( 1 ) THE appellants are the accused in S. C. No. 126 of 1998 on the file of II Additional sessions Judge, Nalgonda. Through the judgment dated 22-10-1999, the appellants were convicted of the offence under section 304 Part-l read with 34 I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years each any pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months. ( 2 ) THE story of the prosecution in brief is that P. W. 2, Reddimalla Kanthamma is the wife of the deceased Devasahayam alias devaswamy of Thimmareddigudem. Devaswamy was a lunatic. He was taking treatment, however he was creating nuisance in the village by beating the villagers. While so, on 31-8-1997, at about 2. 00 p. m. , he beat a1 with a stick while he was going along with a-2. P. W. 6, R. Nallaiah witnessed the same. The accused reported the matter to Mungala police. P. W. 11, the Sub-Inspector of Police, brought the deceased on 2-09-1997, kept in the police station till evening and let him off. ( 3 ) HUMILIATED by the said act, A-1 armed with an axe and A-2 with a stick came to the house of Devaswmay at about 10. 00 p. m. He was sleeping on the cot in front of his house in the Varandah while his wife P. W. 2 was sleeping inside the room. A-1 and A-2 beat the deceased on various parts of the body indiscriminately and in spite of request of p. W. 2, they did not stop. In the meantime, p. W. 3, A. Brahmachary P. W. 4, M. Rosaiah, having heard the hue and cry, came to the house and dissuaded A-1 and A-2 not to beat and sent them away. Though they tried to take the deceased to Munagala in a Tractor that night, they could not get any vehicle. Again, on the next day morning at about 6. 30 or 7. 00 a. m. , A-1 and A-2 came to the house of the deceased and twisted his legs due to which he breathed his last. When this fact was informed, P. W. 5, R. Venkanna, brother of the deceased, came to the house of the deceased and found A-1 and A-2 twisting the legs of the deceased. P. Ws. 00 a. m. , A-1 and A-2 came to the house of the deceased and twisted his legs due to which he breathed his last. When this fact was informed, P. W. 5, R. Venkanna, brother of the deceased, came to the house of the deceased and found A-1 and A-2 twisting the legs of the deceased. P. Ws. 4 and 5 tried to catch hold of them, but they ran away. On seeing that his brother breathed his last, p. W. 5 went to P. W-1, the Village administrative Officer and narrated the incident. P. W. 1, in turn prepared a report ex. P-1, and sent it to P. W11, the subinspector of Police, who registered it as a case in Cr. No. 117 of 1997 under Section 302 i. P. C. in F. I. R. Ex. P-12. P. W. 11 sent the original F. I. R. to the Court, examined P. W. 1 and recorded his statement. He proceeded to Thimmareddigudem to the house of the deceased, secured the presence of P. Ws. 2 to 6, recorded their statements, also secured the presence of P. W. 7, Butchireddy and another, conducted scene of offence panchanama, Ex. P-2, and drew a sketch, ex. P-3 incorporating the features found at the scene. He seized the bloodstained earth and controlled earth M. Os. 1 and 2 besides bloodstained shirt and lungi. He requisitioned the services of P. W. 8, the photographer, got the photographs of the body of the deceased taken in various angles as evidenced by photos with the corresponding negatives, ex. P-6. He also held inquest over the body of the deceased in the presence of P. W. 7 and others and the inquestdars, having found injuries on the body of the deceased, opined that the death was homicide as evidenced under inquest panchanama Ex. P-4. ( 4 ) P. W-9, Dr. Champa Naik, Civil Assistant surgeon, on requisition, conducted post mortem-examination on the body of the deceased on 4-9-1997 at 9. 00 a. m. and found the following external injuries: (i) 2" X1/2" X 1/2" laceration over the scalp, (ii) 3" X1" X1" lacerated over right palm (iii) 2" X1/2" X1/2" lacerated on right ring finger (iv) Open would 4" x 2" x 2" with multiple fracture of both bones of right leg. (v) Open would 4" x 2" x2" with fracture of both bones of let leg. (v) Open would 4" x 2" x2" with fracture of both bones of let leg. (vi) 2" x 1" abrasion over the left temple, (vii) Fracture on left fore-arm, bones. He was of the opinion that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to fracture of leg bones under Ex. P-7. ( 5 ) ON 8-9-1997, the Sub-Inspector of police arrested A-1 and A-2, produced them before P. W. 12, B. Anjaya, Circle Inspector of police, who took up investigation at Kodada. Thereupon he interrogated A-1 anda-2 in the presence of P. W. 10 and another. The accused admitted the guit and informed that they would show the place where they secreted the axe and the stick with which they beat the deceased. Accordingly, panchanamas were drafted under Exs. P-8 and P-9. A-1 and A-2 led them to the house of A-2, retrieved M. O. I, the axe and M. O. 2, the stick from the eves of the house and they were recovered under cover of mediators reports, Exs. P-10 and 11 respectively. P. W. 12, after completion of investigation laid charge-sheet. ( 6 ) THE learned Sessions Judge, having considered the evidence placed on record, opined that the prosecution has proved that the accused beat the deceased with axe and stick respectively causing various injuries on him bearing grudge that the deceased beat a-1 on the previous occasion. The learned sessions Judge, having considered the evidence of P. W. 9, the Medical Officer, that the deceased could have survived had he been given immediate treatment, observed that the offence falls under 304 Part-l read with 34 I. P. C. Therefore, he sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonmentforperiod of 5 years and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, in default to suffer Simple imprisonment for a period of three months. ( 7 ) AGGRIEVED by the said conviction and sentence, the accused preferred this Criminal appeal. