Judgment : KCB, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant-sole accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (for short “Cr.P.C”) against the judgment, dated 29.03.2007, in S.C.No.61 of 2006 on the file of the court of Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry whereunder and whereby the sole accused was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short “IPC”) and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The facts, in brief, that are necessary for the disposal of the prosecution case are as under:- The accused and Puppala Siva Ramakrishna @ Sivaji (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased) are residents of Bolleddupalem, Korukonda Mandal of East Godavari District. The deceased is maternal uncle of P.Ws.1 and 2. The deceased was having some agricultural land and he mediated certain disputes in which the accused was involved and some of the disputes went against the accused. Therefore, the accused bore grudge against the deceased. On 23-04-2005 at about 6.00 A.M, both PWs.1 and 2 went to the house of the deceased and came to know that the deceased was not available. The wife of the deceased informed them that the deceased went to the cattle shed for milching the milk. They went to the cattle shed of the deceased and found the deceased was extracting the milk from the she-buffalo. When PWs.1 and 2 asked him to come to the agricultural field, the deceased asked them to wait for some time and therefore PWs.1 and 2 were waiting near the school building. In the meantime, the accused went there and hacked the deceased with a knife (Mo.1). On hearing the cries, both PWs.1 and 2 rushed to the scene of offence and saw the accused stabbing the deceased. After stabbing the deceased, the accused jumped over the compound wall and ran towards western side. After jumping the compound wall, PWs.3 and 4 saw the accused running with a knife stating that he had already killed the deceased. Then Pws.1 and 2 went to Korukonda police station and lodged Ex.P.1 report with PW.8, who is the S.I of Police, basing on which PW.8 registered a case in Cr.No.43 of 2005 under Section 302 IPC. After jumping the compound wall, PWs.3 and 4 saw the accused running with a knife stating that he had already killed the deceased. Then Pws.1 and 2 went to Korukonda police station and lodged Ex.P.1 report with PW.8, who is the S.I of Police, basing on which PW.8 registered a case in Cr.No.43 of 2005 under Section 302 IPC. He informed about the registration of a case to the Inspector of Police. As the Inspector of Police was on V.I.P bando bastu duty, he asked PW.8 to go to the scene of occurrence and conduct investigation. Therefore, he proceeded to the scene of offence and found the dead body of the deceased in his cattle shed. He observed scene of occurrence in the presence of PWs.6 and 7 and seized the bloodstained earth and control earth. Thereafter, he held inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of same mediators and after inquest, the dead body was sent to the Postmortem examination. The Doctor (Pw.7) who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased on the same day found as many as 15 injuries. He opined that the deceased died as a result of shock and haemorrhage due to major neck thoracic, abdominal and visceral injury due to stab injuries. On 26-04-2005 PW.8 along with staff proceeded to Kotikesavaram village. At that time, the accused was found at Sivalayam. On seeing the police, the accused tried to ran away from the place. Then PW.8 apprehended him. The accused was said to have given a statement as in Ex.P-16 with regard to the place where he had concealed the knife (Mo.1) used in the commission of offence. In pursuance of the confessional statement, the accused led the police and mediators to the tank near Kotikesavaram and took out the Knife and a Shirt i.e., Mos.1 and 4 concealed in the bushes and handed over the same to the police. The police seized the same. Thereafter, the material objects have been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory by the Inspector of Police. After receipt of the report from Forensic Laboratory, PW.9 filed the charge sheet. 3. A charge has been framed against him which reads as follows. The police seized the same. Thereafter, the material objects have been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory by the Inspector of Police. After receipt of the report from Forensic Laboratory, PW.9 filed the charge sheet. 3. A charge has been framed against him which reads as follows. That you on or about the 23rd day of April 2005 at about 6.00 A.M at back side of M.P.U.P School in Bolleddupalem village of Korukonda Mandal, did commit murder by intentionally or knowingly causing the death of Puppala Siva Rama Krishna @ Sivaji and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance. When the above charge was read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P-23 besides case property Mos.1 to 4. 