JUDGMENT A.V. Ravindra Babu, J. - This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant, who was the Accused in Sessions Case No.333 of 2007, on the file of Sessions Judge, Krishna Division, Machilipatnam ('Sessions Judge' for short), challenging the judgment, dated 23.07.2009, where under the learned Sessions Judge, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 304 Part-II of Indian Penal Code ('I.P.C.' for short) as against the original charge under Section 302 of I.P.C., convicted him and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. 2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. The Sessions Case No.333 of 2007 arose out of a committal order in P.R.C.No.1 of 2006, on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jaggaiahpet, pertaining to Crime No.8 of 2006 of Chillakallu Police Station, under Section 302 of I.P.C. 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Police, Jaggaiahpet Circle as above, is as follows: (i) The accused is resident of Mallareddygudem Village, Mellacheruvu Mandal, Nalgonda District. He is residing at Chillakallu Village of Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District along with his wife and children. Previously, he was convicted in a theft case. (ii) One Upputalla Babulu S/o Ramulu (hereinafter will be referred to as 'deceased') is resident of Chillakallu Village and he is the father-in-law of the accused. L.W.1-Upputalla Srinu, S/o Babulu is son of the deceased, L.W.2-Upputalla Venkata Narasamma is wife of the deceased and L.W.3-Tammisetty Nagalaxmi is daughter of the deceased and wife of the accused are the direct witnesses to the occurrence. Further L.W.4-Gunja Venkateswarlu, S/o Tirupataiah and L.W.5-Gunja Venkateswarlu, S/o Brahmam are the neighbourers and direct witnesses to the occurrence. L.W.6-Orsu Bujji and L.W.7-Kunchapu Rajya are the daughters of the deceased. L.W.8-Tirumalakonda Gopaiah, L.W.9-Gunja Venkateswarlu, S/o Tirupatiah, L.W.10-Talluri Yerrappaiah and L.W.11-Gunja Gopaiah are the caste elders, who held panchayat and paid Rs.100/- as collie to the deceased. (iii) On 22.01.2006 at 12-00 noon, there was a caste panchayat held in Vaddera colony of Chillakallu by L.W.8 to L.W.11 to resolve a dispute between the wife and husband i.e., Kunchapu Ramana and Srinu. It was concluded by 3-00 p.m. The said mediators gave Rs.100/- to the deceased as collie, as he made arrangements for collecting the elders from both parties. It was concluded by 3-00 p.m. The said mediators gave Rs.100/- to the deceased as collie, as he made arrangements for collecting the elders from both parties. On the way to his house, the accused, who is the son-in-law of the deceased, stopped him and asked him to return Rs.100/- to him, for which deceased refused. Then, the accused grew wild, caught hold of him and lifted the deceased into the air and thrown him on a gravel heap. When the deceased tried to get up, the accused again lifted him and thrown him on the granite stones heap resulting into the death of the deceased at the spot. It was witnessed by L.W.1 to L.W.5. L.W.1 turned up to Chillakallu Police Station on 22.01.2006 at 8-00 p.m., and presented a written report to L.W.15-Sub-Inspector of Police. L.W.15-Sub Inspector of Police, Chillakallu Police Station registered it as a case in Crime No.8 of 2006 under Section 302 of I.P.C. and submitted copies of F.I.R. including express F.I.R. to all concerned. L.W.16-Inspector of Police took up investigation and visited the scene of offence and examined the same in the presence of L.W.12-Deenavahi Venkata Seshagiri Rao and L.W.13-Rupana China China Veeraiah, the mediators. He prepared rough sketch at the scene of offence. He held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of inquest panchayathdars i.e., L.W.12 and L.W.13. He forwarded the dead body to L.W.14-medical officer with a request to conduct autopsy and issue postmortem certificate. During investigation, he examined L.W.1 to L.W.11 and recorded their statements. On 24.01.2006 at 1-00 p.m., Inspector of Police arrested the accused at R.T.C. bus stand, Jaggaiahpet and forwarded him for judicial remand. The Medical Officer conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the death of the deceased is due to asphyxia due to Haemothorax. Hence, the charge sheet. 5. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggaiahpet, took cognizance under Section 302 of I.P.C. 6. After appearance of the accused and after complying the formalities under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short), P.R.C.No.1 of 2006 was committed to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., as such, it was numbered before the learned Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam. 7. After appearance of the accused and after complying the formalities under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('Cr.P.C.' for short), P.R.C.No.1 of 2006 was committed to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., as such, it was numbered before the learned Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam. 7. On appearance of the accused before the learned Sessions Judge by following the procedure contemplated under Section 228 of Cr.P.C., the charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. was framed and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.8 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6 were marked. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in, for which he denied the same and stated that a false case is foisted against him and he has no defence witnesses. 