Maruthi Yamanappa Danoji vs State of Karnataka

B. Padmaraj, J.-The learned Counsel, Sri H.B. Prabhakar Sastry appointed as Amicus Curiae in the above appeal, did not turn up to argue the matter and hence, on the peculiar facts of the case, we invited an Advocate Sri Omar Sheriff to appear as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant at the cost of the State to argue the case for the appellant and assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. Accordingly, the learned Advocate Sri Omar Sheriff who was invited to argue the case as Amicus Curiae in the above appeal, argued the matter on behalf of the appellant.

Heard the arguments of the learned Advocate Sri Omar Sheriff appointed as amicus curiae in the above appeal and the learned State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and carefully perused the materials placed on record with their assistance.

The appellant, Maruthi is the sole accused. He has been convicted by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC for causing the death of one Yamunappa and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of which to undergo further imprisonment for two years, and for the offence under Section 324 of the IPC, for causing injuries to the person of P.W. 1-Smt. Parvathi and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently. Out of the fine amount of Rs. 5,000/-, if recovered, Rs. 3,000/- is directed to be paid to P.W. 1-Parvathi as compensation. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

The deceased is one Yamunappa aged about 11 or 12 years at the relevant time. He is the only son of the complainant, P.W. 1-Smt. Parvathi. The appellant is none other than the senior uncle of the deceased boy. The incident in question took place on 17-3-1995 at about 3 or 3.30 p.m. at or in front of the house of the complainant, P.W. 1 in Modga Village of Belgaum Taluk. The husband of the complainant, P.W. 1 by name Bhairu Danoji who was an younger brother of the appellant, had died about 10 years prior to this incident. After the death of her husband, the complainant, P.W. 1 and her only son deceased Yamunappa were residing together in one of the portions of the house that had fallen to the share of her husband. The appellant along with his wife and children had been residing in the other portion of the same house i.e., to say, in one of the portions of the house, the complainant, P.W. 1 and her son deceased Yamunappa were living and in the other portion of the house, the appellant was living along with his wife and children. Thus, they were living in two different portions of the same house. The complainant, P.W. 1-Smt. Parvathi being a helpless widow and having a son who was hardly aged about 11 years at the time of his death, was getting the land that had fallen to the share of her deceased husband to an extent of 13 guntas cultivated through one Kedari Shiddaling, P.W. 6. That is to say the said P.W. 6 was cultivating the land that had fallen to the share of the deceased husband of P.W. 1 on crop share basis and was giving some share out of the yield derived from the said land. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant did not like this arrangement made between the complainant, P.W. 1 and P.W. 6 regarding the cultivation of the land that was given to the share of the deceased husband of P.W. 1. The appellant did not like the complainant, P.W. 1 getting the said land cultivated through P.W. 6. He wanted or desired the complainant, P.W. 1 to give the said extent of land to him for the purpose of cultivation. Thus, there was some hostility in that regard between the appellant and P.W. 1. The appellant had been objecting to P.W. 6 cultivating the land on behalf of P.W. 1. In fact, the appellant had also told P.W. 6 not to cultivate the said land and hand over the possession of the same to him.

Thus, the relationship between the appellant and P.W. 1 had been strained to a certain extent in the matter of cultivation of the land by P.W. 6. While this was so, it is stated that on that fateful day at about 2.30 p.m., a calf of the she buffalo belonging to the complainant, P.W. 1 had strayed into the area of the appellant and the accused had bet the said calf. The deceased Yamunappa told this fact to his mother, P.W. 1 who was inside the house. On being so told by the deceased, the complainant, P.W. 1 came there and told the appellant that if he so intends to beat the calf, he can do so. Thereafter it is stated that while her son deceased Yamunappa was sitting in the house, the appellant came with a sickle in his hand from inside the house and committed assault on the deceased Yamunappa with the said sickle, resulting in serious bleeding injuries on his person. When the complainant, P.W. 1 tried to rescue her son, she had also sustained injuries to her hand. Thereupon, the complainant, P.W. 1 raised hue and cry. On hearing her cries, when P.W. 2 and others came to the spot, the appellant ran away from the scene of incident along with the sickle. The deceased Yamunappa who had sustained serious bleeding injuries at the hands of the accused, had died on the spot. The people who had gathered there at the spot tried to catch hold of the accused, but they could not succeed. It appears that the appellant ran away from the spot along with the sickle towards the sugarcane fields. Thus, the appellant made good his escape from the scene of incident along with the weapon which was used in the commission of the offence, by running away into the sugarcane fields. In respect of this incident, a complaint came to be lodged by the complainant, P.W. 1 to the police as per Ex. P. 1. P.W. 19, who was then the PSI of Marihal Police Station, received the complaint, Ex. P. 1 from P.W. 1 at about 4.30 p.m. on 17-3-1995 at the Police Station, which was situated at a distance of about 6 kilometres from the place of incident. On the basis of the said complaint, the PSI, P.W. 19 registered the case and took up investigation. During the course of his investigation, he had visited the spot at Modga Village, where he held the inquest proceedings on the dead body of the deceased as per the inquest report Ex. P. 8. He recorded the statements of P.Ws. 2 and 3 and others. He conducted the spot panchanama in the presence of the panchas as per Ex. P. 9 and seized thereunder, the bloodstained eartha, M.O. 7 and sample earth M.O. 8 from the scene of incident. Then he made over the investigation of this case to the CPI, P.W. 18. After the CPI, P.W. 18 took over the investigation of this case, he recorded the statements of P.Ws. 4 and 5. He also made enquiries regarding the whereabouts of the absconding accused. He recorded the further statement of the complainant, P.W. 1 and also made efforts to trace the accused by visiting several villages. But, the accused could not be traced. On 19-3-1995 he recorded the statements of P.Ws. 7 and 8. In spite of the efforts made by him to trace the accused, he could not trace the accused till 28-3-1995. He had also instructed the PSI, P.W. 19 to trace the absconding accused. Accordingly, on 4-4-1995 the PSI, P.W. 19 produced the accused before the CPI, P.W. 18. He arrested the accused and recorded his voluntary statement which is as per Ex. P. 21.

