JUDGMENT : 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 07.02.2011, passed by the II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, at Mysuru, (hence forth for brevity referred to as the ‘Sessions Court’) in S.C. No.229 of 2009, convicting him for an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years, the appellant has filed this appeal. 2. In his memorandum of appeal, the appellant has taken the contention that the Court below has not appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in their proper perspective and that it did not notice that, had the appellant any intention to commit the murder of the deceased, he would have tried to escape from the scene of offence. This shows that he was innocent and also was shocked like any other who were present in the place of occurrence. The inconsistency in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses were not appreciated by the Court below. It also ignored the fact that the injuries caused to the injured was not sufficient to cause her death. Stating that all these aspects have resulted in the Sessions Court passing an erroneous judgment of conviction, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence impugned in this appeal. 3. The respondent is being represented by learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor. 4. Lower Court records were called for and the same are placed before us. 5. Heard the arguments from both sides. Perused the material placed before us, including the memorandum of appeal, impugned judgment and the lower Court records. 6. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that when deceased Smt. Chandralekha Gurjar was working in Sharada Vilas Pharmacy College at Mysuru, as Professor at the time of her death, the present appellant was the Manager in the very same college. 6. The summary of the case of the prosecution is that when deceased Smt. Chandralekha Gurjar was working in Sharada Vilas Pharmacy College at Mysuru, as Professor at the time of her death, the present appellant was the Manager in the very same college. On the date 10.6.2009, at about 10.00 a.m., when the complainant (PW-1) K.J. Hanumanthachar, the Principal of the said college had been to his college, while he was in his chambers, at about 11.00 a.m. on that day, PW-4 – Saraswathi, who was working as Group-D employee in the said college and CW-6 – Puneeth, informed him that the present appellant had stabbed Professor Chandralekha with a knife and that she is bloodshed. Immediately, the Principal rushed to the staff room where Mrs. Chandralekha was found in a pool of blood, sustaining injuries. At that time, PW-1 saw the accused coming out from the said room. Immediately, ambulance was summoned and the complainant informed the police. 7. Earlier to that, in the third week of April of that year, the accused had complained to the Principal that deceased Chandralekha had addressed him in a singular tense and that he would not spare her. He was properly advised by the Principal and other staff. Thereafter, a compromise between the deceased and the accused was reported to the Principal. On the date of the incident, the accused was about to be relieved from his services. Stating so in his complaint, the Principal has lodged a complaint with the complainant police, which was registered in the complaint police station on the very same day at 12.00 p.m. in their station at Crime No.57/2009, against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. After completion of the investigation, the complaint police filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Court framed charges against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 8. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial was held against him, wherein, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses from its side from PWs.1 to 22 and got marked the documents from Exs.P-1 to P-25 and material objects from MOs.1 to 13. On behalf of the accused, no witnesses were examined, however, got marked a portion of Ex.P-13 as Ex.D-1. 8. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial was held against him, wherein, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses from its side from PWs.1 to 22 and got marked the documents from Exs.P-1 to P-25 and material objects from MOs.1 to 13. On behalf of the accused, no witnesses were examined, however, got marked a portion of Ex.P-13 as Ex.D-1. After hearing both sides and perusing the materials placed before it, the Sessions Court by its judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 07.02.2011, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Challenging the judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal. 9. Smt. Bharathi Patil, learned counsel for the appellant, in her arguments has vehemently submitted that the Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence led before it in its proper perspective. It erroneously came to a conclusion that PW-4 was an eye witness to the incident, but the same was not her evidence. She further submitted that in order to save Principal-ship of PW-1 in the college, the accused has been falsely implicated in this case. 10. On the other hand, Sri Vijayakumar Majage, learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor, in his arguments vehemently submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Since PWs.2 and 4 are the direct eye witnesses to the incident, their presence at the place of the incident is natural, because, they were also the staff working in the very same institution. He further submitted that accused was also arrested from the scene of offence and knife used by him for the commission of offence was also recovered from the spot. He further submitted that about four months prior to the incident, with respect to sanctioning of leave and loss of pay of the deceased, she had talked roughly with the accused. Having grudge in that regard, the accused has committed the alleged offence. 