5. After completition of the prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was let in but the contradictions elicited from the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4 were marked as Exs.D-1 to D-4. 6. The trial court accepting the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 found the accused guilty and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced as indicated above. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 302 IPC against the accused? 8. The trial court accepting the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 found the accused guilty and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced as indicated above. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 7. Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 302 IPC against the accused? 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that PWs.1 and 2 who are closely related to the deceased are planted for the purpose of this case, that for going to their fields there is no need for them to come to the house of the deceased as the house of the deceased is not located on the way to the fields, that the very presence of PWs.1 and 2 at the scene of occurrence is doubtful, that the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 who are said to have rushed to the scene of occurrence cannot be accepted because they are also closely associated with the deceased, that their evidence is highly improbable with regard to their observing the accused confessing the offence while running away from the scene of occurrence and they are also planted for the purpose of this case in order to give semblance of corroboration to the testimony of PWs.1 and 2, that there was an inordinate delay in sending the First Information Report (FIR) to the court, which suggests that Ex.P-1 was pressed into service after due deliberations so as to implicate the accused falsely leaving the real assailant, that there are so many enemies in the village who wreak vengeance against the deceased and caused his death in the early hours of the day, which was not witnessed by anybody, that a false case was foisted against the accused and therefore he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court. 9. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor contended that since the lands of PWs.1 and 2 and deceased are located at one place, there is every possibility for PWs.1 and 2 to come to the house of the deceased, so that all of them can go to the lands to attend the agricultural works and that while they were waiting near the school, they heard the cries of the deceased and therefore immediately thereafter they rushed to the scene of occurrence and saw the accused hacking the deceased with MO.1, that the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 would clearly go to show that they saw the accused running away with a knife confessing his guilt with regard to commission of offence, that there is absolutely no reason for them to speak false against the accused, that after arresting the accused and in pursuance of the confessional statement given by him, MOs.1 and 4 which are knife and shirt respectively were seized, that when they were sent to the Serologist, it was opined that the same contained human blood and therefore it was established beyond doubt that MO.1 knife was used in the commission of offence, that after considering the evidence both oral and documentary available on record, the trial court rightly placed an implicit reliance on the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and accordingly convicted the accused and there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court. 10. PWs.4 and 6 are the mediators, who were present when the police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased under Ex.P-3 inquest report. They noticed certain injuries on the dead body of deceased and the same have been noted in the inquest report. The inquest mediators opined that the deceased died as a result of the injuries sustained by him. 11. PW.7 is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, found the following ante-mortem injuries:- 1. Incised wound from below lower lip on to chin going down on the front of the neck upto supra sternal notch. Width ranging from 1.5 cm. to 5.4 cm depth varying from 1 cm to 9 cm at the supra sternal notch, ante mortem and red. 2. Incised wound over right cheek 4 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm red, ante mortem. 3. Width ranging from 1.5 cm. to 5.4 cm depth varying from 1 cm to 9 cm at the supra sternal notch, ante mortem and red. 2. Incised wound over right cheek 4 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm red, ante mortem. 3. Incised wound wedge shaped over front of right shoulder, below and infront 3.5 cm x 0.5 cm to 1.5 cm x 1.0 – 1.5 cm red ante mortem. 4. Incised wound oblique, right infra clavicular 3 cm x 0.5 cm 0.5 cm red ante mortem. 5. Horizontal incised wound above right nipple 3 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm red ante mortem. 6. Two small incised wounds over front of neck lateral right to the injury No.1, 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.3 cm and 1 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm red ante mortem. 