Thereafter, the accused took the CPI, P.W. 18 and the panchas to Modga village and got recovered the sickle, M.O. 1 from the place where it was concealed and the same was seized under a panchanama, Ex. P. 11. He further recorded the statement of P.W. 8. After the post-mortem examination was over, the articles that were found on the dead body of the deceased as per M.Os. 2 to 6 were produced before the CPI, P.W. 18 and the same were seized under a Panchanama Ex.P. 10 in the presence of the panchas, P.W. 12 and another. On 5-5-1995 he had deputed P.W. 15 along with the seized articles to the FSL at Bangalore for their chemical examination. On 25-5-1995 he had sent the sickle, M.O. 1 to the Medical Officers for their opinion. Then after completion of the investigation, he has submitted the charge-sheet to the Court against the accused.

In order to substantiate its case against the accused, the prosecution had examined at the trial P.Ws. 1 to 19 and got marked in evidence Exs.P. 1 to P. 23 and M.Os. 1 to 8. Out of the 19 witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W. 1-Smt. Parvathi besides being a complainant, she is also an injured eye-witness to the incident. She had lodged her complaint as per Ex. P. 1 at the police station at about 4.30 p.m. before the PSI, P.W. 19. She was examined by the Doctor, P.W. 10 at the Civil Hospital in Belgaum on 17-3-1995. The Doctor, P.W. 10 found two injuries on the person of the complainant, P.W. 1 viz., one cut lacerated wound on the medial side of the right little finger and another cut lacerated wound on the front side of the left base of the left index finger. Both these injuries were stated to be simple in nature. Ex. P. 6 is the wound certificate issued by the Doctor, P.W. 10 in this regard. According to the Doctor, P.W. 10 the injuries that were found on the person of the complainant, P.W. 1 could be caused in case if a person tries to avoid the blow by stretching her hand. Ex. P. 7 is the opinion issued in this regard by the Doctor, P.W. 10.

P.W. 2-Nagesh is a resident of the same village. The house of the complainant, P.W. 1 is situated by the right side of his house. He claims to be an eye-witness to the incident.

P.W. 3 was also examined as an eye-witness to the incident, but he has turned hostile to the prosecution. He did not support the case for the prosecution to any extent.

P.W. 4 is also a resident of the same village. His house and the house of the complainant, P.W. 1 were situated at 20 houses apart, i.e., to say there are 20 houses in between the house of P.W. 4 and P.W. 1. He also claims to be an eye-witness to the incident.

P.W. 5 is again a resident of the same village but he has turned hostile to the prosecution. He would however support the case for the prosecution to a certain extent. He has stated that on that relevant day, it being a holy festival day, he was proceeding to his work from his house at about 3 p.m. and he learnt that the accused had caused the injury to the son of P.W. 1. He however, says that he does not know anything further. Hence, he was treated as hostile to the prosecution.

P.W. 6 was cultivating the land of the complainant, P.W. 1 to the extent of 13 guntas. He also speaks to the fact that the appellant was telling to him not to cultivate the said land and give up possession thereof.

P.W. 7 is the scribe of the complaint given by the complainant, P.W. 1 to the police as per Ex. P. 1. According to him on 17-3-1995 at about 2.30 or 3.00 p.m. while he was returning to the house, P.W. 1 informed him that the accused had assaulted her son and requested him to accompany her to the police station for filing the complaint. Accordingly as per the say of the complainant, P.W. 1, he wrote the contents of the complaint, Ex. P. 1. It bears the LTM of P.W. 1 and also his signature as a scribe at Ex. P. 1(a).

