Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 904 (KAR)

Venkatesha @ Poori v. State of Karnataka

2015-08-12

MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR, R.B.BUDIHAL

body2015
JUDGMENT : The judgment and order of conviction dated 30.09.2011 passed by the Fast Track Court, Bhadravathi, in S.C No.108/2009 is called in question in these two appeals. The accused appellants were tried and convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC by the Court below. Criminal Appeal No.1224/2011 is filed by accused Nos.3 to 6; where as Criminal appeal No.1183/2011 is filed by accused Nos.1 and 2. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that accused are belonging to one particular caste and whereas the deceased is from another caste; since more than 10 years, the youngsters from the caste of the accused used to tease the ladies/girls belonging to the caste of the deceased. In that regard, the deceased and others were not only requesting the caste members of the accused but were taking action against them by lodging the complaint; they had even quarreled with each other; despite such repeated attempts by the deceased and his fellow men, the community people of the accused did not stop. It is further case of the prosecution that the accused being the youngsters of the particular caste and influenced by the talks heard by them from their elders, came in a group with the object of doing away with the life of the deceased. On the date of the incident, the accused felt that the deceased should be done to death since he was the main person who was objecting for the illegal activities. Hence, all the accused with the said common object, came with four choppers and one iron pipe in a group, on two motor cycles wherein the deceased was pushing his motor cycle to leave the same for repair to the garage. On 11.3.2009 at 10.00 a.m., all the accused assaulted the deceased with the weapons with which they had brought; the incident has taken place on the main road of Bhadravathi town; consequent of such assault, the deceased died on the spot. On 11.3.2009 at 10.00 a.m., all the accused assaulted the deceased with the weapons with which they had brought; the incident has taken place on the main road of Bhadravathi town; consequent of such assault, the deceased died on the spot. During the relevant point of time, the deceased was proceeding along with his daughter Shashikala (P.W.1) for leaving her to her college since she was late to the college on that day; unfortunately, the motor cycle stopped because of mechanical problems; consequently, P.W.1 got down from the motor cycle and started walking behind the deceased, whereas the deceased started pushing the motor cycle for getting it repaired. By the time the deceased proceeded about 20 steps, all the accused came in two motor cycles and assaulted the deceased. Shashikala (P.W.1) was aged about 1920 years during the relevant point of time and was studying in the 1st year B.B.M course. She lodged the complaint at about 11.00 a.m. on 11.03.2009 before Bhadravathi Old Town Police Station which came to be registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police of the said Police Station (P.W.9) in crime No.98/2009. FIR was dispatched to the jurisdictional Magistrate immediately thereafter. However, the same reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at 3.00 p.m. on 11.03.2009. P.W.23 Sub Inspector of Police completed investigation and laid the charge sheet. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution in all examined 23 witnesses and got marked 19 exhibits and 25 material objects. On behalf of the defence, no witness is examined. As aforementioned, the trial Court, on evaluation of the material on record, convicted all the accused in respect of the offences with which they were charged. 4. Sri. M. Sharass Chandra, Sri. M. Shashidhara and Sri Jagadeesha B.N., advocates appearing on behalf of the appellants-accused, taking us through the entire material on record, argued that, the reasons assigned and the conclusions reached by the trial Court is improper and incorrect; the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 5 should not have been believed by the trial Court inasmuch as their evidence is concocted; the statement of P.Ws.3 and 5 were recorded by the police during investigation after about 40 days from the date of the incident, the presence of P.W.1 should not have been on the spot inasmuch as she would go to the college regularly on her cycle or in the bus. However, strangely, the prosecution has made out a case only to depict P.W.1 as an eyewitness that she was proceeding to the college on the motor cycle of her father on that day. P.W.1 is a chance witness. The evidence of the investigating officer reveals that the college of P.W.1 used to start at 8.00 a.m. and would continue up to 1:30 p.m. Therefore, she might have not been present on the spot at 10:00 a.m. i.e., at the time of the alleged offence. It is further argued that the police had already taken action to investigate into the matter before registration of the crime; the police had prior