9. The learned Sessions Judge on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found the accused for the offence under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. i.e., the culpable homicide not amounting to murder as against the original charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. Accordingly, he convicted the accused under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. and after questioning him about the quantum of sentence to be imposed, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and acquitted him for the charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. Felt aggrieved of the conviction and sentence as above, the unsuccessful accused in the above said Sessions Case, filed the present Criminal Appeal. 10. Now, in deciding the Criminal Appeal, the points for determination are as follows: (1) Whether the prosecution before the Court below proved that on 22.01.2006 after 3-00 p.m., at Vaddera Colony, Chillakallu Village, the accused lifted Upputalla Babulu S/o Ramulu into air and thrown him on the gravel heap for twice, as such, deceased died? (2) Whether the prosecution before the Court below proved the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt? Point Nos.1 and 2: 11. (2) Whether the prosecution before the Court below proved the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt? Point Nos.1 and 2: 11. At the outset, this Court would like to make it clear that as against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, exonerating the accused under Section 302 of I.P.C. and convicting him under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C., the prosecution did not prefer any appeal. Hence, the scope of this appeal is confined to the points as above. 12. P.W.1 is the defacto-complainant and son of the deceased. In brief, he testified that originally the accused belonged to Nalgonda District and his wife is no other than the sister of him i.e., P.W.2 and the accused is his brother-in-law and he settled down at his village and the accused and his wife Naga Laxmi used to reside with their parents. He (P.W.1) is residing in the same colony, but in a different house. As the accused was convicted in Nalgonda District, he shifted his family to the parents of him (P.W.1). On the date of incident, caste elders conducted a mediation to settle a matrimonial dispute between the wife and husband, but he did not remember their names. Panchayat was concluded by 3-00 p.m. Caste elders paid Rs.100/- to his father for collecting the caste elders for the mediation. Having collected the amount, his father started returning to the house. Then, the accused asked his father to give hundred for which his father refused claiming that that is his amount. Then, the accused lifted his father and hurled him on a gravel heap nearby. When he fell on the gravel heap and attempting to get up, the accused again lifted him and again hurled him on concrete heap (Kankara rallu). At the time of the incident, they were at a distance of 10 to 15 yards. On witnessing the incident, he, his mother and his younger sister Naga Laxmi rushed towards the place of offence crying that their father was being killed. The accused fled away from the place. They found their father died. They found swelling on his lower abdomen and swelling of his testicles. Then, he approached the elders and informed the incident to them and from there he went to Chillakallu Police Station and lodged a complaint at 7-30 p.m. Ex.P.1 is his report. The accused fled away from the place. They found their father died. They found swelling on his lower abdomen and swelling of his testicles. Then, he approached the elders and informed the incident to them and from there he went to Chillakallu Police Station and lodged a complaint at 7-30 p.m. Ex.P.1 is his report. He is an illiterate. On the next day morning, police came to the scene and recorded his statement. 13. P.W.2, the daughter of the deceased, relating to the offence in question, testified that on the date of incident, a panchayat by the caste elders took place between 12-00 noon and 3-00 p.m. After the panchayat, her father and the accused were returning to home. Her father was paid Rs.100/- by the caste elders towards coolie for calling the caste elders for mediation. The accused i.e., her husband asked her father to give hundred to him for which her father refused. Then, her husband lifted her father and thrown him on the gravel heap. When her father was getting up, the accused again lifted him and again thrown him on granites heap. They witnessed the same from the distance of 15 yards. They started running towards the place of occurrence by shouting 'Champetthunnavu emiti'. On seeing them, the accused fled away from there. They found her father died. They found swelling on abdomen of her father. P.W.1 and their mother rushed towards place of occurrence. On the next day, police examined her. 14. P.W.3, another direct witness to the occurrence with regard to the incident in question, deposed that on the date of incident, a panchayat was held between the caste elders concerning a marital dispute between the spouses. It was happened between 12-00 noon to 3-00 p.m. Elders paid Rs.100/- to the deceased for calling the caste elders to attend the caste panchayat of the village. He took the amount and started returning to the house. The accused asked the deceased to give that amount, for which the deceased refused to give. Then, the accused lifted the deceased and thrown him on the gravel heap (matti gravel) which consists of stones. When the deceased got up, again the accused lifted him and thrown him on the concrete stones. The