Judgment : ARUNACHALAM, J.: 1. A-1 to A-3 in S.C.No.30 of 1985 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore are the appellants. They were tried along with Velumani and John Sundaram arrayed as A-4 and A-5 in the same Sessions Case, for offences under Secs. 147, 148, 324, 323, 302 read with 109 and 302 read with 149,I.P.C. After elaborate trial, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted A-4 and A-5. A-1 was convicted under Sec.324, I.P.C., under charge 3 for having caused hurt to P.W.1 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.300 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. A-2 was convicted under Sec.323,I.P.C., for having caused simple hurt to P.W.2 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. A-3 was convicted under Sec.302, I.P.C., simpliciter and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He was also convicted under Sec.323,I.P.C, for having caused hurt to P. W.3 by biting him on the right elbow (charge 5) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. All the accused were acquitted of all other charges. 2. The learned Sessions Judge had totally framed 8 charges. The first charge was under Sec. 147, I.P.C., against A-2, A-4 and A-5 alleging that they along with other accused, formed themselves into unlawful assembly at or about 7.15 a.m. on 10.9.1984 at Saranga Nagar with the common object of causing the death of Mahendran and causing hurt to P. Ws.l to 3. Charge 2 was against, A-1 and A-3 under Sec.148, I.P.C., since during the course of the said transaction they were armed with an iron rod and pen knife respectively. The third charge was against A-1 under Sec.324,I.P.C., for having caused hurt to P.W.1 by beating him with an iron rod on his left thigh. The 4th charge was against A2 under Sec.323,1.P.C. for having caused simple hurt to P.W.2 by fisting her on her mouth. The 5th charge was framed against A-3 under Sec.323,I.P.C. for having caused simple hurt, below the right elbow of P.W.3 by biting that portion of the hand. The 6th charge was framed against A-3 under Sec.302, I.P.C., for having caused the death of Mahendran by stabbing him with a pen knife on his chest. The 5th charge was framed against A-3 under Sec.323,I.P.C. for having caused simple hurt, below the right elbow of P.W.3 by biting that portion of the hand. The 6th charge was framed against A-3 under Sec.302, I.P.C., for having caused the death of Mahendran by stabbing him with a pen knife on his chest. Charge 7 was framed against A-1, A-4 and A-5 under Sec.302 read with Sec. 109, I.P.C., alleging that A-1 and A-5 caught hold of the hands of the deceased while A-4 caught hold of the legs, to facilitate commiss ion of capital crime by A-3. The last charge was against A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5 under Sec.302 read with Sec. 149,I.P.C, relating to charge 6. 3. The prosecution case in brief needs narration P.W.1 Raju Naidu, is a resident of Perianaickenpalayam. P.W.2 Vasanthamani is his wife, while P.W.3 Damodarasamy is his son. Deceased Mahendran was the younger brother of P.W.3. About 10 or 15 days prior to occurrence, Kanakaraj, son of A-2 had obtained a loan of Rs.30 from Jayapal, another son of P.Ws.l and 2. A day prior to occurrence, a demand was made by Jayapal for the return of loan, from A-1 and A-2. There was an altercation between the parties. It also appears, that on the night prior to occurrence, there was a quarrel over again in which A-1 abused in vulgar language the prosecution party. However, P.W.1 pacified his sons, and went away to the house of his friend Duraisamy. It is in this background that the occurrence had taken place at or about 7.30 A.M. on the morning of 10.9.1984. P. W.1, who had gone over for his work, on the earlier night, was returning home at or about the occurrence time. He noticed the appellants and the other accused standing near the house of one Kalimuthu (not examined). On seeing P.W.1, A-3 exclaimed Immediately “TAMIL” A-1 beat P.W.1 on his left leg with an iron rod M.O.1. P.W.1 shouted and sat down. On hearing the hue and cry of P.W.1, the deceased, P. Ws.2, and 3 came over to the scene. P.W.2 questioned as to why P.W.1 was beaten. A-2 beat P.W.2 with her hand on her lip. P.W.2 also sat down. A-3 on the right hand of P.W.3. A-1 beat on