information about the incident; since the accused were arrested and seizure of certain material objects were made prior to registration of the crime, the first information as per Ex.P.1 loses its importance inasmuch as the same is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. The learned advocates further submit that the conduct of P.W.1 is highly unnatural inasmuch as she did not even try to safeguard her father; she did not try to shift the victim to the hospital in order to save his life, she kept mum and proceeded to her house as if nothing occurred. Among all these other grounds, they pray for the acquittal of the accused. Sri. P.M. Nawaz, learned S.P.P, argued in respect of judgment of the Court below contending that, merely because the statement of P.Ws.3 and 5 are recorded belatedly, their version cannot be doubted inasmuch as they withstood in their cross-examination; because of the fact that the investigating officer has recorded the statement of certain eyewitnesses belatedly, the prosecution case cannot be doubted or the version of such eyewitnesses cannot be doubted. He further submitted that the complaint has been lodged immediately after the incident; the accused were apprehended after registration of the crime and subsequently, the investigation has begun. According to him, it is a preplanned attack by the accused inasmuch as they came to the spot by watching the movement of the deceased; they were armed with the deadly weapons; all the accused participated in the crime consequent upon which the victim sustained as much as 13 injuries; the FSL report as well as the serology report reveal that all the articles sent for investigation contain ‘B’ group of blood. Thus, according to him, the trial Court is justified in convicting the accused. 5. P.W.1 is the eyewitness to the incident in question. She is the daughter of the deceased. She has lodged the complaint as per Ex.P.1. She has also deposed about the scene of offence (Ex.P.2) under which chappals of the deceased, broken pieces of choppers etc., were seized. The complaint is lodged at 11:00 a.m., whereas the scene of offence panchanama was drawn from 11:45 a.m. to 12:00 noon. P.W.2 is the doctor. He conducted the autopsy over the dead body. The autopsy report is as per Ex.P.3. P.Ws.3 and 5 are the eyewitnesses to the incident in question. P.W.4 has deposed about the tease by the community members of the accused. However, the prosecution has treated her as hostile witness inasmuch as she did not depose about certain facts before the Court which she had stated during the course of investigation. P.W.6 is the mother of P.W.4. She has also deposed about the motive for commission of the offence. She has clarified in her evidence that the accused and the community people of the accused used to tease the ladies/girls belonging to the community of the deceased and consequently, there would be mental harassment to them. P.Ws.7 to 9 are the eye witnesses for inquest panchanama (Ex.P.5). Among them, P.W.8 has turned hostile. P.W.10 has deposed about the motive for commission of the offence and about the illegal conduct of the accused. The evidence of P.Ws.11 and 12 is also almost similar to that of P.W.10. P.W.13 has turned hostile to the case of prosecution. He was supposed to depose about the motive, but he did not support the case of prosecution. P.Ws.14 and 15 are the Police Constables who participated in the investigation. P.W.14 has deposed about the apprehension of the accused on 11.3.2009. P.W.15 has collected the blood stained clothes of the deceased after P.M. examination and carried them to the police station. P.W.16 is the witness for seizure panchanama Ex.P.10 under which M.Os.13 to 16 weapons were recovered from the accused in the police station. The said panchanama was conducted from 11:10 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. P.W.17 who was supposed to depose about the motive for commission of the offence did not support the case. P.W.18 is the brother of the deceased. P.W.16 is the witness for seizure panchanama Ex.P.10 under which M.Os.13 to 16 weapons were recovered from the accused in the police station. The said panchanama was conducted from 11:10 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. P.W.17 who was supposed to depose about the motive for commission of the offence did not support the case. P.W.18 is the brother of the deceased. He has deposed about the earlier quarrel which ensued between the deceased and the accused in view of the illegal conduct of the accused. P.W.19 is the Sub Inspector of Police of Bhadravathi Old Town Police Station. He registered the FIR and conducted part of the investigation. P.W.20 is the witness for spot cum seizure panchanama Ex.P.2. Under the said panchanama, not only the broken prices of choppers etc. were seized but three motor cycles, including two of the accused and one of the deceased, were seized. P.W.21 is the Head constable who carried the articles to the FSl. P.W.22, though was an eye witness to the incident, did not support the case of the prosecution and consequently, he is treated hostile. Nothing