P.W. 8 is a resident of Modga Village and according to him, the accused had made an extra judicial confession to him and also sought for his assistance to approach the police.

P.W. 9 is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 18-3-1995 between 9.00 a.m. and 12.00 noon. He found the following injuries.- (1) There was an incised (cut) injury from the right angle of the mouth on right cheek about 7 cms. x 3 cms. skin deep plenty of blood clots were present.

(2) There was an incised injury on right side of the neck 8 cms. x 6 cms. bone deep fracture of the cervical bones tendons and carotid artery cut plenty of blood clots were present.

(3) Head injury on right temporal region 3 cms. x 1 cm. skull fracture were present.

(4) Left little finger was cut and hanging. At the base or the thumb incised injury 11/2"x 1/2".

The internal injuries that were found by the Doctor, P.W. 9 are the following:

Internal injuries.- Cranium and Spinal Canal Head injury on right temporal region 3 cms. x 1 cm. fracture of skull was present. Right temporal membrane of brain was cut. Cut injury on right temporal region of brain blood clots were present.

As to the cause of death, the Doctor, P.W. 9 has opined that the death of the deceased was due to haemorrahage and shock as a result of the injury to the brain, neck and right cheek and that such injuries could be caused by a sharp heavy weapon. The Doctor, P.W. 9 had further examined the sickle 1 and has furnished his opinion as per Ex. P. 5 to the effect that the injuries found on the decease could be caused by a weapon like the sickle, M.O. 1. Ex. P. 4 is the post-mortem report issued by the Doctor, P.W. 9 in respect of the deceased.

P.W. 10 is the doctor who had examined the complainant, P.W. 1 for her injuries on 17-3-1995 at the Civil Hospital in Belgaum.

P.W. 11 is a panch witness for the inquest proceedings held on the dead body of the deceased as per the inquest report Ex. P. 8 and also for the spot panchanama, Ex. P. 9.

P.W. 12 is the Police Constable, who after the post-mortem examination was conducted, produced the articles that were found on the dead body of the deceased as per M.Os. 2 to 6 before the SHO and they were seized under a panchanama, Ex. P. 10.

P.W. 13 is a panch witness for the recovery of the sickle, M.O. 1 at the instance of the accused under a panchanama Ex. P. 11.

P.W. 14 is the head constable who had taken the dead body of the deceased for its post-mortem examination to the Medical Officer and he also produced M.Os. 2 to 6 before the CPI.

P.W. 15 is the Head Constable who had carried the articles for their chemical examination to the FSL at Bangalore.

P.W. 16 is the Head Constable who collected the ROR in respect of Sy. No. 97/4 and the property register extract in respect of the property bearing No. 75 which are as per Exs. P. 16 and P. 17 from the Competent Authorities.

P.W. 17 is the carrier of the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate. He was entrusted with the FIR on 17-3-1995 and accordingly he delivered the FIR the same day at about 10.00 p.m.

P.Ws. 18 and 19 are the Investigating Officers.

The report of the chemical examiner received from the FSL, Bangalore as per Ex. P. 23 would show that all the four articles that were sent to the chemical examiner including the sickle, M.O. 1 which was recovered at the instance of the accused, were found to be stained with blood. Above is the summary of the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the Trial Court.

The accused, when examined under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C., has denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. He would however admit in the course of his statement under Section 313 of the Cr. P.C. that the deceased Yamunappa is the son of his younger brother and P.W. 1-Smt. Parvathi is the wife of his younger brother. With regard to question No. 4 that after the death of her husband, P.W. 1 had been residing in a house consisting of two rooms with a main door, he would say that they were all living jointly. But again with regard to question No. 5 that he is residing in some other portion of the same house, the accused would admit this fact. The accused would further admit that the complainant P.W 1 had been given 13 guntas of land by way of her husband''s share. He would also admit that P.W. 1-Parvathi had permitted P.W. 6 to cultivate the said land on her behalf. Thus, the accused would admit that he had been residing in some other portion of the same house; and that an extent of 13 guntas of land given to P.W. 1 towards her husband''s share had been given by P.W. 1 to P.W. 6 for cultivation.

The Trial Court, on consideration of the entire evidence placed on record and after hearing the arguments on both sides, has convicted and sentenced the accused as stated supra. Hence, this appeal by the convicted accused.

Learned Amicus Curiae, Sri Omar Shariff who was invited by us to argue the case on behalf of the appellant has contended that the version of P.W. 2 in Court contradicts with the version of the complainant, P.W. 1. According to the learned Amicus Curiae, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is inter se inconsistent and hence no implicit reliance can be placed on the evidence of P.W. 1. Further, while drawing our attention to the evidence of P.W. 2 that at about 12.30 p.m. One Mallappa had been to the police station and by about 2.00 or 3.00 p.m. the police had arrived at the spot, he contended that there must be some other information to the police regarding this incident, which has been clearly suppressed by the prosecution. He also contended that having regard to the above evidence of P.W. 2, the incident in question could not have occurred at the time as alleged by the prosecution. He therefore, contended that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is neither satisfactory nor sufficient to convict the accused for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC.