11. The case of the prosecution is mainly supported by two alleged eye witnesses i.e., PW-2 and PW-4. Among the 22 witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW-1 – K.J.Hanumanthachar is the complainant in this case. Having grudge in that regard, the accused has committed the alleged offence. 11. The case of the prosecution is mainly supported by two alleged eye witnesses i.e., PW-2 and PW-4. Among the 22 witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW-1 – K.J.Hanumanthachar is the complainant in this case. The summary of his evidence with respect to the alleged incident is that on 10.6.2009, while he was sitting in his chamber at the college, at about 10.15 a.m., deceased Chandralekha went to him and briefed him about a meeting of the staff members to be held on that day evening and left the chamber. Thereafter, PW-13 – G. Nagabhushan, who was proposed to the place of accused, met him (PW-1). Followed by him, the accused visited the Principal and asked the reason as to why he is being removed from the services. He was told by PW-1 that it was the decision of the management. Accused left the chamber of PW-1. Thereafter, at about 11.00 a.m., he (PW-1) heard yelling noise. Before he could rush to that place, PW-4 came to him and stated to him that accused has assaulted Chandralekha with a knife and that she has sustained injuries. While he was going to the staff room where the incident had taken place, PW-2 also met him and told him that accused is stabbing Chandralekha. All of them rushed to that room. At that time, accused was coming out of that room. When PW-1 asked him, the accused replied stating “she deserves it”. They noticed bloodstains on the shirt of the accused. PW-18 – T.K.Sowmya, had put a veil (a scarf like dress material) on the neck of the injured and CW-6 – Puneet had held the head of the injured. PW-1 noticed the bleeding injury on the neck of the injured, so also, upon her abdomen, left hand and on chest and on the side of the injured, a knife and slippers were found fallen. He instructed concerned persons to get the ambulance services. He was subjected to a detailed cross-examination, wherein he adhered to his original version. 12. PW-2 (CW-2) Narasimhachar H. Joshi, a Professor in the very same college at the relevant point of time, has stated that deceased was also working as a Professor in the very same college and the accused was working as a Manager in the college. He was subjected to a detailed cross-examination, wherein he adhered to his original version. 12. PW-2 (CW-2) Narasimhachar H. Joshi, a Professor in the very same college at the relevant point of time, has stated that deceased was also working as a Professor in the very same college and the accused was working as a Manager in the college. Each department in their college had separate staff rooms. He was in the Pharmacognosis Department, as such, they were having separate staff room. On the date 10.6.2009, at about 10.00 a.m. while he was sitting in his staff room, deceased- Chandralekha approached him and enquired him about the completion of syllabus by him. At his question, she stated that the Principal had asked her to enquire the same, because, he was interested in completing the syllabus at the earliest point of time. At that, he (PW-2) proceeded towards the chamber of Principal to talk to him. While going so, he saw the accused coming in the opposite direction and going towards staff room. Then he heard yelling noise. Hearing the same, he rushed back to the staff room, where he saw the accused holding a knife in his right hand stabbing Chandralekha. Looking at that scene, he (PW-2) raised hue and cry. At that time, PW-4 – Saraswathi came there. When she came, at that time also the accused was stabbing Chandralekha. Having seen this, both himself and PW-4 went to the Principal. At that time, accused came out from the staff room. When he was asked the reason by the Principal, he said “she deserves” and left the place. He has also stated that he saw bloodstains on the shirt worn by the accused. They saw the injured. A girl student had put a veil near the neck of the injured and CW- 6 Puneeth was holding the injured. Injured was found having sustained injuries on her abdomen, chest, left arm, neck and cheek and blood was coming out from the injuries on the neck. On the side of her, slippers and pen were found fallen. The witness has identified the knife used by the accused in the commission of the crime at MO-1. He has identified the pen said to have been fallen there at MO-6. 13. On the side of her, slippers and pen were found fallen. The witness has identified the knife used by the accused in the commission of the crime at MO-1. He has identified the pen said to have been fallen there at MO-6. 13. PW-3 – Manjunath, who is the Vice-Principal of the said college, in his evidence, has stated that on 10.6.2009 at about 11.15 a.m., on getting the information that Chandralekha was murdered, he immediately rushed to the spot and saw the injured Chandralekha in the pool of blood having sustained several injuries on her neck and abdomen. He also noticed a knife, veil and pen near the body. 14. PW-4 – Saraswathi, a Group-D employee of the said college in her evidence has stated that on 10.6.2009, at about 10.00 a.m. after cleaning the college premises, she was sitting on the steps. At about 10.45 or 11.00 a.m., she heard PW-2 yelling and shouting that accused was stabbing Chandralekha. Immediately, she rushed to the said spot which was only at a distance of three rooms from where she was sitting. The said place was a room wherein the incident had taken place. When she went there, she saw the accused stabbing with a knife on the abdomen of Chandralekha. Both, herself and PW-2, went to the Principal’s chamber and all the three of them, including the Principal, came back to the room where the incident had taken place. At that time, the accused was coming out of that room. On enquiry by the Principal, the accused stated that he has committed the murder and he wanted to do it and as such, he has done. Chandralekha was found fallen on the floor sustaining bleeding injuries. Blood had flown on the floor and she has found sustained injuries on her neck and left arm. This witness has also identified MO.1 to MO.5. 