is brought by the prosecution to support its case. However, it is deposed by P.W.22 that on the date of incident, P.W.1 was going on the motor cycle of the deceased. P.W.23 is the Inspector of Police. He completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet. 6. The Post Mortem report (Ex.P.3) and the evidence of the doctor (P.W.2) would clarify that it is the case of the homicidal death. The defence Advocates do not dispute that the death in question is the homicidal death. Even otherwise, it is seen from the medical evidence on record that the death is due to coma as a result of the injury to the brain matter of the deceased. The victim had sustained as many as 10 injuries as per the P.M. report. However, as per the inquest report, the victim had sustained 13 injuries. The doctor has deposed that all injuries are antemortemin nature. Tempero occipital bone of the deceased was fractured. The brain matter of the deceased was damaged. Looking to the list of injuries, it is clear that all the injuries are the vital injuries on the head of the deceased. Injury Nos.1 to 9, as found in P.M. report, are the cut lacerated wounds which can be caused with the choppers. Injury No.10 is an abrasion. The brain matter of the deceased was damaged. Looking to the list of injuries, it is clear that all the injuries are the vital injuries on the head of the deceased. Injury Nos.1 to 9, as found in P.M. report, are the cut lacerated wounds which can be caused with the choppers. Injury No.10 is an abrasion. Hence the Trial Court is justified in concluding that the death in question is homicidal death. 7. The motive for commission of the offence is deposed before the Court by P.Ws.1, 6, 11, 12 and 18. All these witnesses have consistently and cogently deposed that the community people of the accused used to tease the girls/ladies belonging to the community of the deceased. In that regard, number of requests and warnings were made, despite the same, the conduct of the accused and their fellow men did not improve. The quarrels used to take place on the said ground between the two groups. Since the deceased was taking lead in opposing the accused and their fellow men with regard to the illegal activities and as the deceased had even lodged the complaints, the accused were having grievance against him. The evidence of the aforementioned witnesses amply proves the motive on the part of the accused to commit the crime. 8. The case of the prosecution with regard to the incident in question is based on the ocular testimony of the witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1, 3 and 5. P.W.1 is the daughter of the deceased. She was aged about 1920 years during the relevant point of time. She was studying in the first year degree course. According to the prosecution, the incident in question has taken place at about 10:00 a.m., whereas she has lodged the complaint Ex.P.1 at 11:00 a.m. i.e., within one hour after the incident. The complaint Ex.P.1 discloses not only the motive for commission of the offence but also about the incident in question in detail. The complaint specifies overt acts of each of the accused as well as the manner in which the incident has taken place. P.W.1 has deposed that she came to the police station along with her family members and wrote down the complaint as per Ex.P.1 on her own and lodged the same. The complaint specifies overt acts of each of the accused as well as the manner in which the incident has taken place. P.W.1 has deposed that she came to the police station along with her family members and wrote down the complaint as per Ex.P.1 on her own and lodged the same. Ex.P.1 makes it clear that P.W.1 used to go to the college by bus, but whenever she was late to the college, her father (deceased) used to leave her to the college premises. On the date of incident, when they reached Gandhinagar Circle of Bhadravathi Town, the motor cycle of the deceased stopped because of the mechanical defect. Thus, the deceased started to push the motor cycle to take it to the garage. P.W.1 was following deceased by walk. By that time, the accused came on two motor cycles i.e., Bajaj Discovery and TVS vehicle. The accused Venkatesh was carrying the white bag. The accused Prakash who was holding the pipe, told other accused that the deceased should not be spared since he is coming in their way. So saying, accused Nos.2 to 6 took out the choppers and started assaulting the deceased. At the first instance, accused No.1 assaulted the deceased with the iron pipe on his back and thereafter, all the accused started assaulting the deceased with the choppers. The complainant had also clarified in her complaint that she did not know as to what is to be done since she was totally frightened; Venkatesh (P.W.22) and one Subbanna (C.W.6) who were very much present on the scene did not come to rescue of the deceased; none of the passersby also intervened to save the life of the deceased. Since P.W.1, being the young girl, aged 1920 years did not know as to what is to be done; because of fear, she went to her house and instructed her brother and uncle. Thereafter, all