7. Incised wound on left chest below and infero lateral to left nipple oblique about 12 cm x 5 cm x entering thoracic cavity (5 – 10 cm) red ante mortem. 8. Incised wound horizontal at lower end of sternum about 6 cm x 1.5 cm 5 cm red ante mortem. 9. Incised wound right lower chest below and outer to nipple (8 – 9 rib) 3 cm x 1.5 cm x depth entering Liver (12 cm about) red ante mortem. 10. Incised wound right loin about 4 cm x 1.5 cm x 7 cm red ante mortem. 11. Irregular incised wound over right ileac region 3.5 cm x 1.5 cm x 2 cm red ante mortem. 12. Horizontal incised wound over right lower thorax about T10 T11 level 7 x 3.5 cm x gaping depth with intestines protruding red ante mortem. 13. Oblique incised wound right para spinal region T10 – T12 level about 7 cm x 3 cm x 8 cm red ante mortem. 14. An incised wound oblique right lower back T7 – 8 level 4 cm x 2 cm x 1.5 cm red and ante mortem. 15. Incised wound over back of right upper arm vertical 4 cm x 2 cm x 0.75 cm red and ante mortem. He opined that those injuries can be possible by hacking with a knife like MO.1 and those injuries are sufficient to cause the death of a person in the ordinary course of nature. 15. Incised wound over back of right upper arm vertical 4 cm x 2 cm x 0.75 cm red and ante mortem. He opined that those injuries can be possible by hacking with a knife like MO.1 and those injuries are sufficient to cause the death of a person in the ordinary course of nature. The cause of the death to his best of knowledge is due to shock and haemorrhage due to major neck, thoracic, abdominal and visceral injuries. He issued Ex.P.18 post-mortem certificate. The suggestion that the injuries as in Ex.P.18 cannot be caused with a weapon like MO.1 was denied. In view of the fact that all injuries are incised injuries, and that the Mo.1 knife is a sharp edged weapon, it can be safely inferred that the injuries can be possible by hacking with a knife like MO.1. Even otherwise, the accused is not seriously denying or disputing about the deceased sustaining injuries but his contention is that some unknown persons might have committed the murder of the deceased in the early hours of the day. Therefore from the evidence of PW.7 and the recitals in Ex.P-18, it is established beyond doubt that the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature. 12. Now it has to be seen whether the accused is the assailant of the deceased or not. 13. Insofar as the motive for the commission of offence is concerned, PW.1 deposed that the deceased mediated certain disputes, in which the accused was a party, that since some of the decisions went against him, the accused bore grudge against the deceased. The evidence of PW.4 would go to show that the disputes relating to the accused were decided by himself and the deceased and they were decided against the accused and therefore the accused bore grudge against the deceased. Even assuming for a moment that PW.4 and the deceased have decided some of the disputes relating to the accused and they went against him, certainly the accused would have entertained a grouse or enmity against both PW.4 and the deceased. It is not the case that PW.4 was not present at the time of the incident. PW.4 was also available at his house. He was washing his face in front of his house and that he saw the accused running away from the scene with a knife. It is not the case that PW.4 was not present at the time of the incident. PW.4 was also available at his house. He was washing his face in front of his house and that he saw the accused running away from the scene with a knife. If really the accused entertained a grouse, because the decision taken by them is against him, certainly he would have also made an attempt to cause injuries to PW.4. Therefore, the motive as spoken to by the witnesses cannot be accepted as the immediate cause for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased. There cannot be any dispute that motive in a criminal case lends assurance to the case of the prosecution. It is not an integral part of the crime. There cannot be any dispute that it is not one of the essential ingredients of the offence. Absence or non-proof of motive by itself is not a ground to discard the testimony of prosecution witnesses if their evidence is found to be trustworthy and reliable. As the prosecution failed to establish motive, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and the circumstantial witnesses PWs.3 and 4 has to be evaluated with great care and caution. PWs.1 and 2 are closely related to the deceased, as the deceased is their maternal uncle. The fact that the witnesses are close relatives of the deceased is not sufficient to jettison their evidence straightaway unless it is proved that if suffers from serious infirmities. The evidence of related witnesses should be subjected to a very careful scrutiny with extreme care and caution and if on such scrutiny the testimony is intrinsically reliable then that evidence may be relied upon. In such circumstances, in evaluating and appreciating the evidence of close relatives ordinarily two important aspects have to be taken note of viz., (1) whether in the circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe the presence of PWs.1 and 2 at the scene of occurrence is probable and whether their explanation about their presence is convincing and believable; (2) whether there is anything inherently improbable in their evidence so as to discard or disbelieve their evidence. 