accused asked the deceased to give that amount, for which the deceased refused to give. Then, the accused lifted the deceased and thrown him on the gravel heap (matti gravel) which consists of stones. When the deceased got up, again the accused lifted him and thrown him on the concrete stones. Then, P.W.1, P.W.2 and the wife of the deceased Venkata Narasamma rushed towards the place of offence shouting 'champesthunnadu champestunnadu' (killing killing) from a distance of 10 yards and reached the place of occurrence. On seeing them, the accused fled away. 15. The prosecution examined P.W.4, who deposed that he acted as caste elder in their community. Elders convened a panchayat in connection with the marital dispute between Ramana and Srinu on 22.01.2006. He, Gunja Venkateswarlu, Talluri Yerrappaiah and Gunja Gopaia have acted as caste elders. It was commenced at 12-00 noon and concluded by 3-00 p.m. The deceased was their caste bantrothu and he used to call the caste elders whenever caste mediations were being held. In connection with caste panchayat on 22.01.2006 they paid Rs.100/- to the deceased towards coolie for calling the elders. The said caste bantrothu by name Babulu is no more. Two hours after the conclusion of the panchayat, they learnt that he died. He went to the scene of offence and found his dead body. Police examined him. 16. P.W.5 is the panchayatdar, who is the mediator to the scene observation report and also the inquest. P.W.6 is the Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. P.W.7 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who received Ex.P.1 and registered FIR. P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer. 17. Sri M.S.P. Reddy, learned counsel, representing Sri Challa Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the son and daughter of the deceased, is interested in nature. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the planted witnesses. The name of P.W.2 was not there in Ex.P.1 report. The name of wife of the deceased was there in Ex.P.1. The prosecution did not examine the wife of the deceased for the reasons best known to them and planted P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.3 was also planted to support the evidence of P.W.1. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused basing on the interested testimony. The name of wife of the deceased was there in Ex.P.1. The prosecution did not examine the wife of the deceased for the reasons best known to them and planted P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.3 was also planted to support the evidence of P.W.1. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused basing on the interested testimony. There was a delay of about four hours in lodging Ex.P.1 which is not explained by the prosecution. There were discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in spite of which, the learned Sessions Judge erroneously convicted the accused, as such, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 18. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that as the wife of the deceased was won over by the deceased, prosecution did not examine her. A memo was also filed before the learned Sessions Judge to that effect. P.W.1 was author of Ex.P.1 and he was not a planted witness. The names of all the direct witnesses need not be mentioned in Ex.P.1. The learned Sessions Judge rightly negatived the contention of the accused before the Court below. The evidence of P.W.1 had support from Ex.P.1 and P.W.2 and P.W.3 corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 and the delay in lodging Ex.P.1 was found to be satisfactorily explained by the prosecution according to the learned Sessions Judge in the judgment and there is no dispute that the accused used to reside in the village of the deceased along with the deceased and P.W.2 and the learned Sessions Judge rightly convicted and sentenced the accused under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C., as such, there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. 19. Turning to the evidence of P.W.1, as evident from the cross examination part, the accused elicited from P.W.1 that there was no document to prove about the fact that his father was appointed as a caste servant. It is to be noticed that to prove the fact that the deceased used to act as caste servant and used to call elders in connection with the caste disputes, there is evidence of P.W.4, one of the caste elders. There need not be any document to prove that the deceased worked as kula bantrothu i.e., the caste servant in the village, who was supposed to call the mediators to the caste meetings, etc. 20. There need not be any document to prove that the deceased worked as kula bantrothu i.e., the caste servant in the village, who was supposed to call the mediators to the caste meetings, etc. 20. During the cross examination, P.W.1 deposed that the accused and his wife was not living amicably. The accused used to consume alcohol and beat his wife and used to create nuisance in the street. On the date of incident also, the accused consumed alcohol. His father also used to consume alcohol. Witness volunteers that on that day his father did not consume alcohol. He denied that his father consumed alcohol on that day also. On occasions, the accused and his parents used to consume alcohol together. Gravel heap is near the baddikottu center. The gravel heap and granite stones would be at a height of 2 1/2 feet. He stated the same to the police. He denied that he omitted to state the said fact before the police. He deposed that he first saw his father at the place of incident at a distance of 15 to 20 yards. It was about 3-30 p.m. or 4-00 p.m., the accused lifted his father and thrown him in gravel heap. He denied that he does not know anything about the occurrence and he is at a distance. He denied that the accused was not capable of lifting of the deceased and hurling him on the granite stones heap. He denied that his father consumes alcohol everyday and on that day also he consumed alcohol and that he died on account of consuming of alcohol and as there were differences between the accused and his wife, he is implicated falsely. 