8. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the conduct of PW-1 - Selvam is such that it shows that he was not present at the time of the incident. In order to support this contention, he has placed reliance on the evidence of PW-1 - Selvam, which shows that he did not intervene, when the appellant assaulted Thangammal and he has not taken his mother - Thangammal to the hospital. As far as this submission is concerned, the evidence of PW-1 - Selvam shows that on account of fear, he did not go near his mother, because, he was criminally intimidated by the appellant. How a person will react in any particular situation cannot be fixed in a straight jacket formula. In a given situation, each person will react in a different way. Reaction varies from individual to individual. A person may rush to help the victim; a person may run away from the spot due to fear or a person may stand back silently and do nothing. Looking to the fact that the appellant had earlier murdered his own father and had just murdered his own mother and the fact that the appellant had criminally intimidated PW-1 - Selvam, it was not expected from PW1 - Selvam that he would go forward to intervene. This is more especially so looking to the history of the appellant that he had earlier murdered his very own father on account of land dispute and on this occasion, the appellant murdered his mother, hence, naturally, there would be every apprehension in the mind of PW-1 - Selvam that the appellant would also assault him and cause his death, if he intervened. It is in these circumstances that PW-1 - Selvam did not intervene. Thus, we do not find anything unnatural in the conduct of PW-1 - Selvam in not coming forward to intervene, when his mother was assaulted.