As against this the learned State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State has vehemently contended that the evidence of P.W. 2 that one Mallappa had gone to the police station at about 12.30 p.m. is to be ignored in view of the fact that the incident in question itself had taken place at about 3.00 or 3.30 p.m. He further contended that having regard to the positive evidence of the complainant, P.W. 1, it cannot be presumed that the incident in question would have occurred earlier to the time alleged by her. According to the learned State Public Prosecutor the evidence of P.W. 1 is quite consistent and straightforward and hence her evidence cannot be rejected, and more so when the incident in question had occurred in the house. He also contended that P.W. 1 being an injured eye-witness, her evidence is entitled to more weight. He contended that though the complainant, P.W. 1 is the mother of the deceased and her evidence required to be scrutinised with care and caution, the evidence of P.W. 1 has not been shaken in the cross-examination and further it is corroborated by the other evidence on record including the medical evidence. He further contended that the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court warrants no interference in the appeal.

In the light of the submissions made on both sides, we shall now proceed to consider the question whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction of the Trial Court needs no interference in the appeal by this Court.

It is amply proved from the medical evidence on record that the deceased Yamunappa who was hardly aged about 11 or 12 years, died of violence. The inquest proceedings were held on the dead body of the deceased in front of the house No. 74 of the deceased at Modga Village in Lakshmi Galli as per the inquest report Ex. P. 8, which stands proved from the evidence of the PSI, P.W. 19 and P.W. 11, a witness to the inquest proceedings. From the above evidence placed on record as well as the other proved circumstances in the case, it can safely be concluded that the deceased Yamunappa died of violence on 17-3-1995 at their house situated in Lakshmi Galli in Modga Village.

Likewise the evidence of the Doctor, P.W. 10 and the wound certificate, Ex. P. 6 issued by the doctor would show that when he had examined the complainant, P.W. 1 on 17-3-1995, he found on her person the two injuries, both of them were cut lacerations and they were located on the medial side of the right little finger and another on the base of the left index finger. Both these injuries, in the opinion of the Doctor, P.W. 10, could be caused if a person were to stretch his or her hands while trying to avoid the blow from the sickle. The said opinion furnished by the Doctor, P.W. 10 cannot be doubted having regard to the nature and the location of the injuries found on the person of the injured P.W. 1. In the cross-examination done on behalf of the accused, the Doctor, P.W. 10 has stated that the injured P.W. 1 was admitted as an inpatient on 17-3-1995 and she went out of the hospital against the medical advise on 19-3-1995. He has dearly denied the suggestion that such injuries could be caused while working in the field. True, he would however accept the suggestion made by the defence that they could be self inflicted. But then the evidence of the Doctor, P.W. 10 is to be read in conjunction with the other circumstances appearing in the case and it cannot be read in isolation. The injured P.W. 1 has clearly stated that they were sustained when she went to the rescue of her son deceased Yamunappa. She has clearly denied the defence suggestion that she had sustained these injuries while working in the field. There is no suggestion to the injured P.W. 1 by the defence that they were self-inflicted injuries. Even the evidence of P.W. 2-Nagesh would reveal that P.W. 1 had also sustained injuries to her person at the time of the alleged incident. Therefore, it leaves no doubt that the complainant, P.W. 1 had sustained injuries in the course of the same transaction in which her son Yamunappa had been killed. The report received from the medical examiner as per Ex.P. 23 would show that the sickle or Kudagolu, M.O. 1 had been stained with blood on the blade portion. That is to say, the weapon, M.O. 1 was found to be bloodstained on the blade.

With this backdrop, let us now go into the core of the matter in order to ascertain whether the case of the prosecution is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The probative items placed before the Court by the prosecution, there is no defence evidence adduced, falls into three categories. Firstly, we have the eye-witness account of the mortal attack as given by the injured eye-witness, P.W. 1 and others. Secondly, the motive for the accused to commit the crime. The last set of incriminating fact is the discovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act of the sickle, M.O. 1 pursuant to the statement made by the accused, supported by the evidence of the Investigating Officer and P.W. 13, and the report of the chemical examiner, Ex. P. 23 as well as the evidence of the two doctors P.Ws. 9 and 10.

