L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) A-1 and A-2 in S. C. No. 237 of 2000 on the file of the VII Additional District and Sessions judge, (Fast Track Court), at Madanapalle, chittoor District, were convicted for the offence under Section 302 I. P. C. , through judgment dated 14-11-2002. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each, in default, to undergo simple mprisonment for one week, each. This Criminal Appeal is filed assailing the conviction and sentence passed against a-1 and A-2. ( 2 ) THE appellants were charged and tried forthe murderof one Buddanna their paternal uncle, on 26-2-2000. It was alleged that the parents of A-1 and A-2 have agreed to transfer a house site in favour of the deceased, and when the latter was insisting on the execution of a sale deed, quarrels ensued number of times. It was also alleged that the grand-son of the deceased, who is son of P. W. 6 was beaten by A-1, alleging that during the play, the grand - daughter of A-1 was injured and that it has resulted in submission of police complaint. ( 3 ) P. W. 2 is the daughter of the deceased. On her request, her father, the deceased, and her mother have come to her house on the occasion of a festival in February, 2000. On 26-2-2000 the deceased is alleged to have gone to a field, and on noticing that it was raining, P. W. 1, the daughter of P. W. 2, took an umbrella and proceeded to give the same to the deceased. P. W. 2 and her mother are said to have gone for washing the clothes to a neighbouring place, and they were returning home at around 4:00 p. m. It is alleged that the appellants came out from the side of a heap of grass, near the field of one mr. Veera Bhadraiah, and on noticing the deceased passing through that place, they hacked the deceased on the neck and other places with sickles. P. W. 1, P. W. 2, and the wife of the deceased are said to have raised alarms on seeing the incident, and on noticing the same, the appellants have fled away. ( 4 ) P. W. 1 went to Madanapalle along with her husband and submitted a complaint ex. P. W. 1, P. W. 2, and the wife of the deceased are said to have raised alarms on seeing the incident, and on noticing the same, the appellants have fled away. ( 4 ) P. W. 1 went to Madanapalle along with her husband and submitted a complaint ex. P-1, to the Police at 9:00 p. m. on the sameday. The case was registered by P. W. 7, s. I. of Police, and further investigation is taken up by P. W. 8, Inspector of Police. After registering the case, the Police conducted an inquest in the presence of P. W. 5, Village assistant Officer, P. W. 10, K. Laxmamma, and P. W. 11 T. Venkatramana. The appellants were arrested and the MOs 1 and 2, sickles, alleged to have been used in committing the offence, were recovered. The dead body was sent to post-mortem, and the postmortem was conducted by P. W-9, medical Officer. On the basis of the investigation, charges were framed against the appellants. They denied the charges and chose to be tried. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants sri D. Vijaya Chandra Reddy, submits that there was delay of five hours in submitting the complaint, and in view of the disputes and differences, that existed between the families of the appellants, and the deceased, appellants were implicated falsely. He contends that though P. Ws. 1 and 2 have stated in their evidence that number of people gathered on hearing their cries, not a single person, who is said to have come there, was examined. He contends that though the wife of the deceased is also said to have witnessed the occurrence, she was not examined, and submits that there are several discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence of various witnesses. Another submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the injuries were found on the side of the neck, whereas the appellants are alleged to have hacked the deceased from behind. ( 6 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that P. Ws. 1 and 2 are the eyewitnesses to the incident, and nothing was elicited from them, in the cross-examination, to discredit their version. He submits that non-examination of the wife of the deceased is not fatal to the case, since P. Ws. 1 and 2 have deposed consistently. 