l and 2 in this regard, we do not feel that this is a circumstance which could make us to disbelieve the whole prosecution story, particularly when there are two natural eye-witnesses and independent eye-witnesses to the occurrence besides two interested witnesses. In any case, the judgment of the supreme Court referred to above has not laid down any precedent to be followed by this Court. However, in a later judgment reported in Parasa Raja Manikyala Rao v. State of A. P. , 2003 AIR SCW 5729, the supreme Court held that guilt or otherwise of accused on the basis of another decided case is not permissible. Whether a case can be dealt with on the basis of a decided case or observations made in a particular case notwithstanding dissimilarity in effect and the distinctive features was considered by the Supreme Court. Whether a case can be dealt with on the basis of a decided case or observations made in a particular case notwithstanding dissimilarity in effect and the distinctive features was considered by the Supreme Court. It stated in Para-9: "each case, more particularly a criminal case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough to warrant like treatment because a significant detail may alter the entire aspect In deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive. The vague and cryptic conclusion arrived at by the Trial court to treat their case differently from the manner it dealt with that of Al, despite its very observation that the evidence was as cogent against them too as it was against al lack a judicious approach and determination and, therefore, rightly interfered with by the High Court after an objective appreciation of the evidence independently and in the light of the relevant and guiding principles of law governing such determination. ( 16 ) THE second contention which was raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants was that there was delay in FIR reaching the Magistrate. It is true that the distance between the Police station and Magistrate Court is a few furlongs, but we do not consider that there has been undue delay. The FIR reached the magistrate at 9. 30 p. m. , on 15-9-1999, whereas it was despatched at 8 p. m. In view of the cogent, consistent evidence of the eye-witnesses supported by the medical evidence, we fell that the Trial Court was right in convicting the accused/ appellants. ( 17 ) THE appeals are accordingly dismissed.