The venue of the incident is the house of the deceased. P.W. 1 is the mother of the deceased. It is not in dispute that the complainant, P.W. 1 and her son deceased Yamunappa were residing in one portion of the house and in the other portion, the accused had been residing along with his wife and children. The scene of murder is rural, the witnesses to the case are rustics and so their behavioural pattern and perceptive habits have to be judged as such. Further while scanning the evidence of the various witnesses we have to be reminded that variances on fringes, discrepancies in details, contradictions in narrations and embellishments in inessential parts cannot militate against the veracity of the core of the testimony, provided there is impress of truth and conformity to the probability in the substantial fabric of the testimony delivered in Court. In this connection, a reference may be made to the observation made by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Leela Ram (dead) through Dull Chand v State of Haryana, 2000 SCC (Cri.) 222, which reads thus:

It is well-settled that any irregularity or even an illegality during investigation ought not to be treated as a ground to reject the prosecution case. Although the High Court is within its jurisdiction as the first Appellate Court to reappraise the evidence, but the discrepancies found in the ocular account of the witnesses unless they are so vital, cannot affect the credibility of the evidence of the witnesses. There are bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. Incidentally corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefor should not render the evidence of eye-witnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence.

One hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain some exaggeration or embellishment-sometimes there could even be a deliberate attempt to offer embellishment and sometimes in their over anxiety they may give a slightly exaggerated account. The Court can sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. Total repulsion of the evidence is unnecessary. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. If this element is satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence, in the mind of the Court to accept the stated evidence though not however in the absence of the same.

Different witnesses react differently under different situations: Whereas, some become speechless, some start wailing while some others run away from the scene and yet there are some who may come forward with courage, conviction and belief that the wrong should be remedied. As a matter of fact it depends upon individuals and individuals. There cannot be any set pattern or uniform rule of human reaction and to discard a piece of evidence on the ground of his reaction not falling within a set pattern is unproductive and a pedantic exercise.

Whether, there was one shot or two shots is immaterial in the matter of assessing the culpability of the accused. The son who saw his father had been shot at and thereafter fell dead total stunning effect on the son and it is on this score that mere hairsplitting on the available evidence ought not to be undertaken and instead the totality of the situation ought to have been reviewed. The empty cartridges were found and the ballistic expert''s report that the cartridge match with the injury. The High Court erred in ascribing this to be an immaterial piece of evidence. The ballistic expert''s evidence cannot be brushed aside since that is in the normal course of events, a valuable material vis-a-vis the use of the gun and the injury. The contradictions found by the High Court from the Medical evidence does not find support from the evidence on record. The inconsistency between the doctor''s evidence and that of the eye-witnesses is not of such a nature so as to effect the creditworthiness or the trustworthiness of the witness. The contradiction at its highest cannot but be stated to be in regard to a minor incident and does not travel to the root of the nature of the offence. Incidentally, the Sarpanch also stated that there were two gunshot sounds which he heard. There is thus no discrepancy in the totality of the situation and witnesses without any major contradiction deposed before the Court of session with an unbiased mind and in a manner which unmistakably point to the guilt of the accused and the appreciation of evidence by the High Court was wholly unwarranted, improper and unimaginative in the contextual facts.

The ocular account though may have been given by the son and the brother-in-law it does not by itself lose its efficacy or its evidentiary value unless some other factor is brought on record to discredit the creditworthiness of the witnesses. On the facts of the matter under consideration, the presence of ''L'' being the son of the deceased is quite natural. Similar was the position as regards the presence of ''K'', brother-in-law of the deceased, who has lodged a complaint to the panchayat. Evidence of both the eye-witnesses stands fully corroborated by the Sarpanch who is an independent witness. The High Court has doubted the veracity of his evidence only on the ground that the brother of the accused once lost election against the witness. But, that was too feeble a ground to doubt the evidence of the Sarpanch.

Further, a close relative of the deceased in a murder case, who is a very natural witness, cannot be regarded as an interested witness. Ordinarily a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person.

The complainant, P.W. 1 and her son deceased Yamunappa were the only two persons who were residing in a portion of the house. The other portion of house being in the occupation of the accused and his wife and children, we cannot expect that the wife and children to come and depose against the accused. The accused also did not state as to how the death of the deceased had occurred. Then, the only person who speaks of the occurrence is the complainant, P.W. 1, the mother of the deceased. It has to be remembered that the complainant, P.W. 1 besides being a complainant, is also an injured eye-witness. Regarding the incident, she has clearly stated in her evidence before the Court that on that fateful day at about 2.30 p.m. a calf of her she buffaloo had gone to the area where the accused was residing. Her son deceased Yamunappa called and told her that their calf had gone into the area of the accused and that the accused had beat the calf. Then, she went near the calf saying that in case the accused intend to beat the calf, he can do so. Then her son was sitting inside the house. The accused who was sitting on the katta or the pial of the house, went inside the house and brought a sickle and hit on the right side of the neck of her son. When she went to the rescue of her son, she was also assaulted by the accused with the same sickle and she sustained injuries to her hands. Then, she brought her son outside the house and placed him near the katta. At that time the wife and the daughter of the accused were both present inside the house by the time she could bring her son outside, he had already expired.

