Judgment : PADMINI JESUDURAI J. ( 1 ) THESE appealsare preferred by Accused 2 and Accused 1 respectively, challenging their conviction under Section 325 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing them each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-in S. C. No. 54 of 1985 by the Sessions Judge, Thanjavur. ( 2 ) THE appellants, who will hereafter be referred to as ranked in the Trial Court, were tried by the Sessions Judge for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I. P. C. on the allegation that on 9. 7. 1984, at about 8. 30 P. M. in the village Minnathur, they caused the death of one Pechimuthu by each beating him with a casuarina stick -M. Os. 1 and 2. ( 3 ) THE prosecution case was briefly as follows: The deceased was living opposite to the house of P. W. I, whose wife is P. W. 2. P. W. 3 is their daughter. Accused 2 belongs to the village Velupatty and had come to the scene village Minmithur, as a guest to the house of Accused-I, who was his cousin. The house of P. W. 1 was a little away from the house of the deceased. On the day of the occurrence at about 8. 30 P. M. , P. W. I was tying his cattle in his backyard, when he heard noise in the house of the deceased. He turned that side and found that a sheep belonging to the deceased had strayed into the house of Accused-I and the son-in-law of Accused-I had beaten the sheep and driven it away and was abusing P. W. 2. Because of this, there was a wordy altercation between the son-in-law of Accused I and P. W. 2. P. W. 2 informed about this to her husband P. W. 1. The deceased intervened and questioned as to how after beating the sheep, they could also abuse. Immediately Accused-I and 2 ran inside the house and brought M. Os. 1 and 2 casuarina sticks and questioning how the deceased could answer in such a rude language, gave a blow each on the head, with the casuarina stick. The deceased fell down on the spot and Accused-I and 2 along with M. Os. 1 and 2 ran away from the scene. 1 and 2 casuarina sticks and questioning how the deceased could answer in such a rude language, gave a blow each on the head, with the casuarina stick. The deceased fell down on the spot and Accused-I and 2 along with M. Os. 1 and 2 ran away from the scene. P. W. 1 found the deceased dead. There was light to witness the occurrence. Within ten minutes there was heavy rain and hence the body of the deceased was brought to the pail of the house of P. W. 1 at 11. P. M. after the rain stopped. P. W. 1 went to the Vallam police station and gave a report EX. P1 to the sub Inspector of Police which was registered as Crime No. 213 of 1984 for an offence under Section 302 I. P. C. P. W. 11, the Inspector on receipt of intimation went to the scene of occurrence and since it was dark, he commenced inquest and other investigation, the next morning. He examined witnesses, held inquest, seized the incriminating articles under mahazars and sent the body for post mortem. ( 4 ) P. W. 9, the Professor of Forensic Science, Tanjavur Medical College Hospital, Tanjavur, conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased on 10. 7. 1984 at about 10. 00 A. M. He found on the body the following injuries described by him in Exhibit P. 8. Appearances found at the postmortem. Well nourished body of a male. Ext. Injury: Lacerated injury over right parietal region of 9 cm. in length and 0. 5. c. m. in width bone deep with surrounding area of contusion. On exploration of the above mentioned wound, the underlying scalp muscles have effusion of blood. Skull: An irregular fracture is seen, involving the right parietal and right temporal bone, right middle cranial fossa, sub dural haemorrhage gilome and blood clot 100 gms. present over both hemispheres. Internal Organs: Stomach contains 300 gms. of undigested rice. No odour. Mucosa pale. Intestine: No lesion, empty. Heart: empty, No lesion. Blood mussels are normal. Lungs, Liver, Kidneys are pale. No lesion. Brain pale. No lesion. Urinary bladder contains 300 ml. of urine, Genital organs Normal. Viscera and blood preserved for chemical analysis. According to him, the injuries could have been caused in the manner and time alleged and was necessarily fatal and death was due to that. Blood mussels are normal. Lungs, Liver, Kidneys are pale. No lesion. Brain pale. No lesion. Urinary bladder contains 300 ml. of urine, Genital organs Normal. Viscera and blood preserved for chemical analysis. According to him, the injuries could have been caused in the manner and time alleged and was necessarily fatal and death was due to that. P. W. 11 continued the investigation and on 17. 11. 1984 at 7. 00 a. m. he arrested the accused in the presence of P. W. 7. Each one volunteered information as per Exhibit P4 and on their information M. Os. 1 and 2 were produced, which were seized under mahazar Exhibit P 6, attested by P. W. 7. After completing investigation, charge sheet was laid. ( 5 ) DURING trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws. l to 11 were examined. Exhibits P. 1 to P. 19 marked and M. Os. 1 to 6 produced. The accused denied complicity with the crime. ( 6 ) THE learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case, but held that the occurrence had taken place in a sudden quarrel in the heat of passion and the accused were entitled to the, benefit of Exception 3 to Section 300 I. P. C. Since there was doubt as to whose blow had caused the fatal effect, he held that the offence committed by Accused;- I and 2 would fall only under Section 325 read with Section 354 I. P. C. , convicted them and sentenced them as stated earlier. Aggrieved with the conviction and sentence, this appeal is filed. ( 7 ) THIRU M. Jegadeesan, learned counsel for the first appellant challenged the aspect of light said to have been available at the time of occurrence. According to the learned counsel, the hurricane light said to have been burning, had not been seized and there could not have been much of a moon light, as put forward by the witnesses since it is the admitted case, that there had been rain immediately after the occurrence and the sky must have been cloudy, with the possibility of the sheep straying into the house