15. PW-5 Latha, a Typist in the said college has stated in her evidence that on 10.6.2009, at 10.00 a.m., she went to the college. By that time, accused and PW-13 G.Nagabhushan had also been in the college. At about 10.30 a.m., their Principal (PW-1) called her and asked her to prepare relieving order with respect to the accused. Accordingly, she involved in preparing the said relieving order. At that time, accused left that place. By that time, accused and PW-13 G.Nagabhushan had also been in the college. At about 10.30 a.m., their Principal (PW-1) called her and asked her to prepare relieving order with respect to the accused. Accordingly, she involved in preparing the said relieving order. At that time, accused left that place. At about 10.15 a.m., hearing the noise from the student, herself, along with CW-8 - Nagabhushan, came out and in the staff room, they saw that Chandralekha had fallen on the floor in the pool of blood having sustained injuries on her neck and chest and abdominal region. This witness has identified MO.1 to MO.6. 16. PW-6 – P.S.Rangaiyengar, the President of the said institution in his evidence has stated that on 10.6.2009, at about 11.20 a.m., while he was sitting in his office, PW-1 told him over the telephone that accused caused the death of Chandralekha by stabbing her with a knife. Accordingly, himself, joined by his Secretary – CW-18 Krishnamurthy went to the room where the deceased was found dead. He noticed that Chandralekha had sustained injuries on her neck, chest, left arm, abdomen and other parts of the body and blood was also collected on the floor. He has stated that MO.1 to MO.6 were found in the same place. 17. PW-7 – Sudhir Kumar, in his examination-inchief has stated that he is working as a Cashier in `Daily Needs’ shop at Siddharth Layout in Mysuru. About to three to four months prior to January 2010, (when this witness has given his evidence), police had brought the accused to his shop. He identified the accused as their customer. The police told him that accused had purchased a knife from their shop. After verifying the computer, he noticed that on the date and time what the police had suggested, there was a bill for having sold a knife. He took out a copy of the said bill and handed over it to the police. The police told him that the accused had purchased the said knife from his shop. However, he stated that he does not remember whether the accused had purchased a knife from their shop, because lot of customers visit their shop. He took out a copy of the said bill and handed over it to the police. The police told him that the accused had purchased the said knife from his shop. However, he stated that he does not remember whether the accused had purchased a knife from their shop, because lot of customers visit their shop. He was treated as hostile and the prosecution was permitted to cross-examine him, where, he admitted the suggestion made by the prosecution to the effect that accused had purchased a knife from the shop, however, he could not identify the knife as MO.1, the very same knife sold by him. 18. PW-8 (CW-9) Manjunath, a Lab Attender in the said college has stated that on 10.6.2009, Professor of their college Mrs.Chandralekha Gurjar was murdered and her dead body was in the Pharmacognosis staff room. On hearing the same, police came there and drew a scene of offence panchanama as per Ex.P-6. They also collected MOs.2, 3, 4 and 6 from the spot. He has identified MO.2 as the cloth seized by the police from the spot. He has also identified MOs.7 and 8 as bloodstained tiles and the sample tile. He has further stated that on the very same evening at 4.30 p.m., the police brought the accused to the same place of offence where the incident had taken place and from the said place, showing a knife, they seized it. Thereafter, accused produced a shirt from beneath the centring materials stored near the staircase. The said shirt also was bloodstained. The witness has identified the said panchanama at Ex.P-7, knife at MO.1 and the shirt at MO.5. 19. PW-9 (CW-12) Raju, a Lab Attender in the very same college has in his examination-in-chief supported the case of the prosecution and PW-8 to the effect that seizure of the knife at MO.1 and the cloth of the accused at MO.5 were done in his presence under a panchanama at Ex.P-7. 20. PW-10 (CW-13) Jagadish Gurjar, the husband of the deceased Chandralekha Gurjar in his evidence has stated that as usual on 10.6.2009 also, his wife went to the college. Having received the information at 11.15 a.m. that condition of his wife has become very critical/serious, he went to the college and came to know that his wife has been murdered by the accused. Having received the information at 11.15 a.m. that condition of his wife has become very critical/serious, he went to the college and came to know that his wife has been murdered by the accused. Then he went to the staff room and found the dead body of his wife on the floor. He has also given his statement while drawing inquest panchanama as per Ex.P-6. 21. PW-11 Vibha, the daughter of the deceased, has stated that in April 2009, due to her ill-health, her mother had applied for leave. When she was on leave, the accused contacted her over the telephone and informed her that, as told by the Principal, her absence from duty would be considered as `loss of pay’. At that, her mother in a rough manner replied, stating that `let it be done’. 