Judgment : R. Kantha Rao, J. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 05.11.2007 in S.C.No. 434 of 2005 on the file of the IV Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Tanuku, whereby and whereunder, the appellant-accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.50/- (Rupees fifty only), in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows: On 15.05.2005, at about 11.00 a.m., taking advantage of the absence of the other inmates, the appellant entered the house of Gavidi Kanaka Durga (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in Vadluru Village, Undrajavaram Mandal of West Godavari District and attempted to ravish her. P.W.3 noticed the appellant entering the house of the deceased. When the deceased resisted the attempt of the appellant to ravish her, he severely beat her with a wooden plank, as a result, she sustained multiple injuries and died instantaneously. After hearing the cries, P.W.4 went to the house of the deceased and found her being beaten by the appellant with wooden plank. P.W.5 noticed the appellant coming out of the house of the deceased, in a hurried manner. At about 01.00 pm., the grand mother of the deceased returned home and noticed the deceased in a pool of blood and raised hue and cry. Then, P.W.6 came to the spot and observed the dead body and he immediately informed the incident to P.W.1, mother of the deceased. Basing on the report given by P.W.1, the Undrajavaram police registered a case in Crime No. 39 of 2005 under Section 302 I.P.C. P.W.18 took up investigation, inspected the scene of offence in the presence of P.Ws.10 and 11, prepared rough sketch and got photographed the scene of offence and the dead body by P.W.7. Later P.W.18 held inquest over the body of the deceased and sent the same for Post Mortem examination. On 18.05.2005, at about 10.00 a.m., P.Ws.10 and 11 produced the appellant along with his extra judicial confession statement, Ex.P10. On the same day, P.W.18 arrested the appellant and sent him for remand. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet has been filed alleging commission of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 3. On 18.05.2005, at about 10.00 a.m., P.Ws.10 and 11 produced the appellant along with his extra judicial confession statement, Ex.P10. On the same day, P.W.18 arrested the appellant and sent him for remand. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet has been filed alleging commission of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 3. On appearance of the appellant, a charge under Section 302 I.P.C. has been framed, read over and explained to him, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 18 in all and marked Exs.P1 to P19 and M.Os.1 to 8. 5. After closing the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating material against him. He denied the same. No defence witnesses were examined. 6. The leaned Sessions Judge, after perusing the entire material as well as the evidence on record, held the appellant guilty of the charge under Section 302 I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. Hence, the appeal. 7. We have heard Dr. K. Satyanarayana Rao, learned legal aid counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 8. The prosecution sought to establish the guilt of the accused before the Court below, on the following grounds: 9. On 15.05.2005, at about 11.00 a.m., P.W.4, a vegetable vendor heard cries from the house of P.W.1, while going along the street on cycle. Thereafter, he went to the house of P.W.1 and opened the window door and saw the appellant catching hold of a wooden plank (chekka peeta) and beating the deceased with the said object on her head. Due to fear, he left that place. Subsequently, on 18.05.2005, he informed about his witnessing the incident to Inspector of Police, P.W.14. This apart, the prosecution sought to prove that P.Ws. 3 and 5 saw the appellant while going to the house of P.W.1 and coming from the house in or about the time of incident. Another piece of evidence the prosecution wanted to prove against the appellant was that P.W.18, the Investigating Officer found some hair in the hands of the deceased. During the course of investigation, he required P.W.15, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Tanuku to examine the appellant. Another piece of evidence the prosecution wanted to prove against the appellant was that P.W.18, the Investigating Officer found some hair in the hands of the deceased. During the course of investigation, he required P.W.15, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Tanuku to examine the appellant. P.W.15 collected hair of the appellant and preserved it for the purpose of sending it for comparison and report to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Vijayawada. It was the prosecution case that the FSL report showed that the hair collected by P.W.15 from the appellant was found to be identical with the hair collected from the fist of the deceased by the investigating officer. 10. This apart, the prosecution sought to prove some injuries on the person of the appellant, which were said to have been received almost at the same point of time when the incident allegedly took place. Lastly, as per prosecution, the blood-stained shirt of the deceased was seized by the Investigating Officer. The same was sent for analysis and it was found containing human blood, but the blood group could not be determined. 11. It seems from the prosecution version that when the appellant and the deceased were alone at the house, the appellant tried to ravish the deceased and when she protested his attempt, he caused injuries with a wooden plank and on receiving the injuries, the deceased died. It would also appear that it is the theory of the prosecution that when the appellant was assaulting the deceased, she caught hold of the hair of the appellant and some hair belonging to the appellant was caught in the fist of the deceased. P.W.4, a direct witness to the occurrence fully supported the version of the prosecution and he stated that he saw by opening the window door the appellant beating the deceased with a wooden plank, but according to him, he did not tell anybody due to fear. The incident took place on 15.05.2005 at about 11.00 a.m., but as per his evidence, he informed P.W.18, the Investigating Officer only on 18.05.2005. He also stated in his evidence that he did not tell anybody about his witnessing the incident in the meanwhile. The incident took place on 