of them came to the Police Station and lodged the complaint. From Ex.P.1, it is clear that it contains the names of the accused; the complaint is lodged within one hour of the incident in question; it is specified that accused No.1 assaulted the deceased with the iron pipe, whereas accused Nos.2 to 6 assaulted the deceased with choppers. From Ex.P.1, it is clear that it contains the names of the accused; the complaint is lodged within one hour of the incident in question; it is specified that accused No.1 assaulted the deceased with the iron pipe, whereas accused Nos.2 to 6 assaulted the deceased with choppers. It is also relevant to note that the complainant has mentioned in her complaint that action also should be taken against the four other persons, who impliedly instigated the accused before the Court for commission of the offence. The version as found in Ex.P.1 lodged by P.W.1 is supported by the version of P.W.1 before the Court. She has reiterated before the Court as to how the incident has taken place. She has also disclosed the overt acts of each of the accused. She has also deposed about the motive for commission of the offence. She has identified the mobile phone, watch, chappals, etc., which had fallen on the spot as belonging to the accused. She has also identified two motorcycles of the accused and the broken pieces of the choppers. In the cross-examination, the defence has tried to elicit that P.W.1 could not have been present during the relevant point of time by suggesting that her college starts at 8.00 a.m., but P.W.1 has withstood in her cross-examination by deposing that the incident has taken place on Wednesday and on that day, the first period was to start at 10:00 a.m. Even in the cross-examination, she has reiterated about the incident in question. She has identified the accused in the Court Hall also. It is further clarified by her in the cross-examination that the deceased tried to escape from the clutches of the accused and ran for about 12-13 feet after first assault by accused No.1, however, he fell down. Thereafter, all the other accused assaulted the deceased with the choppers. Since she was frightened and as she did not know as to what is to be done by her, she was immediately taken to her house by P.W.22 and one Mr. Subramani. After going to the house, she informed about the incident to all the inmates of the house and thereafter, the complaint has been lodged. She has deposed about the lodging of the complaint before the Police Station as per Ex.P.1. The complaint Ex.P.1 is in her hand writing. Subramani. After going to the house, she informed about the incident to all the inmates of the house and thereafter, the complaint has been lodged. She has deposed about the lodging of the complaint before the Police Station as per Ex.P.1. The complaint Ex.P.1 is in her hand writing. After reading the contents of Ex.P.1, she has lodged the same. 9. P.Ws.3 and 5 are the eyewitness. P.W.3 is the owner of Blue Star Restaurant situated at Bhardavthi. He knew the deceased as well as the accused. He has deposed that as on the date of the incident i.e., on 11.03.2009, when he was standing in front of his hotel; he heard hue and cry inasmuch as the accused started telling to catch hold the deceased; by the time he saw towards the place of incident, the deceased had fallen down near the road divider and at that time, the accused No.1 assaulted the deceased with the iron rod and thereafter, the other accused started to assault the deceased with the choppers. P.W.3 has also deposed that he saw one girl near the scene of offence. He has further clarified in his examination in chief that one of the choppers was broken in the incident and one piece had fallen down on the spot. In the cross-examination, P.W.3 has admitted that he knew only few accused and he does not know as to the avocation of the accused; his restaurant would be opened at about 12 noon everyday; the restaurant is owned by two partners including one Mr. Krishnamurthty and on that day, Krishnamurthy had not come to the restaurant and he was in charge of the restaurant. He was present on the scene of offence for about 1 to 2 hours i.e., till the dead body was taken to the P.M. examination to the hospital. He further admits that he used to keep open his restaurant after the incident continuously. Practically, nothing is brought out in the cross-examination of P.W.3 by the defence. The evidence of P.W.3 fully supports the version of P.W.1. 10. P.W.5 is another eyewitness. He is running the Pan beeda shop at Gandhi Circle, wherein the incident has taken place. He knew both the deceased as well as the accused. Practically, nothing is brought out in the cross-examination of P.W.3 by the defence. The evidence of P.W.3 fully supports the version of P.W.1. 