22. PW-12 (CW-15) B.Ramesh, a Lab Attendar in the said college has stated that the accused was working as a Manager in the college and the deceased was a Professor. On 10.6.2009, at 9.35 a.m., when he went to the office of the college to collect keys of the laboratory, he saw the accused sitting in his seat and in front of the accused, the incumbent of the said post of Manager i.e., G.Nagabhushan was sitting. He greeted both of them. Accused got up from his chair and came aside. At this witness asking about his relieving, the accused replied that it is common in the college and nothing can be done. By 10.30 a.m., deceased Chandralekha asked him about cleaning of the laboratory. Fifteen minutes thereafter, accused came in front of the laboratory. 10 or 15 minutes thereafter, from the Pharmacognosis staff room side, he heard PW-2 Narasimhachar shouting, stating that accused-Puttanna was stabbing Madam with a knife. He started going towards the staff room. At that time, Principal told to get an ambulance at the earliest. Then, himself, joined by a student, went to Tulasidas Hospital and brought an ambulance. The doctor after examining Chandralekha, declared her as dead. Her dead body was lying in the staff room. Injuries on the neck and abdomen were found on the dead body and the blood was coming from it. 23. PW-13 (CW-16) G.Nagabhushan, has stated in his evidence that he was selected for the post of Manager in the college. The doctor after examining Chandralekha, declared her as dead. Her dead body was lying in the staff room. Injuries on the neck and abdomen were found on the dead body and the blood was coming from it. 23. PW-13 (CW-16) G.Nagabhushan, has stated in his evidence that he was selected for the post of Manager in the college. On 9.6.2009, at about 3.30 p.m., PW-1, the Principal told him to take charge from the accused, but, the accused told him that he would hand over the charge on the next day. Again on 10.6.2009, when he went to the college around 9.15 a.m., accused had already come and was sitting in the office room. On his asking to hand over the charge, accused told him that still he had not received the relieving order. Then, PW-1 told him to go through the records. At that time, accused left the office room and went to staff room. Around 11.00 a.m., he hard yelling noise from the staff room. When he went towards the staff room, he saw the dead body of deceased Chandralekha. He has further stated that he does not know as to why accused killed the deceased. He was treated as hostile and the prosecution was permitted to cross-examine him, where, he admitted the suggestion made by the prosecution to the effect that, thinking that the deceased was responsible for terminating his services and the appointment of PW-13, the accused murdered deceased Chandralekha. 24. PW-14 K.V.Ravi, the Police Constable has stated about his submitting FIR to the Court. 25. PW-15 Channabasappa, another Police Constable has spoken about carrying the seizure articles to Forensic Science Laboratory at Mysuru. 26. PW-16 Rangaswamy, the Head Constable has stated about securing the accused in the Chambers of the Principal on the date of the incident. 27. PW-17 Smt.R.Nalini, Woman Police Constable, has stated about she keeping watching on the dead body of the deceased in the place of the incident on 10.06.2009 till it was shifted from there for the purpose of post mortem examination. She has also stated about collecting the clothes found on the deceased after her post mortem examination and from the Doctor. She has identified those clothes as MOs.9 to 12. 28. PW-18 T.K.Sowmya, has stated that she was the student of Sharada Vilas Pharmacy College, Mysuru, from 2005 to 2009. She has also stated about collecting the clothes found on the deceased after her post mortem examination and from the Doctor. She has identified those clothes as MOs.9 to 12. 28. PW-18 T.K.Sowmya, has stated that she was the student of Sharada Vilas Pharmacy College, Mysuru, from 2005 to 2009. On the date of the incident when she was in the college, she heard PW-1 shouting as ‘chaku chaku’. Thereafter she went to the staff room and saw the deceased Chandralekha in a pool of blood around her. The blood was still bleeding from her neck. On seeing her, she and CW-6 sat down and tried to stop the blood. Since she could not get any cloth, she used her veil for the said purpose. Thereafter, they came out of the room. However, she has stated that she did not see the accused in the said staff room. After that, ambulance came to the college. 29. PW-19 Dr.Y.Udayashankar, has stated about he conducting the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Chandralekha. He has given a detailed account of the injuries found by him on the dead body which are as below: 1. Cut wound present vertically on left lower part of the face, including the lower lip and chin, measuring 7 x1.5x1 Cms. 2. Cut wound, obliquely placed over the front of the neck, extending from inner end of left clavicle to right angle of mandible measuring 12 cm.x3 cm. x neck muscle deep. The trachea was seen with having a cut on its front and sides 4 Cms. in length, carotid vessels seen intact. 3. Cut wound of 6 x ½ Cms. x subcutaneous deep present horizontally on the right sided chest, situated 4 Cms. below the right clavicle. On dissection, it was seen that it pierced with sternum, just below the sternal angle and entered the heart after piercing the pericardium. On the heart, the cut is situated over right atrium, measuring 1.5 x 0.2 Cms. on the sternum it measured 2 x 0.2 Cms. 4. Vertically pierced cut wound over the right breast, measuring 4 x ½ Cms. subcutaneous deep, situated 3 Cms. below the nipple. 5. Horizontally placed cut wound over the right breast’s base measuring 5 x ½ Cms. x subcutaneous deep, 6. Stab wound of 4 x ½ Cms. cavity deep (abdomen) situated on right lower part of the chest. 4. Vertically pierced cut wound over the right breast, measuring 4 x ½ Cms. subcutaneous deep, situated 3 Cms. below the nipple. 