21. It is to be noticed that there is a clear whisper in Ex.P.1 that there was a gravel heap at the place of occurrence on which the deceased was thrown by the accused twice. In cross examination, he detailed out that there were also a granite stones. He deposed that he did not state so before the police. It is to be noticed that the answers that are elicited from the mouth of a particular witness in cross examination in a case cannot be taken as omissions. It is not as though P.W.1 deposed the existence of granite heap in the chief examination. He deposed that he did not state so before the police. It is to be noticed that the answers that are elicited from the mouth of a particular witness in cross examination in a case cannot be taken as omissions. It is not as though P.W.1 deposed the existence of granite heap in the chief examination. On the other hand, when the accused got elicited certain answers in cross examination, he deposed the same which cannot be taken as an omission. Apart from this, as evident from Ex.P.6, rough sketch, the gravel heap was clearly shown. During the course of cross examination of investigating officer, nothing was suggested to him that there was no gravel heap. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be taken as an omission as to the existence of the gravel heap at the place of occurrence. The answers in cross examination as to the existence of gravel heap or the granite heap cannot be taken as omission. 22. Coming to the evidence of P.W.2 in cross examination, she deposed that the place on which the accused thrown her father on the gravel would be from 10 to 15 yards from their house. Elders used to give small quantity of alcohol at the time of mediation. She denied that she does not know anything about the occurrence and that she does not know that the accused demanded her father to give hundred rupees. Witness volunteers that she observed the accused putting his hand in the pocket of her father. She witnessed it from a distance of 15 yards standing at their house. She denied that she did not witness anything and that she is deposing false. 23. Coming to the evidence of P.W.3, another direct witness to the occurrence, he was also cross examined with regard to the heap of gravel stones at the scene of occurrence and to the answers spoken by P.W.3 minutely with regard to the existence of two heaps i.e., one is gravel stone heap and another is concrete stones, no contradiction is suggested to him. Nothing is elicited from the cross examination of P.W.3, the direct witness, suggesting any doubtful circumstances as regards his presence. 24. The very contention of the accused before the Court below is that P.W.1 and P.W.2 were planted witnesses. It is very difficult to accept such a contention. Nothing is elicited from the cross examination of P.W.3, the direct witness, suggesting any doubtful circumstances as regards his presence. 24. The very contention of the accused before the Court below is that P.W.1 and P.W.2 were planted witnesses. It is very difficult to accept such a contention. P.W.1 was a witness to the occurrence and author of Ex.P.1. As evident from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, though the wife of the deceased was cited as one of the witnesses to the occurrence, she was given up by the prosecution on the ground that she was won over by the accused. For the non-examination of the wife of the deceased, no adverse inference can be drawn. The prosecution cited P.W.2 as one of the direct witnesses to the occurrence. According to the evidence of P.W.1 on seeing the incident, he, his mother and his younger sister Naga Laxmi rushed towards the place of occurrence. Though Ex.P.1 did not disclose that P.W.2 also rushed to the scene of occurrence along with P.W.1, but Ex.P.1 cannot be taken as encyclopedia and it need not contain each and every minute details of the presence of witnesses. Apart from this, the answers that are elicited from the mouth of P.W.2 go to show that her house is located hardly at a distance of 10 to 15 yards from the place of occurrence. Therefore, it is a quite natural for P.W.2 to witness the occurrence which was within her view when she was standing at her house. The minute details spoken to by P.W.2 during the cross examination that she found the accused putting his hand into the pocket of her father shows bonafidies on the case of the prosecution that P.W.2 was also a witness to the occurrence. Hence, the contention of the accused before the Court below that P.W.1 and P.W.2 were planted witnesses is not tenable. 25. As seen from the evidence of P.W.3, he spoken that he witnessed the occurrence. His evidence is fully convincing. He had no enmity with the accused. He was a neighbor to the house of P.W.1 and P.W.2. He was resident of that locality. The probing cross examination of P.W.3 was done and he withstood the probing cross examination. The evidence of P.W.3 is further lending an assurance to the case of the prosecution. 