15.05.2005 at about 11.00 a.m., but as per his evidence, he informed P.W.18, the Investigating Officer only on 18.05.2005. He also stated in his evidence that he did not tell anybody about his witnessing the incident in the meanwhile. Though the conduct of P.W.4 appears to be unusual, we wish to state that after witnessing the incident of murder, the witnesses react in different ways and it cannot be said with certainty that the witnesses after seeing the ghastly incident would react in a particular way. We also considered the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4. They have clearly stated in their depositions before the trial Court that they noticed the appellant when entering into and coming out of the house of P.W.1 in or about the time of the incident. Since the incident occurred during daytime, there was every possibility for the witnesses to either witness the appellant going into the house of P.W.1 or coming out of the same and also P.W.4 directly witnessing the incident. We do not find anything unnatural in the conduct of P.Ws.3, 4 and 5. On the mere ground that P.W.4 did not disclose the incident to anybody immediately after witnessing the same, his testimony cannot be brushed aside. This apart, there is evidence of P.W.10, Panchayat Secretary of Vadluru Village and P.W.11, Clerk in Gram Panchayat Office, Vadluru which is to the effect that on 18.05.2005, at about 08.00 a.m., the appellant came to the gram panchayat office at Vadluru, confessed in their presence about his killing the deceased and that thereafter, P.W.11 drafted the confessional statement of the appellant to the dictation of P.W.10. Their evidence further discloses that both of them took the appellant to Undrajavaram Police Station and produced him before P.W.18, the Inspector of Police. The extra judicial confession recorded by P.W.11 was marked as Ex.P.10. The evidence of P.Ws. 10 and 11 is to the effect that they handed over the appellant to P.W.18 along with Ex.P10 statement. 12. Insofar as the appellant approaching P.Ws.10 and 11 and making a statement before them confessing the guilt, we do not find anything unusual or unnatural. By the time the appellant approached P.Ws.10 and 11, it might have become known in the village that the people were suspecting the appellant for commission of offence. 12. Insofar as the appellant approaching P.Ws.10 and 11 and making a statement before them confessing the guilt, we do not find anything unusual or unnatural. By the time the appellant approached P.Ws.10 and 11, it might have become known in the village that the people were suspecting the appellant for commission of offence. Therefore, it is quite natural for the appellant to approach the Panchayat Secretary and the Clerk in the panchayat office to disclose the offence before them and he might have decided to surrender through them before the police, to avoid any harassment by the police. Further, actually, there was no enmity between the appellant and P.Ws.10 and 11 and unless the appellant made extra judicial confession to them, it is quite unlikely that they would resort to implicate the appellant in a grave charge of murder. 13. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned trial Court rightly placed reliance on the extra judicial confession said to have been made by the appellant to P.Ws.10 and11. The prosecution also proved the injuries by examination of P.W.15, CAS, who examined the appellant and found the following external injuries: 1. Abrasion 3 x ½ cms. Size partially healed over Rt., little finger. 2. Abrasion ½ x ½ cms. size partially healed over Lt. Index finger. 3. Abrasion ½ x ½ cms. size over Lt. Middle finger partially healed. 14. In the opinion of P.W.15, the injuries found on the body of the appellant were simple in nature and the age of the injuries was 2 to 3 days prior to his examination. 15. P.W.12, Civil Assistant Surgeon, who conducted Post Mortem examination over the body of the deceased found the following injuries: External injuries: 1. A lacerated injury on left side besides eyebrow 1x2 cm. 2. A lacerated injury on left nostril 2 x 3 cms. 3. A lacerated injury on left cheek 3 x 2 cm. 4. Abrasion below left eye. 5. Tongue protruding outside mouth. 6. Lacerated injury over left side of chin. Mandible 2 x 2 cms. of fracture. 7. Abrasion below right eye. 8. Contusion over right eye. 9. Fracture mandible. 10. Lacerated injury over right mandible 3 x 4 cms. Internal injuries: 1. Fracture hyoid bone transversely. 2. Hemorrhage clots over stomach. 3. Hemorrhage clots over right temporal region. Hear, lungs, kidneys, spleen, liver, stomach, interstines normal. 16. Mandible 2 x 2 cms. of fracture. 7. Abrasion below right eye. 8. Contusion over right eye. 9. Fracture mandible. 10. Lacerated injury over right mandible 3 x 4 cms. Internal injuries: 1. Fracture hyoid bone transversely. 2. Hemorrhage clots over stomach. 3. Hemorrhage clots over right temporal region. Hear, lungs, kidneys, spleen, liver, stomach, interstines normal. 16. The prosecution further proved through P.W.15 that on the requisition given by P.W.18, Investigating Officer, he collected the hair with roots from the head of the appellant and handed over the same to the police constable for the purpose of handing it over to the Investigating Officer to be sent along with the hair collected from the hands of the deceased to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory for comparison and report of analysis. In Ex.P15, FSL report, it is specifically mentioned that the hair collected from the hands of the deceased and the hair collected from the hands of the appellant is identical. This is a very strong circumstance against the appellant/accused in proof of his guilt. Absolutely, there was no explanation from the appellant about the injuries found on his person. As per the evidence of P.W.15, the doctor, who examined the appellant, he also received the injuries at or about the same time when the deceased received injuries, which were found in the post mortem examination. 17. Thus, the prosecution by means of a highly convincing and reliable evidence, both direct and circumstantial, proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court did not commit any error in appreciating the evidence and convicting the accused for the charge of murder. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court do not call for any interference in this appeal. 18. Consequently, the Criminal Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.