Then, P.W. 2-Nagesh and P.W. 5-Mahadev also came there. In the meanwhile, the accused ran towards the sugarcane field. P.Ws. 10 and 13 tried to catch hold of the accused. Then, she has stated that she went to the police station and lodged her complaint, Ex. P. 1 which she got it written by P.W. 7. In this context the evidence of P.W. 7 shows that on 17-3-1995 at about 2.30 p.m. or so while he was returning to his house from the place of his work, P.W. 1 met him and told that the accused had assaulted her son and she further requested him to come along with her to the police station to lodge a complaint with the police. Accordingly, as per the say of the complainant, P.W. 1, he wrote the contents or drafted the complaint and P.W. 1 put her LTM thereon and he also put his signature as its scribe. P.W. 19 is the PSI who had received the written complaint of P.W. 1 as per Ex. P. 1 at about 4.30 p.m. in the police station which was situated at a distance of about 6 kms. from the place of incident. The incident in question took place at about 3.00 or 3.30 p.m. Therefore, the complaint was lodged within an hour of the incident. It has to be pointed out that for P.W. 1, who is a widow, it was her only son who was killed mercilessly right in front of her eyes.

If she had taken sometime say about an hour or so to compose herself to go to the police station for lodging a complaint after getting it written from P.W. 7, it only sounds natural conduct of a bereaved mother in the aforesaid circumstances. Further, when there were no male members in the family of P.W. 1 who was grief stricken, it was but natural that P.W. 1 should consult or talk about the giving of the complaint to the police and get the same drafted through P.W. 7. This fact and the fact that the complaint, Ex. P. 1 was got prepared through P.W. 7 can hardly be a ground to weaken the prosecution case. In this connection a reference may be made to a decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v Nahar Singh (dead) and Others, AIR 1998 SC 1328. In our view, the evidence of the complainant, P.W. 1 is quiet convincing and trustworthy. When once the evidence of the complainant, P.W. 1 is held and found to be trustworthy, then there does not seem to be any cogent reason for not acting upon her evidence. The fact that the other persons who were present at the spot and had witnessed the occurrence have without any good reason and perhaps with oblique motive chosen not to State the truth in Court and thereby to obstruct the course of justice would in our opinion provide a sound reason for accepting the testimony of P.W. 1 for sustaining the conviction of the accused. To decline to act upon the testimony of the complainant, P.W. 1 merely because of the absence of other witnesses to corroborate her in Court, is to defeat the cause of justice in this case. Further, it is wholly unreasonable to dub the evidence of P.W. 1 as an interested witness. We find no good reason to reject her testimony regarding the occurrence.

There is, we think, absolutely no justification for the view that her testimony leaves any scope for reasonable doubt about the complicity of the accused in the crime. Because of her relationship with the deceased she cannot be considered to be inclined to spare the real assailant for falsely involving the accused and indeed in the circumstances of this case, there is hardly any scope for such a hypothesis. To us there appears an intrinsic ring of truth in the statement of P.W. 1 which disclose no infirmity. There is no general rule that the evidence of the relations of the deceased must be corroborated for securing the conviction of the accused. Each case depends on its own facts and circumstances. In the instant case, the straight forward nature of deposition of P.W. 1 and the fact that she being a natural and probable witness to the occurrence coupled with the recovery of the sickle which was used in the commission of the offence leaves no reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused. The evidence of the complainant, P.W. 1 is in conformity with the FIR, Ex. P. 1 and the medical evidence in the case also supports her evidence regarding the occurrence. The discrepancies found in the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are not so vital so as to discredit her evidence regarding the occurrence.

The said discrepancies pointed out in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 only speak about the gullible nature or the innocence of the rustic villagers. It has to pointed out that there are bound to be certain discrepancies in the ocular account of the witnesses and unless they are so vital, they cannot affect the credibility of the evidence of the witnesses. To repeat, there are bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to discredit the evidence in its entirety. Corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. One hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain some exaggerations or embellishments and sometimes there could even be a deliberate attempt to offer embellishment and sometimes in their over anxiety, they may give a slightly exaggerated account. In that situation, the Court can sift and chaff from the grain ad find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. Total rejection of the evidence is unnecessary. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of its trustworthiness. If this element is satisfied, it ought to inspire the confidence in the mind of the Court to accept the testimony given in Court. Incidentally, it may be stated that different witnesses react differently under different situations. As a matter of fact it depends upon individuals and individuals. There cannot be any set pattern or uniform rule of human reaction. The ocular account though may have been given by the mother, it does not by itself lose its efficacy or its evidentiary value especially when there is nothing to discredit her evidence. On the facts of the matter under consideration, the presence of P.W. 1 being the mother of the deceased is quite natural and probable. The ocular account given by the complainant, P.W. 1 regarding the occurrence appears to be quite trustworthy and acceptable.