26. His evidence is fully convincing. He had no enmity with the accused. He was a neighbor to the house of P.W.1 and P.W.2. He was resident of that locality. The probing cross examination of P.W.3 was done and he withstood the probing cross examination. The evidence of P.W.3 is further lending an assurance to the case of the prosecution. 26. The evidence of P.W.1 has corroboration from the contents of Ex.P.1. 27. Coming to the cross examination of P.W.7, the investigation officer, he deposed it is true that P.W.1 has stated in his Section 161 of Cr.P.C. statement that his brother-in-law with both his hands lifted his father and hurled on gravel gutta situated nearby their house. It is true he has stated that himself and his mother Venkata Narasamma while raising shouts ran towards the place of occurrence. It is true that he has omitted to mention that his younger sister P.W.2 was also accompanying them. It is to be noticed that absolutely P.W.1 was not at all cross examined with regard to the above answers suggested to P.W.8, the investigating officer. Absolutely, it is not the defence of the accused before the Court below that P.W.1 did not state before police that his brother-in-law with his both hands lifted his father and hurled on gravel gutta situated nearby the house. Hence, the answers that were suggested to P.W.8, investigating officer, had no consequences at all in the absence of challenging the testimony of P.W.1 by suggesting any omissions and contradictions. As this Court already pointed out Ex.P.1 cannot be taken as an encyclopedia to contain each and every aspect of the occurrence including the details of the witnesses. As this Court already pointed out P.W.2 was a natural witness to the occurrence as her house was located within a short distance of 10 to 15 yards from the scene of offence. Hence, the cross examination of P.W.8 regarding the above had no merits in my considered view. 28. The accused agitated before P.W.8, investigating officer, that P.W.2 did not state in her Section 161 of Cr.P.C. statement that after the elders panchayat was over, the deceased and the accused started returning to the house from the place of the panchayat. Hence, the cross examination of P.W.8 regarding the above had no merits in my considered view. 28. The accused agitated before P.W.8, investigating officer, that P.W.2 did not state in her Section 161 of Cr.P.C. statement that after the elders panchayat was over, the deceased and the accused started returning to the house from the place of the panchayat. It is to be noticed that during the course of cross examination of P.W.2, she was not suggested that she did not state before the police that after the panchayat, deceased and the accused started returning to the house. However, the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 as regards the act of the accused in insisting the deceased to pay back Rs.100/- to him is totally consistent. It is immaterial whether the accused started from the panchayat along with the deceased while returning to the house or at the place of occurrence intercepted the deceased. Hence, the evidence of P.W.2 that after the panchayat is over, the accused and the deceased started returning to the house cannot be taken as omission. 29. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 is totally consistent and it is inspiring confidence in the mind of the Court. 30. Coming to the delay in lodging Ex.P.1, the time of offence was about 3-30 pm. or 4-00 p.m. After the incident, according to the case of the prosecution and the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, they informed the incident to the elders. Admittedly, according to P.W.1 at about 7-30 p.m., they lodged a report on the date of incident. According to Ex.P.1, endorsement, it was registered at 8-00 p.m. The accused was no other than the son-in-law of the deceased, who was residing along with the deceased and his wife in the house. The delay of three hours in lodging Ex.P.1 cannot be taken as fatal to the case of the prosecution and the said delay is bound to be happened in the light of the facts and circumstances. The learned Sessions Judge in this regard rightly appreciated the evidence on record. As rightly held by the learned Sessions Judge, P.W.1 was an illiterate witness. The facts and circumstances are such that as P.W.1 was no other than the son of the deceased, he was not supposed to keep the dead body at the place of occurrence and to rush to the police station. As rightly held by the learned Sessions Judge, P.W.1 was an illiterate witness. The facts and circumstances are such that as P.W.1 was no other than the son of the deceased, he was not supposed to keep the dead body at the place of occurrence and to rush to the police station. The facts and circumstances are such that after consultations with the villagers and caste elders and after become free from the grossly incident, P.W.1 got drafted the report with some bodies help and later lodged the same with the police. 31. Though there were some disputes between the accused and his wife i.e., P.W.2, but there is no dispute that the accused and his wife used to reside along with the parents of P.W.1 in the same house. Under the circumstances, the delay in lodging Ex.P.1 cannot be taken as a fatal to the case of the prosecution. 32. It is also the contention of the accused before the Court below that the deceased died on account of the fact that he consumed alcohol and he was implicated falsely taking advantage of the disputes. It is very difficult to accept such a contention. 