1 and 2 are the eyewitnesses to the incident, and nothing was elicited from them, in the cross-examination, to discredit their version. He submits that non-examination of the wife of the deceased is not fatal to the case, since P. Ws. 1 and 2 have deposed consistently. As regards the delay in submitting the complaint, learned public prosecutor submits that, Police Station madanapalle, is farf rom the place of incident; and one has to walk a distance of a kilometer to the bus stand; travel through a bus on that place, and thereafter reach the Police Station, and in that view of the mater, it cannot be said that there was any undue delay. ( 7 ) OUT of the 11 witnesses examined by the prosecution, P. Ws. 1 and 2 are the grand - daughter and daughter, respectively, of the deceased. They are direct witnesses. P. W. 3 is a circumstantial witness, who is said to have seen the appellants going with the sickles. P. W. 4 is the son of the deceased, who was residing at Madanapalle, at the relevant point of time. P. Ws. 5 10 and 11 are the panch witnesses. P. W. 6 is a witness to the recovery of MOs. P. Ws. 7 and 8 are police Officials, and P. W. 9 is the Medical officer, who conducted the panchanama. Much would depend upon the credibility of the evidence of the direct witnesses. ( 8 ) THE 1 st appellant is the son of younger brother, and the 2nd appellant is the son of elder brother, of the deceased. P. W. 1 extensively referred to the nature of disputes that existed between the deceased and the appellants. She has also narrated the incident, the which the grand-daughter of 1 st appellant is said to have received injuries in the hands of the son of P. W. 4, which in turn had ensued in submission of complaint etc. She deposed that on the day of incident, her grand-father was proceeding to the fields, and shortly thereafter, on noticing that it was raining, she took out an umbrella and proceeded to handover the same to the deceased. She deposed that when the deceased was passing through the fields of Veera Bhadraiah, appellants came out from the heap of a grass with sickles and hacked the deceased. She deposed that when the deceased was passing through the fields of Veera Bhadraiah, appellants came out from the heap of a grass with sickles and hacked the deceased. P. W. 1 stated that she has seen this from a distance of about 50 to 75 feet, and that her mother p. W. 2, and her grand-mother have also witnessed the incident, when they were returning from a well, after washing the clothes. She was cross-examined and further cross-examined after P. W. 2 was examined. It was suggested to her that the motive to implicate the appellants was on account of the disputes between the son of the deceased (P. W. 4) and one Ontimitta Srinivasulu, who are said to be leading the rival groups in c. T. M. mills. Through the cross-examination and further cross-examination nothing was elicited from her to discredit her version. ( 9 ) P. W. 2 had deposed to almost similar facts. She pleaded that herself and her mother were returning from a well after washing the clothes, and that they have seen from a distance of about 50 feet, the appellants attacking and killing the deceased. The appellants are said to have fled away on hearing the cries. To this witness, a suggestion was made that the appellants were not in the village on the date of incident. Except making this bald suggestion, the defence did not take the plea of alibi, any further. ( 10 ) AN attempt to point out the inconsistency between the version of P. Ws. 1 and 2, and the postmortem report, in the context of the place, at which the injuries were inflicted. It is contended that while the appellants were said to have attacked the deceased from back, the injuries are found in the side of the neck. It may be noted that p. Ws. 1 and 2 have consistently stated that when the deceased was passing through the fields of Veera Bhadraiah, the appellants came from the side and hacked the deceased. Further, it is not as if there was only one injury on the deceased, and there was no possibility for it, to have been caused by the appellants, even assuming that they were coming from behind. Further, it is not as if there was only one injury on the deceased, and there was no possibility for it, to have been caused by the appellants, even assuming that they were coming from behind. As a matter of fact, the injuries, that are inflicted by a person coming from behind, are prone, more to be on the side of the person attacked, than on the back itself. The circumstances pleaded by the learned counsel for the appellants do not rule out the involvement of the appellants, in the murder of the deceased. ( 11 ) IT has come an record that P. W. 1 walked a distance of a kilometer along with her husband, to catch a bus and proceeded to Madanapalle, for the purpose of submitting the complaint. In the cross-examination, she stated that Ex. P-1 was prepared by P. W. 7, op the basis of the oral complaint made by her. Having regard to the distance which p. W. 1 had travelled, in submitting the complaint, it cannot be said that there was any undue delay in submitting the FIR, or that the time was used in meditating upon, to implicate the appellants. ( 12 ) WE do not find any ground to interfere with the sentence and conviction awarded against the appellants. Therefore, the criminal Appeal is dismissed.