5. Horizontally placed cut wound over the right breast’s base measuring 5 x ½ Cms. x subcutaneous deep, 6. Stab wound of 4 x ½ Cms. cavity deep (abdomen) situated on right lower part of the chest. On dissection of the wound it was seen the weapon had entered the 6th intercostals space and made cut over the liver (right lobe) where it measuring 2 x 0.5 Cms. 7. Cut wound of 3 x ½ Cms. x subcutaneous deep present obliquely on right upper abdomen, situated 2 Cms. above the unbalicus. 8. Cut wound of 8 x 2 Cms. x muscle deep present on the back of left wrist (defence wound). According to him, all the above injuries were ante-mortem and fresh in nature and margins of the wound were clean cut. According to him, those injuries were possible to be caused with a cutting weapon like a knife. He opined that death must have occurred 6 to 8 hours prior to post mortem examination and it was due to shock and hemorrhage consequent to the injuries sustained in a homicidal assault. He has identified post mortem examination report at Ex.P-16, stating that the same was issued by him and it bears his signature. He has further stated that on 23.6.2009, police sent to him a knife and clothes for examination. On examining the said knife, he gave his opinion stating that injury Nos.1 to 8 mentioned in the post mortem report and corresponding internal injuries could be caused by a knife like the one sent to him for his opinion. In that regard, he has given a letter to the police as per Ex.P-17. He has identified the knife examined by him at MO.1. He has also stated that the injuries found on the injured could cause the death of a person in ordinary course. He has also identified the clothes at MOs.9 to 12 as the clothes worn by the deceased at the time of her post mortem examination. 30. PW-20 (CW-27) O.B.Kalleshappa, the then Police Inspector of the complainant police station has stated in his evidence about the investigation said to have been conducted by him in this case. He has also identified the clothes at MOs.9 to 12 as the clothes worn by the deceased at the time of her post mortem examination. 30. PW-20 (CW-27) O.B.Kalleshappa, the then Police Inspector of the complainant police station has stated in his evidence about the investigation said to have been conducted by him in this case. He has spoken about he registering a complaint as per Ex.P-1 on 10.6.2009 at 12.00 in the afternoon as lodged by the complainant and sending a FIR to the Court as per Ex.P-12. He has also stated that on the same day, PW-16 and CW-20 produced the accused before him at 12.45 in noon. In the meantime, he had been to the place of offence. Again he went to the place of offence and drew inquest panchanama as per Ex.P-6 in the presence of panchas. He also noticed a knife, bloodstained veil, pen and slippers near the dead body. Except the knife, he seized all other articles. He also collected a sample tile and bloodstained tiles from the place. He has identified those articles in his evidence. He has further stated that he got produced the accused and recorded his voluntary statement as per Ex.P-18. Accordingly, the accused took him to the staff room of the college and produced a knife fallen in the staff room, which he seized in the presence of panchas as per Ex.P-7. He has identified the said knife at MO.1. Thereafter, the accused led him to a place in the college where the centring articles were stored and from there he picked up and produced a shirt said to have been worn by him at the time of the incident. He (PW-20) seized the said shirt also under the same panchanama. Thereafter, accused took them to a shop at Siddharatha Layout, where PW-7 was working. PW-7 stated that it is from him in the said shop accused purchased a knife at MO.1. He (PW-20) recorded the statement of PW-7 and got produced a copy of bill from him. He subjected the seized articles to property forum and got produced the accused before the Court. The witness also stated that he recorded the statements of other witnesses in this case and also requested for copies of the appointment and relieving order of the accused in the college and subsequently, he received those documents. He subjected the seized articles to property forum and got produced the accused before the Court. The witness also stated that he recorded the statements of other witnesses in this case and also requested for copies of the appointment and relieving order of the accused in the college and subsequently, he received those documents. He also sent the seized articles for their examination to Forensic Science Laboratory. He further stated that from out of his investigation, he came to know that the accused telling that it was the deceased who was the cause for his relieving from the services and due to few other instances that had taken place earlier, has caused her death. This witness was subjected to a detailed cross-examination from the accused side and several denial suggestions were made to him, which he has not admitted as true, but adhered to his original version. 31. PW-21 (CW-28) Gopalakrishna, stated that while being in-charge of the complainant police station in the year 2009, he took up further investigation in this case from PW-20 on 17.6.2009. He collected the post mortem report and the clothes found on the deceased at MOs.9 to MO.13. He also sent the weapon at MO.1 and articles at MOs.9 to 10 to the doctor, who conducted the post mortem examination, for getting his opinion. Subsequently, after completing of investigation, he filed charge sheet in the case. 32. PW-22 S.N.Gaonkar, the Assistant Director in Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Mysuru, has stated that he has conducted the examination of the articles sent to him in this case by the Investigating Officer and has given his report as per Exs.P-21 and P-22. He has identified those articles in the Court. 