10. P.W.5 is another eyewitness. He is running the Pan beeda shop at Gandhi Circle, wherein the incident has taken place. He knew both the deceased as well as the accused. According to him, at 9:00 a.m. on 11.03.2009, the accused were present in the circle; he talked to the accused as to why they have not gone to the work; the accused told him that they did not have any work on that day; at that time, the deceased came along with his daughter on the motor cycle; the motor cycle stopped because of the mechanical defect; the deceased started pushing the motor cycle for taking the same to the garage; immediately, P.W.1 started crying and at that time, he heard the accused started to assault the deceased; though the deceased tried to escape, all the accused surrounded and assaulted the deceased; P.W.1 was pacified by the persons including P.W.5 who was present on the scene of offence. In the cross-examination, P.W.5 admits that he pulled down the shutters of the shop after hearing about the murder of the deceased. By the time, he saw towards the place of incident, number of people had gathered. He has also opened his shop regularly after the incident; he did not disclose about the incident before anybody till his statement was recorded by the police; he has deposed before the Court for the first time that all the accused surrounded the deceased and assaulted. Further, he has admitted that the deceased used to have illegitimate relationship with the ladies/girls who come to work in his jaggery manufacturing unit and many number of people were against the deceased because of the said reason. 11. As aforementioned, the defence Advocate has vehemently contended that the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 could not have been believed by the Court below inasmuch as their statements were recorded after about 40 days. It is no doubt true that the statements of these witnesses are recorded after about 40 days of the incident in question. Normally, the evidence of such witnesses needs to be verified meticulously and therefore, the same has to be viewed with all care and caution. It is not in dispute that P.Ws.3 and 5 are the independent eyewitnesses. It is no doubt true that the statements of these witnesses are recorded after about 40 days of the incident in question. Normally, the evidence of such witnesses needs to be verified meticulously and therefore, the same has to be viewed with all care and caution. It is not in dispute that P.Ws.3 and 5 are the independent eyewitnesses. They are having their business establishments near the scene of offence. They are not belonging either to the community of the deceased or the community of the accused. Not even the suggestion is made by the defence to show that they are interested in the case of prosecution. Their presence on the spot cannot be disbelieved because they had got the shop and the restaurant which are near the place of incident. There are some variations in the evidence of these witnesses. But such variations cannot be made much of in view of the entire material on record. The defence advocate by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Prem Narain And Another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2007 (15) SCC 485 contended that the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 needs to be discarded inasmuch as their statements were recorded after the period of 40 days of the incident. We have already mentioned Supra that, absolutely, no reasons are forthcoming as to why they are examined after about six weeks of the incident. But, in the matter on hand, it is also clear that these witnesses are neither interested nor disinterested in any of the groups. They have withstood in the cross-examination in all material particulars. As has been held by the Apex Court in case of Ramesh, s/o. Laxman Gawli Vs. State of M.P. and Others reported in (2000)1 SCC 243 , the delay in examining the witnesses by Police under Section 161 of CR.P.C. by itself cannot be a ground to discard the testimony, more so, when in the cross-examination of the witnesses, nothing tangible had been brought out to impeach their testimony. We find that the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 is consistent, cogent and reliable. Nothing is brought out by the defence in the cross-examination so as to discard their evidence. We may go a step further to state that even ignoring the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5, the prosecution has proved its case through the evidence of P.W.1. 12. We find that the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 is consistent, cogent and reliable. Nothing is brought out by the defence in the cross-examination so as to discard their evidence. We may go a step further to state that even ignoring the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5, the prosecution has proved its case through the evidence of P.W.1. 