On the facts and circumstances of this case, the presence of the complainant, P.W. 1 being the mother of the deceased is quite natural especially when the incident in question had occurred at or near the house of the complainant, P.W. 1 and the accused. There is absolutely no good reason to doubt the veracity of the complainant, P.W. 1 regarding her evidence in Court.

P.W. 2-Nagesh is a neighbour of the complainant, P.W. 1. He has stated that on 17-3-1995 at about 2.30 or 3.00 p.m. while he was in the neighbouring shop, he heard the cries of the complainant, P.W. 1 and came out. He has stated that the accused had assaulted the deceased on the right side of his neck and cheek and as a result of the injuries sustained by the deceased including the one on hand, the deceased had died on the spot. He has also stated that when the complainant, P.W. 1 tried to snatch the sickle from the hands of the accused, he ran away from the spot into the sugarcane field. Then, the two persons by name Vittal and Mahadev tired to catch hold of the accused, but they did not succeed. No doubt, under the cross-examination, he had obliged the accused with certain answers. But that by itself will not discredit his testimony in the chief examination. There is absolutely no basis for P.W. 2 to say that himself and C.W. 19 told the police to write the complaint. This is becasue the complaint in respect of this incident was given by the complainant, P.W. 1 to the police at about 4.30 p.m. in the evening and the same was got prepared by P.W. 1 through P.W. 7. It is no doubt true that P.W. 2 had stated in his cross-examination that at about 12.30 p.m. Mallappa had gone to the police station and by about 2.00 or 3.00 p.m. the police had arrived on the spot. This could not be correct because he himself states that the incident in question had occurred at about 2.30 or 3.00 p.m. while he was sitting in the shop. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, no significance can be attached to the statement made by P.W. 2 in his cross-examination that at about 12.30 itself one Mallappa had gone to the police station. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned State Public Prosecutor, this on the face of it appears to be incredible because the incident itself took place at about 2.30 p.m. even according to the P.W. 2 himself. Therefore, we find no merit in the contention of the learned Amicus Curiae that the police had come to the spot on the basis of some other information received by them in respect of this incident and this information has been suppressed by the prosecution.

P.W. 4 is also a resident of the same village. He was residing at some distance from the house of P.W. 1. He has stated in his evidence that on that relevant date at about 3.00 p.m. while he was in his house, he heard the shouts and came out of the house. He saw the accused committing assault on the deceased with a sickle and running away from the spot. Both he and Mahadev chased the accused but they could not catch him. No doubt in the cross-examination, he has stated that when he came out of the house, the villagers were trying to catch hold of the accused and also asked him to catch the accused. But, that by itself does not show that he could not be an eye-witness to the incident. This would also show that he is trying to oblige the accused by giving certain favourable answers in the cross-examination.

Although these witnesses showed the tendency to help or oblige the accused by giving certain favourable answers to the accused in their cross-examination, they could completely hide the truth. To the extent that they have supported the case of the prosecution will lend sufficient assurance to the story of the prosecution as narrated by the complainant, P.W. 1. As we have already stated merely because there are certain discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of some or all of the witnesses, it does not mean that the entire evidence of the prosecution has to be discarded. It is only if, after exercising caution and care and sifting the evidence to separate the truth from untruth, exaggeration, embellishments and improvements, the Court can come to the conclusion that what can be accepted implicates the accused, it will convict him. The maxim, "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" is not a sound rule for the reason that hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain grain of untruth or at any rate exaggerations and embellishments. In most of the cases, the witnesses when asked about details venture to give some answer not necessarily true or relevant for fear that their evidence may not be accepted in respect of the main incident which they have witnessed, but that is not to say that their evidence as to the salient features of the case after cautious scrutiny cannot be considered though where the substratum of the prosecution case or material part of the evidence is disbelieved, it will not be permissible for the Court to reconstruct a story of its own out of the rest. For these reasons, therefore, we are unable to reject the evidence of P.W. 1 merely on the ground that she is the mother of the deceased. We have ourselves carefully gone through the entire evidence of the complainant, P.W. 1 and we find that shorn of a few embellishments here and there, her testimony has a ring of truth, a colour of consistency and a sense of straightforwardness, as a result of which her evidence inspires confidence. She has given a clear description of what she had seen. In these circumstances, therefore, we do not see any reasons to discard the evidence of P.W. 1. Thus, once the evidence of the complainant, P.W. 1 is believed, the prosecution case stands proved, apart from anything else. It will however appear that the prosecution had lead circumstantial evidence to support the intrinsic evidence given by P.W. 1. The fact that the incident in question took place at the house of the deceased, the presence of the complainant, P.W. 1 being the mother of the deceased, at the place of incident, cannot be ruled out. So also the presence of the accused cannot be ruled out at the place of incident in view of the fact that he had also been residing in a portion of the same house at the relevant time of this incident. There is absolutely no explanation on the part of the accused as to how the deceased had sustained the injuries which resulted in his death especially when he is also one of the inmates of the same house, of course in a different portion. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt the ocular evidence of the complainant, P.W. 1 showing the involvement of the accused in the crime.