14. PWs.1 and 2 are having cultivable lands on the eastern side of the village. 14. PWs.1 and 2 are having cultivable lands on the eastern side of the village. It is in the evidence that there is no need for them to come to the house of the deceased for going to their lands for cultivation. The reason given by PWs.1 and 2 is that they have come to the house of deceased so that all of them can go together to their lands. It is not in dispute that the lands of PWs.1 and 2 and deceased are located in the same area on the eastern side of the village. Since PWs.1 and 2 are closely related to the deceased, there is every possibility for them to come to the house of the deceased. The distance between the house of the deceased and PWs.1 and 2 is only twenty two (22) meters. The houses of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are not far off from the house of the deceased. Therefore, considering the relationship between them and the distance between their houses, the possibility for PWs.1 and 2 to go to the house of the deceased cannot be ruled out. It is borne out from the evidence that when they went to the house of the deceased, the deceased was not available in the house. The wife of the deceased informed them that the deceased went to the cattle shed for milching the milk of the she-buffalo. Then they proceeded to the cattle shed where the deceased was actually milching the milk from the she-buffalo. When they enquired about the deceased whether he would come along with them to the fields, the deceased asked them to wait for some time. Therefore, they came out from the cattle shed and were waiting near the school. Shortly thereafter, they heard cries from the cattle shed of deceased. They rushed to the scene of occurrence and found the accused hacking the deceased indiscriminately with a knife. Then they raised hue and cry. When PWs.1 and 2 were about to go to the scene of occurrence, the accused skittered towards western compound wall of the cattle shed and jumped over it and ran away from the place of incident. They rushed to the scene of occurrence and found the accused hacking the deceased indiscriminately with a knife. Then they raised hue and cry. When PWs.1 and 2 were about to go to the scene of occurrence, the accused skittered towards western compound wall of the cattle shed and jumped over it and ran away from the place of incident. Therefore, from the evidence of those witnesses, it is very clear that while they were waiting at the school building, they heard cries and therefore they have hot foot to the scene of offence which is very close to the place they were waiting. If really they want to perjure themselves, they would have stated to the police as well that they have witnessed the incident of attack from the beginning. They have not testified so. This is in our opinion PWs.1 and 2 are witnesses of truth and they were testifying about the facts which are exclusively within their knowledge. Further more, immediately after the incident, PW.1 himself gave report to PW.8 within 2 ½ hours after the incident. The earliest version of PW.1 is clearly mentioned in Ex.P-1. As seen from Ex.P-1 it is clear as to the purpose of PW.1 along with PW.2 going to the house of the deceased and thereafter to the cattle shed of the deceased and while they were waiting at the upper primary school, they heard cries and on hearing that they both rushed to the scene of offence and saw the accused stabbing the deceased and thereafter the accused running away by jumping western compound wall of the cattle shed of the deceased. The former statement of a witness contemporaneous with the fact under inquiry may fortify his subsequent testimony in Court or may tend to prove the consistency of his story, in this sense a witness may corroborate himself. The requirement of proximity in point of time between the occurrence of fact and making the statement affords some check against concoction. Police station is located at a distance of 12 Kilo metres from scene of occurrence. Within 2½ hours after the incident, Ex.P.1 was promptly lodged. So, the earliest version of the incident as stated by PW.1 in Ex.P-1 is completely in corroboration with the evidence of PW.1. Police station is located at a distance of 12 Kilo metres from scene of occurrence. Within 2½ hours after the incident, Ex.P.1 was promptly lodged. So, the earliest version of the incident as stated by PW.1 in Ex.P-1 is completely in corroboration with the evidence of PW.1. Once Ex.P-1 was lodged at the time and on the date as mentioned and it was not shown to be lodged after due deliberations, the recitals can be based upon to corroborate the evidence of PW.1 in terms of Section 157 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872, which reads as follows. S.157. Former statements of witness may be proved to corroborate later testimony as to same fact.