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Sessions Judge did not appreciate the facts in the right perspective. It was contended that the trial court ought not to have placed reliance on the highly interested and discrepant testimony of P. Ws. 2 to 5. The evidence of P. W. 2 was inconsistent with the evidence of P. W. 5 with regard to the accused twisting the legs on the next day of the incident. It was contended that the trial court ought not to have placed reliance on the highly interested and discrepant testimony of P. Ws. 2 to 5. The evidence of P. W. 2 was inconsistent with the evidence of P. W. 5 with regard to the accused twisting the legs on the next day of the incident. The learned Judge erred in not attaching any significance to the fact that the deceased was of unsound mind and he was beating everybody in the village. Equally it failed to take notice that A-1 lodged a report against the deceased was of unsound mind and he was beating everybody in the village. Equally it failed to take notice that a-1 lodged a report against the deceased after the incident. It ought to have noticed that P. W. 11, the Investigating Officer was responsible for causing injuries on the deceased leading to this death pursuant to the report given by A-1, and foisted a false case. P. Ws. 3 and 4 are chance witnesses. Their witnessing the incident in the night was highly suspicious. There was delay in lodging the F. I. R. , registering and sending it to the court. They fabricated the evidence in the meantime. They are entitled to an acquittal. ( 9 ) THE learned Public Prosecutor refuted by arguing that P. W. 2, the wife, is a natural witness. The incident took place at the house of the deceased. P. Ws. 3 and 4, being the residents of Thimmareddigudem, have every chance to witness the occurrence. The accused bore grudge against the deceased as he beat A-1 two days prior to the incident. P. W. 6 was the witness to the incident. The accused admitted this fact. There ware no suspicious circumstances nor could P. W. 2 and other witness foisted afalse case against the accused. They are the residents of another village and have no enmity with the villagers of Thimmareddigudem. The trial Court has rightly convicted the accused of the offence published under Section 304 Part-l and imposed adequate punishment. ( 10 ) IT is not in dispute that the deceased was of unsound mind and had taken treatment in Mental Hospital, Hyderabad, P. W. 2, the wife frankly admitted that the deceased used to beat the villagers. The trial Court has rightly convicted the accused of the offence published under Section 304 Part-l and imposed adequate punishment. ( 10 ) IT is not in dispute that the deceased was of unsound mind and had taken treatment in Mental Hospital, Hyderabad, P. W. 2, the wife frankly admitted that the deceased used to beat the villagers. Two days prior to the incident i. e. on 31-8-1997, the deceased beat A-1 with a stick and on that A-1 gave a report to P. W. 11, the Sub-Inspector of Police. When a suggestion was made to P. W. 2, she admitted "the police took the deceased to police station two days after he beat A-1". Even the P. W. 11, the Investigating Officer, admitted that he took the deceased to the police station on 2-9-1997 i. e. on the date of incident. He stated that he let him of at about 6. 00 p. m. Even in the examination under 313 cr. P. C. ,a-1 admitted that the deceased beat him and in turn he gave a report to the police. Obviously, A-1 was humiliated on being beaten by the deceased, a lunatic, in a public place. He could not have contained the deceased being let off on the very same day. Therefore, there was any amount of enmity for A-1 and A-2 to take revenge against the deceased. ( 11 ) AS such, A-1 armed with an axe and a-2 with a stick came to the house of the deceased at about 10. 00 p. m. on 2-9-1997 and beat him indiscriminately. In spite of the fact that P. W. 2 requested to show mercy on the ground that they had children, the accused did not heed. P. Ws. 3 and 4, who came there, also witnessed the incident and requested the accused not to beat the deceased. On that they left the place. P. W-2, the wife, p. Ws. 3 and 4, the villagers, have categorically stated that the accused beat the deceased with the butt of the axe and stick. No doubt, p. Ws. 3 and 4 are chance witnesses in the sense their houses are situated at a distance. A chance witness is a witness who should not normally be where and when he professes to have been. No doubt, p. Ws. 3 and 4 are chance witnesses in the sense their houses are situated at a distance. A chance witness is a witness who should not normally be where and when he professes to have been. A chance witness is not necessarily a false witness, but one should be very cautious to rely on such evidence. ( 12 ) IT is in the evidence of P. W. 3 that when he was in the house of one Bandi Sidulu, he heard cries from the house of the deceased and then rushed to his house and found A-1 and A-2 beating him. There are two houses in between the houses of Saidulu and the deceased. It was contended that P. W. 3 going to the house of Saidulu at that odd hour to paint the door shutters as deposed by him is highly artificial. This is a lame excuse that was given to show his presence at that odd hour. Since the incident took place in a village and naturally P. W. 3, being a carpenter, probably he thought that he could attend his work atthat hour when male members present in the house. From that it cannot be said that p. W. 3 was coming with a false version. P. W. 4, rosaiah is residing on the northern side of the house of the deceased. He swore on oath and stated that when he received information from one Gnana Ratnam, he went to the house of the deceased and found A-1 and a-2 beating the deceased. No suggestion was made to P. Ws. 3 and 4 as to why they were speaking against A-1 and A-2. Incidents of this nature do happen as was depicted. After all, the deceased was a lunatic. On the previous occasion, he beat A-1 in a public street. Obviously, unable to bear the humiliation, he along with A-2 came to the house of the deceased and beat him. There is nothing artificiality about it. More so, P. W. 2, the wife, had no enmity against the accused to foist a false case. More so, the very motive attributed to the accused was admitted by the accused themselves. P. W. 5, the brother, who was the resident of Gopalapuram, a nearby place, came to the house of the deceased after coming to know of the incident. P. Ws. More so, the very motive attributed to the accused was admitted by the accused themselves. P. W. 5, the brother, who was the resident of Gopalapuram, a nearby place, came to the house of the deceased after coming to know of the incident. P. Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5 have categorically stated that on the morning, when they went there a-1 and A-2 came there and twisted the legs of the deceased due to which he died. ( 13 ) THE learned counsel forthe appellants contended that this evidence was highly artificial. In order to cover up the laches in giving report to the Village Administrative officer or to the police, this version was introduced. P. W. 5 stated that A-1 and A-2 came to the house of the deceased in order to confirm whether the deceased died of injuries or not. Obviously, the accused were panicky and afraid that they would be hauled up for murder case in the morning. At any rate, they came in the morning. P. Ws. 2 to 5, in one voice deposed that they could not take the deceased to hospital that night as they could not get any tractor because all the vehicles were engaged in Jatara conducted in a nearby village. On the next day, P. W. 5, the brother of the deceased went to P. W. 1, the Village Administrative Officer, and gave a report Ex. P-1 at about 7. 00 a. m. P. W. 1, in turn sent that report to P. W. 11, the Sub- inspector of Police at about 10. 00 p. m. The learned Magistrate received the F. I. R. at about 6. 00 p. m. on the very same day. ( 14 ) THE learned counsel forthe appellants contended that though individually, some of the circumstances may not have effected veracity of prosecution version, the combined effect of infirmities is sufficient to show that the prosecution case has not been established. The improbability of the presence of the eyewitnesses at the scene, their unnatural conduct, post incident and delay in filing F. I. R. would render the case of the prosecution suspicious. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision reported in State of Rajastahan vs. Bhanwar Singh\ wherein, the Apex Court found on facts that the conduct of the witnesses remaining silent after witnessing the assaults was unnatural. In support of his contention, he relied on a decision reported in State of Rajastahan vs. Bhanwar Singh\ wherein, the Apex Court found on facts that the conduct of the witnesses remaining silent after witnessing the assaults was unnatural. They did not give any explanation. There was a delay in filing F. I. R. and the medical evidence was at total variance with the ocular evidence. Therefore, their Lordships held that the accused are entitled to acquittal. ( 15 ) COMING to the facts, no doubt, in ex. P-1 there was no mention about A-1 armed with axe nor the accused again coming to the house of the deceased on the next day morning and twisting the legs. It is contended that in view of the highly discrepant version of p. W. 1 and the suspicious nature of the statement, the same cannot be believed. After all, P. W-1 did not verify the incident nor record the statement of P. W. 5 while sending ex. P-1 report to the police. He gathered the 1. 2005 SCC (Cri.) 73. information from P. W. 5, the brother, and sent it to the police. P. W. 5 himself is not a witness to the incident in that night. The report given by P. W. 5 could not have contained all the details. As P. W. 5 was not a witness to the incident, and he being naturally excited, was not expected to give all minor details. Therefore, the omissions and contradictions on their part cannot affect the truth of the prosecution evidence. ( 16 ) EVEN assuming without admitting that the prosecution witnesses have introduced the version that the accused came again on the next day morning to find out whether the deceased had succumbed to injuries by twisting his legs, and that part of the evidence is highly unnatural could be eschewed from consideration, still the evidence that A-1 and a-2 beat the deceased on the previous night cannot be disbelieved. It was held that even if the evidence of prosecution witnesses in regard to one part of the prosecution