In a murder trial even if motive is not proved, if the evidence of the eye-witness is accepted, the question of motive pales into insignificance and becomes absolutely academic. But it must however be remembered that lust for land is a very sensitive matter. There are a very large number of cases resulting in serious disputes culminating in murders over small land disputes. In the instant case, the evidence of both P.W. 1 and P.W. 6, would show that the accused did not like the land that he had given to P.W. 1 towards the share of her deceased husband to an extent of 13 guntas being cultivated by a stranger like P.W. 6 and he wanted it to be given to him only for cultivation. Thus, he had some sort of dissatisfaction towards the complainant, P.W. 1 in getting the land cultivated through P.W. 6. That is to say he was wholly dissatisfied with the arrangement made between the complainant, P.W. 1 and P.W. 6 regarding the cultivation of the land that was given to P.W. 1 towards the share of her deceased husband. When, the prosecution has succeeded in showing the possibility of some ire for the accused towards the deceased and his mother, the inability to further to put on record the manner in which such ire would have swelled up in the mind of the accused to such a degree as to impel him to commit the offence cannot be construed as a fatal weakness in the prosecution case. It is almost an impossibility for the prosecution to unravel the full dimension of the mental disposition of an offender towards the person whom he had killed or injured. Motive for doing a criminal act is generally a difficult area for prosecution. One cannot normally see into the mind of another. Motive is the emotion which impels a man to do a particular act. Such impelling cause need not necessarily be proportionally grave to do grave crimes. Many a murder has been committed without any known or prominent motive. It is quite possible that the aforesaid impelling factor would remain undiscoverable.

Be that as it may. This is a case where the prosecution in our view has succeeded in showing that the accused had some ire or dislike towards the family of P.W. 1 in their getting the land cultivated through P.W. 6. Such a motive may appear to some persons as inadequate for liquidating one''s own relatives. But any rancour burgeoning in the mind of an offender can foment wicked thoughts which may even flame upto flash point. The Court cannot fathom the mental disposition of the accused nor to rule out the possibility of some cause of immediate provocation for the accused. In fact, even on the day of the incident, when the calf of the she buffalo had strayed into the area of the accused, he appears to have beat it and the same being told by the deceased to his mother, she came out and having gone near the calf she told the accused to beat the calf, if he so desires. This might have further irritated the accused who was already fuming with anger in her getting the land cultivated through P.W. 6, a stranger to the family. Therefore, the motive attributed to the accused for such act cannot be considered to be fragile or weak. Even if the motive is not accepted or proved, when the evidence of the eye-witness, P.W. 1 is accepted, the question of motive pales into insignificance.

Now coming to the circumstance regarding the recovery, it has come in the evidence that immediately after committing assault, the accused ran away from the spot along with the weapon (sickle) and disappeared into the sugarcane field. He could not be caught despite the efforts made by some of the persons who were attracted to the spot on hearing the cries of the complainant, P.W. 1. The evidence of the Investigating Officer, P.W. 18 would show that on 4-4-1995, the accused was produced before him by the PSI and he caused his arrest. He has further stated that the accused when interrogated by him made a voluntary statement as per Ex. P. 21. In consequence of such statement, he got recovered the sickle, M.O. 1 from the place where it was concealed and the same was seized under Ex. P. 11. P.W. 13 is the panch witness for the recovery of the sickle, M.O. 1. Therefore, the recovery is proved through the evidence of the Investigating Officer-P.W. 18 and the panch witness, P.W. 13. The medical evidence does not rule out the possibility of the injuries found on the deceased being caused with the sickle, M.O. 1. Further the report of the chemical examiner, Ex. P. 23 would show that all the incriminating articles including the sickle, M.O. 1 were stained with blood. In the circumstances, the abscondence as well as the recovery of the sickle, M.O. 1 with which the deceased and P.W. 1 were assaulted, at the instance of the accused stand proved.

Thus, the prosecution in our view has successfully proved its case against the accused and hence the Trial Court was justified in finding that the accused is responsible for causing the death of the deceased Yamunappa and also injuries to the complainant, P.W. 1 with a sickle on that fateful day in or near the house of the deceased.

We therefore, find no merit in this appeal filed by the appellant and it is accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction as well as the sentence passed by the Trial Court is hereby confirmed.

We place on record the assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae Sri Omar Sheriff and we fix his fee at Rs. 1,000/- for the assistance rendered by him in the case.