of Accused-I, because even at that time it had been raining. The learned counsel also urged that P. W. 11 had referred to a phone message having been received by him, on the basis of which he had acted and this phone message was not placed before court and that would be the earliest document in the case. Finally, the learned counsel laid great emphasis upon the inherent, improbability in the prosecution case that the medical officer P. W. 9 who conducted postmortem had found only one external injury on the deceased and certain internal injuries which corresponded to only one external injury and this would totally discredit the prosecution case that both A 1 and A 2 gave a blow each with the casuarina stick, exactly on the same place on the head of the deceased. The learned counsel therefore contended that the occurrence could not have happened in the way spoken to by P. Ws. 1 and 2. ( 8 ) THIRU G. Sugumaran, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd appellant also urged the same points challenging the conviction. ( 9 ) PER contra, the learned Public Prosecutor by referring to the salient features of the prosecution case sought to sustain the conviction and sentence. ( 10 ) THE question that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved its case for the offence committed. ( 11 ) IT is needless to go into the several of the points urged by the learned counsel for the appellants in view of the fact that the last of the contentions put forward by the learned counsel deserves acceptance. According to P. Ws. 1 and 2 who are eye witnesses to the occurrence, both the accused came with one casuarina stick each and each gave one blow on the head of the deceased It is stated that Accused-I gave the first blow and thereafter Accused-2 gave the blow, exactly on the same place wherein 1st Accuseds blow had fallen. However, we find from the evidence of P. W. 9, the Medical Officer who conducted the post-mortem that he has found only one external injury on the deceased. It is a lacerated injury over the right parietal region 9 cm. in length and 0. 5. c. m. in width, bone deep with surrounding area of contusion. However, we find from the evidence of P. W. 9, the Medical Officer who conducted the post-mortem that he has found only one external injury on the deceased. It is a lacerated injury over the right parietal region 9 cm. in length and 0. 5. c. m. in width, bone deep with surrounding area of contusion. There are certain internal injuries, the more serious of which are fracture of the right parietal bone, right temporal bone, and right middle cranial fossa, and sub dural haemorrhage. ( 12 ) EVEN in chief examination, P. W. 9 has stated that there was a possibility of this one injury having been caused by a single blow and though he cannot deny that, even if two blows had fallen on the same place on the head, these injuries could have been caused, yet the probabilities are that only one blow could have caused these injuries. When further pursued in cross-examination, he has stated that, if two different persons with two separate sticks, beat on the head giving one blow each, two separate injuries on the head must have been caused, and that, in the instant case, he found only one external injury and one internal injury corresponding to that external injury. When the evidence of the Medical Officer is so clear and explicit, it is futile on the part of the prosecution to contend that somehow Accused-I and 2 managed to give one blow each, on the deceased in such a way that both fell on the exact place, resulting in only one external injury with one corresponding internal injury. This theory is most improbable. If the prosecution case is true; there must have been two separate external injuries, with corresponding internal injuries depending on the force. The medical evidence totally rules out the prosecution case. ( 13 ) IT is in this context that we have to bear in mind that P. Ws. 1 and 2 are husband and wife interested in the case. There is no independent corroboration and it would be too risky to base a conviction on such interested testimony, when the medical evidence is against the prosecution. ( 14 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the accused regarding the light cannot also be brushed aside. Admittedly, the occurrence had taken place at night 9. There is no independent corroboration and it would be too risky to base a conviction on such interested testimony, when the medical evidence is against the prosecution. ( 14 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the accused regarding the light cannot also be brushed aside. Admittedly, the occurrence had taken place at night 9. 30 p. m. outside the house and if hurricane light was burning, the same should have been seized, that the court could know to what distance visibility would be available. Regarding the moon light that is put forward by the prosecution, immediately after the occurrence there had been a down pour of rain and the probabilities are that clouds must have overcast the sky before the rain actually fell. This rules out moon fight. Since it is a case of a single blow, at night time, it is quite possible that some known assailant has caused the vital blow and had escaped. The recovery of M. Os. 1 and 2 at the instance of Accused A 1 and A2 cannot be of much significance since no blood was seen on them. No doubt, the blow on the head would not cause much bleedings and there is little possibility of M. Os. 1 and 2 becoming blood stained. Whatever that be, the fact remains that M. Os. 1 and 2 by themselves are not connected with the crime. Considering all this and particularly in view of the fact that the medical evidence renders it impossible to accept the oral evidence, a considerable doubt is raised regarding the veracity of P. Ws. 1 and 2. The benefit of that doubt has to be given to the Accused 1 and 2. ( 15 ) IN the result, the appeals are allowed. The conviction of Accused 1 and 2 for the offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 I. P. C. and the sentence of imprisonment for a period of 5 years are set aside. The accused are acquitted and their bail bonds cancelled. Appeal allowed.