33. It is in the light of evidence of these witnesses, the first question that requires to be considered is about the nature of the death of the deceased. In that regard, the evidence of PW-8 shows that police drew inquest panchanama in his presence as per Ex.P-6. PW-10, the husband of the deceased also has stated that his wife was murdered. The complainant – PW.1 has lodged the complaint alleging that the death of the deceased Chandralekha was a murder. The alleged eye witness PW-2 and PW-4 have categorically stated that as they were seeing the deceased repeatedly stabbing and they have also stated that the deceased was murdered. The complainant – PW.1 has lodged the complaint alleging that the death of the deceased Chandralekha was a murder. The alleged eye witness PW-2 and PW-4 have categorically stated that as they were seeing the deceased repeatedly stabbing and they have also stated that the deceased was murdered. PW-6, the Chairman of the said college also has stated that he found that the deceased had sustained stab injuries and he was told that she was stabbed and hacked to death. Apart from the above, more importantly, PW-19, the doctor who has conducted the autopsy, has observed eight assault injuries on the deceased as observed above. He has categorically stated that death was due to shock and hemorrhage consequent to the injuries sustained in a homicidal assault. Thus, he has opined that the death of the deceased was homicidal. In addition to that, after seeing the weapon at MO.1, which was a knife, he has given his opinion in writing stating that the injuries found on the deceased can be caused with a knife at MO.1. He has further stated that those injuries found inflicted on the injured can cause her death. The said opinion of the doctor has not been denied or weakened in his cross-examination. On the other hand, in his cross-examination, he admitted a suggestion as true that any sharp weapon like MO.1 could cause injuries mentioned in Ex.P-16. Thus, from the accused side itself, suggestion was made that a knife at MO.1 can cause the injuries found on the deceased. The doctor has further opined in his cross-examination that injury Nos.2 and 3 found on the deceased could have caused the death of the deceased. The injury has resulted in cutting of the wind pipe and heart was injured, as such, the injured died immediately. The said unshaken evidence of the doctor, read with the evidence of prosecution witnesses, as analysed above, clearly go to establish and prove beyond reasonable doubt that the death of Chandralekha was homicidal. 34. The next point is whether it is true that it was the accused and accused alone who caused the said homicidal death of deceased-Chandralekha. In this connection, we have already observed above as to what the prosecution witnesses have deposed in their evidence on this point. 34. The next point is whether it is true that it was the accused and accused alone who caused the said homicidal death of deceased-Chandralekha. In this connection, we have already observed above as to what the prosecution witnesses have deposed in their evidence on this point. It is the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that as per PW-2, he has seen the accused from behind, as such, he cannot identify the accused. However, when the evidence of PW-2 is examined in its entirety, what can be clearly seen is that PW-2 has stated that though at the first instance, he could only see the back of the assailant who was stabbing Chandralekha, but, at his raising alarm by yelling, the attacker turned towards him and at that time, he clearly and categorically identified that it was the accused who was the staff in their college. At that time also, the accused further stabbed the injured. This witness has also stated that when the accused turned towards him, he also noticed that he was holding a knife in his hand which he used for stabbing the deceased. Thus, this witness has clearly and categorically stated that it was the accused and accused alone who stabbed Prof. Chandralekha, causing her injuries, which led to her death. 35. This identification of the accused on the spot by PW-2 cannot be doubted, for the simple reason that, undisputedly, both PW-2 and the accused were working in the same institution for a long time. PW-2 was an Assistant Professor in the college, whereas, the accused is the Manager in the same college. As such, PW-2 seeing the accused committing the alleged act of stabbing the deceased and PW-2 also identifying the accused, can be believed. Merely because PW-2 is not said to have rushed to the rescue of his colleague, by that itself, his evidence cannot be disbelieved. It is a settled principle by virtue of the several decisions of our Hon’ble Supreme Court that a reaction of individuals who witnessed the same incident cannot be uniform always at any given point of time. The reaction of each individual may vary, though some may rush to the rescue of the person in trouble without further thinking, few may hesitant to rush and leave the place and few others may witness the incident and call for help or raise alarm. The reaction of each individual may vary, though some may rush to the rescue of the person in trouble without further thinking, few may hesitant to rush and leave the place and few others may witness the incident and call for help or raise alarm. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that PW-2 did not rush to the rescue of the injured, as such, he was not an eye witness, cannot be believed. Furthermore, this witness has also stated that along with PW-4 and PW-1 – their Principal, when they were entering the staff room, they faced the accused and on enquiring him as to why he committed the murder, to that the accused replied stating that “she deserved it”. This also clearly goes to show that PW-2 is not only an eye witness who has seen the occurrence of the incident, but also confirmed along with PWs.1 and 4 by enquiring that it was the accused himself who intentionally has committed the act. There is no reason to suspect or disbelieve the evidence of PW-2. 