12. As aforementioned, P.W.1 was coming along with the deceased on his motorcycle. She was present at the scene of offence. She was coming to the college during the relevant point of time. P.W.1 has deposed about the incident from the beginning to the end. Her version before the Court has remained unimpeached. Nothing worth is elicited though she was subjected to lengthy cross-examination. Having gone through the evidence of P.W.1, we are of the clear opinion that her version before the Court is fully natural. We do not find any artificiality in her deposition before the Court. Since she was just aged about 19 to 20 years and as she has seen the ghastly incident of murder of her father on the main road of Bhadravathi Town, she was completely feared and shattered. The incident has taken place and completed within five minutes. It is specified by her that the by passers including P.W.22 and C.W.6, though were present, did not come forward to save the life of her father. Since she could not understand, at the spur of the moment, as to what has to be done, she was sent to home by the public in an auto-rickshaw. She went to her house and informed about the incident to the family members. She came back to the Police Station and lodged the complaint as per Ex.P.1. The way in which she has given the answer in the cross-examination would prove that her evidence is fully reliable. Merely, because, she used to go to her college by bus or on the cycle, her evidence cannot be disbelieved only on the ground that on that day, she was going on the motor cycle of her father. It is specifically deposed by her that whenever she was late to the college, her father used to drop to the college on the motor cycle. On that day also, she was late to the college. It is specifically deposed by her that whenever she was late to the college, her father used to drop to the college on the motor cycle. On that day also, she was late to the college. The first period was to start at 10:00 a.m. Since she was late, she requested her father to leave her to the college premises, on the way, the unfortunate incident has taken place. 13. As aforementioned, even ignoring the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 and considering the evidence of P.W.1 as the sole eyewitness to the incident, in our considered opinion, the trial Court has come to a correct conclusion. It is by now well settled that there is no rule or law that the testimony of a single witness cannot be accepted and the conviction cannot be based on such evidence, if it is believable. The testimony of single witness if is straight forward, cogent, if believed, is sufficient to prove the prosecution case. The conviction can be based on the testimony of such single witness. There is no statutory requirement that a conviction cannot be made on the testimony of a single witness unless it is corroborated. The Court can accept the evidence of a single witness though uncorroborated and convict an accused except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness is shaky. In such an event as a matter of prudence, corroboration may be insisted upon, as in the case of a child witness, an accomplice or any other of an analogous character. In the matter on hand, P.W.1 is neither a child witness nor an accomplice. Her presence on the spot is natural. P.W.22, though has turned hostile to the case of prosecution, has deposed before the Court that he saw the deceased coming on the motor cycle along with his daughter (P.W.1). Thus, even the hostile witness clarifies the presence of P.W.1 on the spot. Furthermore, the evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by the medical evidence and the evidence relating to the motive for commission of the offence. 14. The defence sought to contend that there is variation in the evidence of the eyewitnesses. Firstly, we clarify that the evidence of P.W.1 fully supports the case of the prosecution as per the complaint (Ex.P.1). There is no variation at all. 14. The defence sought to contend that there is variation in the evidence of the eyewitnesses. Firstly, we clarify that the evidence of P.W.1 fully supports the case of the prosecution as per the complaint (Ex.P.1). There is no variation at all. Neither the contradictions nor any of the omissions are brought in on record by the defence during the course of cross-examination of P.W.1. Right from the stage of FIR, the names of accused have been mentioned. In the evidence of P.W.1, it is stated that the accused, duly armed with the weapons, came to the scene of offence; overt acts in detail are also attributed to each of the accused; when several persons have participated, it would not be possible for the witness to specify the overt acts by each of them. It is clear from the facts and circumstances and from the evidence that the accused came to the scene of offence armed with lethal weapons in a group and attacked the deceased with common object. They formed unlawful assembly mainly to attack and kill the deceased. 15. The contention of the defence that the conduct of P.W.1 on the scene of offence is artificial, also cannot be accepted. Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing, some start shouting for help. Others run away to save themselves as far removed from the spot as possible. Yet others rush to the rescue of the victim, even going to the extent of counterattacking the assailants. Every one reacts in his own special way. There is no set rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of witnesses on the ground that he/she did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way. 16. We have clarified, supra, that we are not relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 though their evidence fully supports the case of prosecution. We have also clarified that even by ignoring the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 the prosecution is able to prove its case in its entirety, through the evidence of P.W.1, medical evidence and the other evidence on record. We have also clarified that even by ignoring the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 the prosecution is able to prove its case in its entirety, through the evidence of P.W.1, medical evidence and the other evidence on record. Further, to clarify the legal position (in respect of PW3 and PW5) that merely because the statements of the witnesses are recorded belatedly by the investigating officer during the course of investigation under Section 161 CR.P.C, their evidence ipso facto cannot be rejected if they withstand in the cross-examination and if their evidence is otherwise reliable and is corroborated by the other evidence on record. We have already mentioned supra that every person reacts in his own way. P.Ws.3 and 5, being the eye witnesses, must have kept mum in order to save themselves. Even otherwise, they cannot be described as the chance witnesses. In a murder trial by describing the independent witnesses as ‘chance witnesses’ it cannot be implied thereby that their evidence is suspicious and their presence at the scene doubtful. Murders are not committed with previous notice to witnesses; soliciting their presence. If murder is committed in a brothel, prostitutes and paramours are natural witnesses. If murder is committed in a street, only passersby will be witnesses. Their evidence cannot be brushed aside or viewed with suspicion on the ground that they are mere ‘chance witnesses’. The expression ‘chance witnesses’ is borrowed from countries where every man’s home is considered his castle and every one must have an explanation for his presence elsewhere or in another man’s castle. It is a most unsuitable expression in a country whose people are less formal and more casual. To discard the evidence of street hawkers and street vendors on the ground that they are ‘chance witnesses’ even where murder is committed in a street, is to abandon good sense and take too shallow a view of the evidence. 17. In that view of the matter, it is clear that the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 may also be relied upon. However, at the cost of repetition, we reiterate that even ignoring the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 for the purpose of this case, still the prosecution has proved its case through the evidence of P.W.1. The scene of offence panchanama (Ex.P.2) and the evidence of P.W.1 further corroborates the case of prosecution. However, at the cost of repetition, we reiterate that even ignoring the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 for the purpose of this case, still the prosecution has proved its case through the evidence of P.W.1. The scene of offence panchanama (Ex.P.2) and the evidence of P.W.1 further corroborates the case of prosecution. The evidence of the eyewitnesses i.e., the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 20 and also Ex.P.2 make it clear that the gold chain and the watch of the deceased had fallen on the spot and the belt of the watch was torn into pieces. The mobile phone (M.O.3) of the deceased had also fallen on the spot. The blood stained bag (M.O.1) brought by the accused for hiding the weapons had also fallen on the spot. The broken pieces of the chopper as well as three motor cycles (including the one of the deceased) were seized from the spot apart from the chappals of the deceased. If really the accused had not come to the spot, their motor cycles (M.Os.9 and 10) would not have been found on the spot. Thus, Ex.P.2 (Scene of offence Panchanama) coupled with evidence of P.W.1 and the investigating officer fully support the case of the prosecution relating to the scene of offence and the seizure panchanama (Ex.P10). The blood stained clothes of the deceased, the blood stained weapons seized from the custody of the accused and the blood stained broken choppers, which had fallen on the spot and the other materials were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Even the blood stained clothes of accused were sent for examination. Ex.P.16 is a report of the FSL as well as the serologist. The same amply clarifies that all the articles sent for examination including the blood stained clothes of the deceased, blood stained clothes of the accused, weapons seized and the broken pieces of the weapons found on the spot, contain ‘B’ group of human blood. Hence, it is clear that the scientific evidence also fully supports the case of the prosecution. 18. In view of the above, we conclude that the trial Court is justified in convicting the accused for the offence for which they were charged. Even on re-appreciating the entire materials on record, we do not find any ground to disagree with the conclusion reached by the trial Court. Hence, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.