33. There is evidence of P.W.6, the Medical Officer to the effect that on 23.01.2006 he conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased from 4-00 p.m. to 6-00 p.m. He did not notice any external injuries on the dead body. When he opened the chest cavity, he found blood in the chest cavity. The deceased died due to asphyxia due to haemo thorax. He mentioned the same in his report, Ex.P.4. He deposed that the collection of blood in the chest cavity is possible when a person was hurled on heap of stones or rough surface. He found redness on testicles but it is not an abnormality. He denied that his opinion is not correct. In cross examination he deposed that he did not preserve the contents of the stomach. He volunteers that if the police asked, they would have preserved it. It is to be noticed that the line of the defence of the accused is that the deceased died on account of consumption of alcohol. He denied that his opinion is not correct. In cross examination he deposed that he did not preserve the contents of the stomach. He volunteers that if the police asked, they would have preserved it. It is to be noticed that the line of the defence of the accused is that the deceased died on account of consumption of alcohol. But, as evident from the opinion of P.W.6, on opening thorax, he found the blood in the chest cavity and it was due to the fact that the deceased was hurled on the heap of stones on the rough surface. Hence, the contention of the accused that the deceased died on account of consumption of alcohol is not tenable. Even assuming for a moment, the accused and the deceased consumed alcohol on the date of incident, but it cannot be held that the deceased died on account of consumption of alcohol. The facts and circumstances are such that the accused in aggressive condition as the deceased did not pay Rs.100/- grew wild lifted him and hurled him on the heap of stones twice which resulted into the death of the deceased. Hence, the contention of the accused in this regard is not at all tenable. 34. There is evidence of P.W.5, the panchayatdar to the observation report and inquest panchanama to the effect that the police observed the scene of offence on the next day in the presence of mediators and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. There is evidence of P.W.7 to speak to the fact that basing on the report of P.W.1, he registered FIR and copies of FIR to all concerned. 35. The evidence of P.W.8, the investigating officer, shows the fact that during the course of investigation he examined all the witnesses to the occurrence and observed the scene of offence, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses and got the dead body examined through the medical officer for the purpose of postmortem. During the course of cross examination, it is evident that the house of P.W.3 is situated nearby the house of the deceased. There is nothing in the cross examination of P.W.8, pointing out any irregularities in the investigation. Hence, the evidence of P.W.8, the investing officer, is fully convincing. He denied that he arrested the accused on the same date of incident. There is nothing in the cross examination of P.W.8, pointing out any irregularities in the investigation. Hence, the evidence of P.W.8, the investing officer, is fully convincing. He denied that he arrested the accused on the same date of incident. It is to be noticed that according to his chief examination, as the accused was found absconding, he arrested the accused on 24.01.2006. On the other hand, the contention of the accused that he was arrested on the date of offence itself is found not convincing. Having regard to the above, absolutely, I do not find any merits in the contention of the accused that he was taken into custody on the date of offence itself. 36. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge reveals that he duly applied his mind and looked into various contentions of the defence counsel and rightly appreciated the evidence on record with sound reasons. In my considered view, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were the direct witnesses to the occurrence whose evidence is inspiring confidence in the mind of the Court. Hence, the prosecution before the Court below proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of incident, the accused lifted the deceased twice and thrown him into heap of gravel stones which resulted into his death. The learned Sessions judge as against the charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. convicted and sentenced the accused under Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C. with reasons and the judgment of the Court below in this regard exonerating the accused under Section 302 of I.P.C. is not under challenge. 37. Having regard to the above, I am of the considered view that the prosecution before the Court below proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused the death of the deceased on 22.01.2006. Hence, I see no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused by the learned Sessions Judge. 38. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, dated 23.07.2009 in S.C.No.333 of 2007 shall stand confirmed. 39. Hence, I see no grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused by the learned Sessions Judge. 38. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam, dated 23.07.2009 in S.C.No.333 of 2007 shall stand confirmed. 39. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the order of this Court to the trial Court on or before 30.03.2023 and on such certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the appellant and to report compliance to this Court. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.