--- In order to corroborate the testimony of a witness, any former statement made by such witness relating to the same fact, at or about the time when the fact took place, or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact, may be proved. 15. There must be some rancor or grudge entertained against the accused by PW.1 to foist a false case against him since PWs.1 and 2 are close relatives of the deceased and if they are not actually witnessed the incident, they would not have falsely implicated the accused, leaving the real assailants. In the entire cross examination of these two witnesses, nothing is elicited to impeach the accuracy, credibility and general value of evidence given in chief-examination of PWs.1 and 2 so as to infer that PWs.1 and 2 are witnesses of unworthy of credence. Perhaps, that is the reason why the trial court rightly placed an implicit reliance on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. When the lands of all the three persons namely PWs.1, 2 and deceased are located at one place, there is every scope or possibility for all the three persons to go to the fields together, for the purpose of doing cultivation. Therefore, the presence of PWs.1 and 2 can be accepted at the relevant point of time of the incident. For the aforesaid reasons we have no hesitation in accepting the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 who are in the natural and probable witnesses to be present at the time of incident. 16. Therefore, the presence of PWs.1 and 2 can be accepted at the relevant point of time of the incident. For the aforesaid reasons we have no hesitation in accepting the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 who are in the natural and probable witnesses to be present at the time of incident. 16. The prosecution is also relying upon the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 who are said to have seen the accused while scooting away with knife in his hands from the place of occurrence by jumping over the compound wall of the cattle shed of the deceased. As PWs.1 and 2 and the deceased raised cries, there is every scope or possibility for PW.3 to come out from the house and witnessing the accused running away from the scene of occurrence. He also proclaimed that he has already killed the deceased. PW.4 who was present in front of his house while washing face saw the accused showing the knife in his hands. Their evidence is that the accused was running away from the scene of occurrence with a bloodstained knife and also confessing about the guilt. Facts, which though not in issue are connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction are relevant under Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It describes the various ways in which facts though not in issue are so related to each other as to form components of the principal fact. The declarations under Section 6 of the Evidence Act in order that they may be admissible as res gestae, should be occurring at the same time with the transaction in issue i.e., the interval should be such as to give time or opportunity for fabrication and they should not amount to a mere narrative of past occurrence. Illustration (a) of Section 6 of the Act reads as under:- ““A” is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by “A” or “B” or the by-standers at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact. Illustration (a) of Section 6 of the Act reads as under:- ““A” is accused of the murder of B by beating him. Whatever was said or done by “A” or “B” or the by-standers at the beating, or so shortly before or after it as to form part of the transaction, is a relevant fact. ” So from the above illustration, it is clear that things said or done by the accused, the victim and the by-standers shortly before or after the act are all relevant, but the Court is to decide whether they were said or done within a short time as to form part of the transaction. The accused while running away from the scene of occurrence proclaimed that he had already killed the deceased and that bad person was eradicated. PWs.3 and 4 are totally independent witnesses and there is no impetus for them to foist a false assertion saying that the accused confessed about the guilty of killing the deceased. As the house of PW.3 is located very close to the scene, there is possibility for him to see the accused running away. Similarly PW.4 who was washing the face in front of his house actually stated about the accused scuttling away from the scene. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 is admissible and the same can be relied upon for the purpose of using against the accused. 17. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as follows. S.27. How much of information received from accused may be proved:-- Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.” The above provision is founded on a principle that even though the evidence relating to the confessional or other statements made by a person while he is in the custody of a police officer, is tainted and therefore inadmissible. If the truth of the information given by him is assured by the discovery of a fact, it may be presumed to be untainted and is declared as provable insofar as it distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered. If the truth of the information given by him is assured by the discovery of a fact, it may be presumed to be untainted and is declared as provable insofar as it distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered. The accused was arrested by PW.8 in the presence of PW.6 on 26-04-2005 at Sivalayam in Kotikesavaram village. At that time the accused offered to show where he had concealed the knife and gave a confessional statement as in Ex.P-16. In pursuance of the confessional statement, the accused led the police and the mediators to the Chakalikoneru in Kotikesavaram-Nagampalli road and he took out the knife MO.1 and the Mo.4 shirt from the bushes and the same were seized under Ex.P-17. Mos.1 and 4 were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. On analysis of those articles, expert opined that they contain human blood as per Ex.P-23 Serologist report. Therefore, the arrest and in pursuance of the confessional statement of the accused the recovery of Mos.1 and 4 is yet another circumstance which can be taken into consideration along with other evidence to show about the involvement of the accused with regard to commission of offence. 18. During the course of the examination of PWs.1, 2 and 4 Exs.D-1 to D-4 contradictions were elicited. Ex.D-1 contradiction shows that while P.W.1 and his brother going to the cattle shed besides the school building, Masimukkala Rama Krishna, (accused) sat on the mound near Ramalayam; whereas Ex.D-4 shows that while standing in the lane beside the School. Ex.D-2 is with regard to the contradiction in the evidence of PW.2 which reads while himself and elder brother Satyanarayana together going to cattle shed, accused sat near Ramalyam. Insofar as the Ex.D-3 is concerned, the time of seeing the incident has not been specifically mentioned by them. Contradiction could be used either to impeach his credit or discredit him or to pull down or bring down the reliability of the witness. The only thing elicited by virtue of this contradiction is that the accused sat near Ramalayam. P.W.1 stated in the evidence that he was waiting at the school whereas he stated before police that he was standing in the lane beside the school. Contradictions of this nature are bound to occur in the testimony of even truthful witnesses particularly when they are called upon to depose in Court a long time after occurrence. P.W.1 stated in the evidence that he was waiting at the school whereas he stated before police that he was standing in the lane beside the school. Contradictions of this nature are bound to occur in the testimony of even truthful witnesses particularly when they are called upon to depose in Court a long time after occurrence. When the contradictions are not shaking the main fabric of prosecution case and discredit the credibility of witnesses, undue importance cannot be given to such contradictions. The contradictions Ex.D-1 to D-4 would not in any manner affect the main substratum of the prosecution case. It is one of the contentions of learned counsel for appellant that there was abnormal delay in sending the original first information report to Court and therefore his contention is that the case of prosecution has to be viewed with suspicion. 19. Some delay is there in sending the F.I.R to the court but the delay by itself cannot be taken to overthrow the entire prosecution case. At best the delay in sending FIR to the court can be taken as one circumstance to doubt the case of the prosecution, if there are other circumstances available. Except that circumstance, there are no other circumstances to doubt the case of the prosecution. Further more, it is not the case of involvement of so many accused so as to specifically attribute overt acts against each of the accused in causing injuries to the deceased. So it is only single accused and the deceased is only one person who sustained injuries. Under those circumstances, mere delay in sending the Ex.P.19 FIR to the court cannot be a ground to discard the entire prosecution case. 20. For all the aforesaid reasons, it is clear that the accused slew the deceased and the trial court rightly placed an implicit reliance on the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 so as to base a conviction after giving substantial reasons for accepting their evidence. There are no grounds to interfere with the same. The appeal is thus liable to be dismissed. 21. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence recorded against the accused dated 29-03-2007 in S.C.No.61 of 2006 on the file of the court of Principal Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry.