( 1 ) THE appellants, who were convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, for offence punishable under section 304 Part II read with section 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, or in default, to undergo RI for two months more, have filed this appeal taking exception to their convictions and sentences imposed upon them. ( 2 ) FACTS, which led to the prosecution of the appellants, are as under : the appellants as well as victim Idnabai, wife of PW 2 Bhanudas, were residents of Village Mahadoli, Tahsil Warora, District Chandrapur. While appellants do not belong to the Scheduled Caste the victim was a member of scheduled Caste. On 11-8-1990, there was some disturbance in the Village between two communities and incident of stone pelting had taken place. This had resulted in victims family taking shelter in a Bouddha Vihar. When they were returning to their house, four accused persons lifted victim Idnabai and threw her in the well in presence of her daughter PW 1 Panchasheela. People gathered on being informed by Panchasheela. Police, who had already come to the Village on learning of the disturbances, received the report and registered an offence. ( 3 ) THE dead body of the victim was fished out from the well and after an inquest was over, it was sent for post-mortem examination, where the doctor opined that the death was caused due to drowning. Statements of witnesses were recorded and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was sent up to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, who committed the case to the Court of session. ( 4 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge, to whom the case was assigned, charged the appellants of offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Penal Code. All the accused pleaded not guilty and hence were put on trial. In its attempt to bring home the guilt of the appellants, the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. Upon consideration of the prosecution evidence in the light of the defence of denial raised, the learned Additional sessions Judge held the appellants guilty of offence punishable under section 304 part II read with section 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. Upon consideration of the prosecution evidence in the light of the defence of denial raised, the learned Additional sessions Judge held the appellants guilty of offence punishable under section 304 part II read with section 34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each, or in default, to undergo RI for two months more. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal has been filed. ( 5 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned additional Public Prosecutor for the State and with the help of both the learned counsel, I have gone through the entire record. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the case rested solely on the discrepant ocular testimony of PW 1 Panchasheela. He submitted that in all probability the victim had committed suicide on account of quarrel with her husband. But in the background of communal disturbance in the Village, a false case was concocted and, the four appellants, three of whom are respectable cultivators, were falsely roped in the charge of murder. He submitted that the account given by PW 1 Panchasheela was discrepant and unworthy of credence. ( 7 ) PW 1 Panchasheela stated that on the incidental evening, her father, along with younger sisters and brother, had already gone to Bouddha Vihar. Her mother was present in the house with her. She and her mother then proceeded to bouddha Vihar after meals. They stayed for some time at Bouddha Vihar and started coming back towards their house at 7. 30 p. m. when all the accused lifted her mother and dropped her in a well situated in front of the house of one bhalerao. She, therefore, went back to Bouddha Vihar and told the persons that the four accused had thrown her mother in the well. Since the witness knew all the accused persons, there is no question of identity of the accused. The witness had also given a report at Exhibit 18 about the incident. There are no other eye- witnesses to the incident. According to PW 1 Panchasheela, her mother was dropped in the well at about 7. Since the witness knew all the accused persons, there is no question of identity of the accused. The witness had also given a report at Exhibit 18 about the incident. There are no other eye- witnesses to the incident. According to PW 1 Panchasheela, her mother was dropped in the well at about 7. 30 p. m. , though she stated that it was about 7 p. m. , when she reached the well and that it takes about three minutes for reaching the well from Bouddha Vihar. ( 8 ) PW 2 Bhanudas, the victims husband and father of PW 1 panchasheela, stated that some stone pelting was going on in the Village for about three weeks and, therefore, they had lodged a report with the Police station. Police had come to the Village for settlement of the dispute. At about 7 p. m. , some stones were pelted towards Bouddha Vihar. He stated that he had gone to the house of his brother-in-law Bhargav along with his children, leaving his wife and daughter PW 1 Panchasheela in the house, who too were to go after some time. House of Bhargav is situated near the Bouddha Vihar. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that while PW 1 Panchasheela had stated that her father had gone to Bouddha Vihar, her father PW 2 Bhanudas had stated that he had gone to the house of Bhargav. Bhargav himself was examined as pw 5. He too stated that PW 2 Bhanudas had come to his house at about 7 p. m. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the evidence of PW 1 panchasheela, having been contradicted by that of her father PW 2 Bhanudas and pw 5 Bhargav, was unworthy of credence. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants next submitted that PW 1 panchasheelas account of the incident having taken place from 7 p. m. to 7. 30 p. m. is discrepant. First, according to the counsel, the Police as well as the tahsildar and the Patwari were in the Village and, therefore, such an incident could not have taken place. Secondly, he submitted that when the Police party was present in the Village, there should not have been any delay in informing the police and since there was delay in this case, it created a doubt as to whether the report was concocted. Secondly, he submitted that when the Police party was present in the Village, there should not have been any delay in informing the police and since there was delay in this case, it created a doubt as to whether the report was concocted. ( 10 ) PW 1 Panchasheela had herself admitted in her cross-examination that some Policemen had come to their Village at 5 to 6 p. m. and that the Police were present in the Village throughout the night. It, however, does not follow that the policemen will be able to prevent every unsavoury incident in every corner of the village. Therefore, merely because the Policemen were present, it does not follow that a murder would not take place in the context of the disturbed situation in the Village. ( 11 ) IT was suggested to PW 7 PI Mobin, the Investigating Officer, that appellants Haribhau and Mahadeo were with Naib Tahsildar and Patwari till 8 p. m. on the incidental night, but the Investigating Officer turned down the suggestion. PW 7 PI Mobin had stated that he himself reached the Village at about 8 p. m. , when Tahsildar and Patwari were also available. The discrepancy in chronology of events, to which the learned counsel for the appellants makes a reference, does not in fact appear to exist. It may be seen that the time deposed to by the witnesses is between 7 and 8 p. m. ( 12 ) PW 4 Deepratan stated that he was present at his house at about 8 p. m. when the stone pelting was going on. He stated that all the four accused came near the entrance of his house. He shut the door. The accused were calling him out. He stated that after some time, he too went to the Bouddha Vihar with his family, where PW 1 Panchasheela came shouting that her mother was thrown in the well. It is not clear as to how this account of PW 4 Deepratan would contradict PW 1 Panchasheelas version that her mother was thrown in the well at about 7. He stated that after some time, he too went to the Bouddha Vihar with his family, where PW 1 Panchasheela came shouting that her mother was thrown in the well. It is not clear as to how this account of PW 4 Deepratan would contradict PW 1 Panchasheelas version that her mother was thrown in the well at about 7. 30 p. m. ( 13 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants also pointed out that PW 2 bhanudas stated that he went to Chikani Road Railway Station, but as there was no train schedule available, he went back, when he met Police in the Village, who told that the dead body of his wife had already been shifted to Warora. This statement of PW 2 Bhanudas also does not help in dislodging the story given by pw 1 Panchasheela. It is not shown that PW 1 Panchasheelas report at Exhibit 18, which mentions that the incident took place at about 8. 15 p. m. , was in any way delayed. It may be seen that in a Village, people do not necessarily record incidents with the precision of minutes. In this case, there is no delay in making a report, as may be seen from the fact that in the Panchanama of spot at Exhibit 21, it was recited that at about 21. 05 hours PW 7 PI Mobin reached the Village. The inquest Panchanama was itself conducted from 10 p. m. to 10. 45 p. m. and the spot panchanama from 11 p. m. to 11. 45 p. m. The history recited in both these documents is that the four accused persons had lifted and thrown PW 1 panchasheelas mother in the well. Thus there was hardly any time for concocting a false story implicating the appellants. Considering the time that would be required to communicate with family members and others and make a report in the context of tense situation in the Village as also the time taken for fishing out the dead body in the well, there is hardly any delay which would justify an inference that the report was concocted. ( 14 ) THOUGH the case rests on the sole testimony of PW 1 Panchasheela, her testimony does not suffer from any infirmity. ( 14 ) THOUGH the case rests on the sole testimony of PW 1 Panchasheela, her testimony does not suffer from any infirmity. The small discrepancy, which the learned counsel for the appellants points out, in fact only lends a ring of truth to her version, since it is not possible for an individual to testify with precision of minutes about an incident after about six years. The learned Additional Sessions judge cannot be said to have erred in holding the appellants guilty. He had the opportunity of seeing the witnesses himself and the conclusions drawn by him are possibly the only conclusions that could have been drawn on the evidence tendered. ( 15 ) IN view of this, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under section 304 Part II read with section 34 of the Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 500/- each, or in default to undergo ri for two months more, inflicted upon them are maintained. If the appellants do not surrender to their bail within six weeks, the learned sessions Judge shall take steps to have the appellants taken in custody to be committed to prison to serve their sentence. Appeal dismissed.