36. PW-4 is admittedly a Group-D employee of the same college. As observed above, she too has supported the case of the prosecution and her evidence has come in consonance with the evidence of PW 2. Her statement that while she was sitting near the steps after cleaning the premises of the college, she heard yelling noise of PW-2 that Puttanna (accused) was stabbing Chandralekha and that she immediately rushed to the said staff room which was only at a distance of three rooms from where she was sitting and saw the incident, was further tested in her cross-examination from the accused side. It was attempted to bring in her cross-examination that due to her work, it was not possible for her to see the alleged incident. However, by giving a detail account of her nature of work and what work she attend everyday and stating that on the date of the incident, like any other day, she cleaned the room and corridor, thereafter, sitting in her usual seat on the steps, she made it clear that it was routine to attend her morning work and sit on the steps, waiting for further instructions from the superiors for her Group-D work. It was also an attempt in her cross-examination to elicit that she was a friend of CW-2 Narasimhachar. It was also an attempt in her cross-examination to elicit that she was a friend of CW-2 Narasimhachar. She clearly stated that she is only an Attender in the college and PW-2 is the Lecturer, as such, except wishing him Good Morning and offering respect, she had no other talking with him regularly. In her cross-examination, a doubt regarding the presence of other students or staff, if any, in the Laboratory or visiting room, was also ruled out. She clearly stated that there were nobody in the Computer Lab and in the visitors room at that time. The students would come to the Computer room only when they have class and visitors would come to that room after 12.00 clock in the afternoon. As such, on that day, there were nobody in those two rooms. She further stated that she did not enter those two rooms, but after passing in front of those two rooms, she went to the staff room. PW2 was repeatedly yelling and alarming that Puttanna (accused), was stabbing. He was also yelling for help. Even this witness in her cross-examination adhered to original version made in her examination-in-chief by stating that when she first saw the accused in staff room, she saw him from his back side who was stabbing Chandralekha. When she saw that the injured Chandralekha was trying to turn aside, the accused had also covered the mouth of Chandralekha with one of his hands. In that process once accused turned aside, then, she (this witness) could able to see his face clearly. She also stated that she has been seeing the accused since six months prior to the incident, she could clearly identify that it was the accused who committed the alleged act. She gave her further description as to what type of shirt he was wearing at the time of incident and whether it was bloodstained. The same evidence has also come in the evidence of PW-2. In her further examination, this witness also has given some more details that even PW-1 the Principal of the college, also rushed to the said place and by that time, two students also came there and one among them was a girl, who with the help of veil, tried to stop the bleeding from the injury on the neck of the deceased and another boy was also helping the injured. She has also stated that after the incident she sat below a tree near the staff room for nearly an hour. From there, she could able to see the Principal’s Chamber, staff room and other rooms. The accused was found sitting in the Chamber of the Principal. In this way, PW-4 also has thoroughly withstood the searching and detailed cross-examination from the accused side and has given detailed account of alleged incident shown to have seen by her. Her evidence has come in consistency with the evidence of PW-2 and both of them have uniformly described the occurrence of the incident which gives no scope to suspect it. 37. The evidence of PW-2 and PW-4, who were the eye witnesses to the alleged incident, gain its support even from the evidence of PW-1, the Principal of the institution and the complainant in this case. As analyzed above, he has clearly stated that at about 11.00 am., on that day, after hearing the yelling noise while he was about to raise up from his chair to proceed towards the place from where yelling noise was coming, PW-4 Saraswathi came running to him and told him that Puttanna (accused) had stabbed Chandralekha and the injured is struggling hard and that she must be rescued. Hearing that, he (PW1) rushed to the staff room. At that time, PW-2 came running to him and stating him that Puttanna (accused) was stabbing Madam (Chandralekha) and requested the Principal to rescue her. Even this witness also has stated that while all the three of them were approaching the staff room, they saw that the accused was coming outside from the staff room and when asked by him (PW1) as to why did he commit such an act, the accused replied stating that “she deserves it”. Thus PWs.1, 2 and 4, all the three witnesses have stated uniformly that immediately after the incident, the accused came out from the room of Chandralekha and was questioned by the Principal (PW-1). According to PW-1 and PW-2, who were Principal and Assistant Professor in that college respectively, the accused replied stating that “she deserves it”. 38. PW-1, the Principal, as a head of the institution, has immediately thereafter alerted his staff to get an ambulance and he also in his cell phone tried to contact the ambulance people, but he could not get the network from inside the staff room. 38. PW-1, the Principal, as a head of the institution, has immediately thereafter alerted his staff to get an ambulance and he also in his cell phone tried to contact the ambulance people, but he could not get the network from inside the staff room. As such, he came out of the room of the incident and contacted the ambulance people. At his direction, PW-12 a Lab Attender brought the ambulance and the doctor also came to the spot, who, after examining the injured, declared her as dead. PW-1 has also immediately and without any delay, informed about the incident to the Chairman of the institution i.e., PW-6. The said Chairman in his evidence has stated that immediately after hearing from Principal, himself, joined by his Secretary - Krishnamurthy (CW-18), rushed to the staff room and found the dead body of the deceased and enquired on the spot, by which, he came to know that it was the accused who stabbed professor Chandralekha and caused her murder. He also stated that he noticed that accused was sitting inside the Principal’s Chamber after the incident. Thus, from the evidence of PW-2 and PW-4, who are the eye witnesses to the incident and by the evidence of PW-1 – Principal and PW-6 - Chairman of the Management, who have immediately and with no delay, rushed to the place of offence, it is clearly established that it is accused and accused alone who has committed the alleged act. 39. The evidence of PWs.3, 6, 10, 11 and 13 who are hearsay witnesses also go to show that at their enquiry, they also came to know that it was the accused alone who has committed the murder of Professor Chandralekha. Among these, PWs.10 and 11 are the family members of the deceased. PW-10 is the husband and PW-11 is the daughter of the deceased. Both of them have stated uniformly that they rushed to the college immediately after hearing about the incident with no further delay, and by their enquiry in the spot, they came to know that it was the accused, who had caused the death of Chandralekha. Thus, both the eye witnesses i.e., PW-2 and PW-4 could able to establish that they were truly the eye witnesses of the incident and that they have seen the incident as it did occurred. They have given no scope to disbelieve or suspect their evidence. Thus, both the eye witnesses i.e., PW-2 and PW-4 could able to establish that they were truly the eye witnesses of the incident and that they have seen the incident as it did occurred. They have given no scope to disbelieve or suspect their evidence. The evidence of PW-1, the Principal, who, sparing no time, has rushed to the spot and has seen the accused coming out from the place of the incident and has also confirmed by enquiring none else than the accused himself that he has committed the alleged act. The evidence of PW-1 also has come so natural like that of PWs.2 and 4 and that gives no scope for disbelieving or suspecting the same. The evidence of other witnesses like PWs.3, 5 and 6, who were the other staff members in that college have also come in uniformity. 40. Regarding the motive aspect is concerned, it has come in the prosecution evidence that the accused who was working as a Manager, was decided to be relieved from his service by management for some reasons. The accused due to his weak memory, was not found fit to be continued with his responsibility as a Manager of the said institution. As such, the management decided to replace him with PW-13 - G.Nagabhushan and on that particular day, it was the incumbent - G.Nagabhushan was to take charge as the Manager of office of that particular college. As such, he was also present in the office room to take charge from the accused. The further evidence has also come that accused was not happy with this. On the previous day itself he had made an attempt to postpone the task of handing over charge to PW-13, but he could not. As such, he was disgusted and not happy. At the same moment, he was also on firm belief that for his relieve from the institution, professor Chandralekha (deceased) was the cause. 41. Earlier also in the instance of treating the non-availability of the leave in the account of the deceased as a loss of pay, there was some rough addressing of the accused by the deceased. The evidence of PW-11 Vibha, the daughter of the deceased, herself goes to show that in that connection, her mother had given a rough answer to the Manager (the accused) over the telephone. The evidence of PW-11 Vibha, the daughter of the deceased, herself goes to show that in that connection, her mother had given a rough answer to the Manager (the accused) over the telephone. Even PW-1, the Principal has also given a detailed account of the same. He has even stated that deceased had regretted for her rude behavior with the accused. This also made the accused to have a grudge against her. This is confirmed by his (accused’s) reply to PW-1 at his query immediately after the incident that “she deserves it”. Therefore, apart from the evidence of alleged eye witnesses, even the motive behind the crime is also established by the prosecution. 42. The seizure of the knife is supported by the evidence of PWs.8 and 9 and the medical opinion is also to the effect that the knife at MO.1 could able to cause the stab injuries found on the deceased. Forensic Science Laboratory report also corroborates the investigation made by the Investigating Officer. Thus, the entire evidence of the prosecution gives no room for suspecting it. As such, the Court below has rightly held that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. 43. Regarding quantum of sentence is concerned, the Sessions Court has imposed a minimum sentence of life imprisonment prescribed for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, however, with the fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find the quantum of sentence is disproportionate to the proven guilt of the accused. As such also, we do not find any reason for interference in the judgment of conviction and order on sentence challenged in this appeal. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following order : ORDER The Appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 07.02.2011, passed by the II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, at Mysuru, in S.C. No.229 of 2009, is confirmed.