case is not accepted, their reliable and trustworthy evidence in the other part of the prosecution case can be acted upon. The prosecution story is not subjected to the critical and meticulous test of rationalism. It was held that even if the evidence of prosecution witnesses in regard to one part of the prosecution case is not accepted, their reliable and trustworthy evidence in the other part of the prosecution case can be acted upon. The prosecution story is not subjected to the critical and meticulous test of rationalism. It is the experience of the criminal Courts that criminals, who are brought to trial, seldom act rationally. It is not a case where the witnesses are coming with total improbable and absurd evidence, so that their evidence, which is totally independent; could be disbelieved. ( 17 ) IT is the contention of the accused that p. W. 11, the Sub-Inspector of police, having admittedly taken the deceased to the police station on the very day of the incident on the report given by A-1 must have beaten the deceased, who has escaped, unable to bear the torture and subsequently when he was found dead, he foisted a false case by catching hold P. W. 2. In order to substantiate this contention, he relied upon the very evidence of P. W. 11 in this regard. P. W. 11 admitted that earlier, he was convicted having beaten the son of a Railway Superintendent and sentenced to imprisonment. In an appeal, the sentence was modified and he was let off on probation. From this, it is clear that P. W. 11 was adept in torturing the criminals when he beat the deceased having brought him to the police station, and he succumbed to injuries. To get over this, he implicated the accused. It was also contended that P. W. 2 got employment in a school. P. W. 2 admitted that she got a job as an attender in a Boys Hostel at Nallabandagudem. The trial Court found that there was no suggestion that the post was given at the instance of the Sub-Inspector of Police. It cannot be said that P. W. 2 was benefited by giving a false report implicating the accused in this regard. The trial Court found that there was no suggestion that the post was given at the instance of the Sub-Inspector of Police. It cannot be said that P. W. 2 was benefited by giving a false report implicating the accused in this regard. ( 18 ) THE learned Sessions Judge, after considering yet another version put forth by the accused that P. W. 11 beat the deceased and unable to bear the torture, he ran away from the custody and came to the house and succumbed to the injuries, observed that the deceased had received injuries, and he could not have escaped from the custody considering the severity of the injuries on him. The trial Court did not find favour with this defence. ( 19 ) THE learned Sessions Judge considered these aspects of the matter and observed that the evidence of P. Ws. 2 to 4 is unimpeachable and they are independent and trustworthy. The learned Sessions Judge also found that the Magistrate s Court is located at a distance of 20 kms from the police station Munagala,. F. I. R. , Ex. P-12and panchanamas was received by the Megistrate at 6. 00 P. M. on the very same day. It was found that the delay was hardly material in this case. He considered the fact that the deceased was a lunatic and the accused came at that time to beat the deceased. P. Ws. 3 and 4 stated that though they made efforts to secure the tractor in that night, they could not do so as the tractors were engaged in a jatara. P. W. 2 could not give report to p. W. 1 or to the police as they are residing in a different village. On the next day, P. W. 5, the brother went to P. W. 1 and immediately gave a report. Hardly there was any delay. ( 20 ) THE trial Court opined that in view of the fact that the deceased beat the accused on the previous occasion, they came and beat the deceased and the injuries inflicted were not on vital parts of the body, but on the scalp, right palm, right finger, both the legs and left forearm. Hardly there was any delay. ( 20 ) THE trial Court opined that in view of the fact that the deceased beat the accused on the previous occasion, they came and beat the deceased and the injuries inflicted were not on vital parts of the body, but on the scalp, right palm, right finger, both the legs and left forearm. The fact that A-1 and A-2 turning up again on the next day morning and twisting broken legs and hastening his death would show that their intention was to cause the death of the deceased. P. W. 9 confirmed the death due to injuries. He denied the suggestion that the deceased would have survived if there was specialized treatment. The inference one can draw is that the injuries are sufficient in usual course to cause the death of the deceased, which attracts the offence punishable under Section 304 part-l. He sentenced the accused to suffer rigorous Imprisonment for a period five years besides imposing the condition of fine of rs. 5000/- each. A close scrutiny of the evidence reveals that the prosecution has successfully established the culpability of the appellants in committing the offence. The trial Court has considered all the relevant facts and circumstances. The impugned judgment is quite justified and does not require any interference. Consequently, the conviction and sentence was confirmed. ( 21 ) IN the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused. The accused shall surrender before the trial Court and undergo sentence. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.