the left forearm of the deceased with M.O.1. On hearing the hue and cry of P.W.1, the deceased, P. Ws.2, and 3 came over to the scene. P.W.2 questioned as to why P.W.1 was beaten. A-2 beat P.W.2 with her hand on her lip. P.W.2 also sat down. A-3 on the right hand of P.W.3. A-1 beat on the left forearm of the deceased with M.O.1. There after A-1 caught hold of the left hand of the deceased while A-5 caught hold of the right hand, leaving A-4 catch hold of his legs. Suddenly, A-3 ran over to his house, procured a pen knife M.O.2 and stabbed once on the chest of the deceased. The deceased fell down and died on the spot. the accused immediately made good their escape. F. Ws. 1 to 4 had witnessed this occurrence. P.Ws.l to 3 were also injured in the course of this Incident. P.W.1 proceeded to Perianaickenpalayam Police Station and preferred his complaint Ex.P-1 before the Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.10 Veluswamy. On Ex.P-1, P.W.10 registered Crime No.244 of 1984 under Secs. 147, 341, 324, 323 and 302,I.P.C. Ex.P-13 is the printed first information report. P.W.10 forwarded Exs.P.1 and P-13 to the committal court, while forwarding copies of Ex.P-13 to his superior officers. 4. P.W.ll Chelladurai, Inspector of Police, Perianaickenpalayam, on receipt of information of the registration of this Crime, proceeded to the scene of occurrence around 12.30 noon and prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P-14 and the scene sketch Ex.P-15. Between 1 p.m. and 4 p.m. he conducted inquest over the corpse of Mahendran during the course of which, he examined P.Ws.1 to 4. Ex.P-16 is. the inquest report. After inquest, he forwarded the dead body through P.W.8 police constable Prabakaran with a requisition Ex.P-4 to the Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore for the conduct of post mortem. 5. P.W.6 Dr.Natarajan, conducted autopsy at or about 10.35 A.M. on 11.9.1984. He noticed the following injuries. “Externalinjuries:1. Small irregular abrasions on the back of right elbow and lower part of right side of neck. 2. Elliptical incised wound in the upper part of front of-chest close to the midline directed downwards laterally from the midline measuring 7 cm. in length and 3 cm. width at the middle of the wound and its margins are uniformly regularand braised. The cartilage of the ribs underneath are exposed and is covered with dried blood clots. 3. Linear abrasion 12 cm. in length and 3 cm. width at the middle of the wound and its margins are uniformly regularand braised. The cartilage of the ribs underneath are exposed and is covered with dried blood clots. 3. Linear abrasion 12 cm. long on the back of left forearm.” It was noticed that external injury No.2 had cut through the subcutaneous tissues and had entered into the pericardium after cutting through. The costal cartilages of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th ribs close to sterno-costal border and the upper lobe of the left lung and the Pericardial membrane, were also found cut. Haematoma was seen in the under surface of the sternum. There was also a small laceration in the upper lobe of left lung underneath the cut portion of the 2nd rib. The pericardial membrane was found vertically cut for a distance of 3 cms. On the anterior aspect of the left ventricle, there was an incised wound 2 × 0.5 × cavity deep. The pericardium contained about 50 gm. clotted blood and 300 ml. fluid blood. There was no fracture of the skull. All the injuries were antemortem in nature. Death could have occurred about 24 to 36 hours prior to post-mortem. In the opinion of the doctor, the deceased had died of hemorrhage as a result of stab injury to the chest. Ex.P-5 is the post-mortem certificate. 6. P.W.7 Dr.Kanchana, examined P.W.1 at 5.10 p.m. for injuries stated to have been sustained, due to an attack with an iron wire at or about 7.20 a.m. She noticed two abrasions on the left thigh of P.W.1, 1” × 1/2” and 2” × 1/2”, respectively. The injuries were simple in nature. Ex.P-6 is the extract of the Accident Registrar. The same doctor examined P.W.2 at 5.20 p.m. for injuries sustained by her in the course of the same occurrence, due to an attack by a known person with hand. She complained of pain over upper jaw. Her teeth were found shaking. Ex.P-7 is the extract of the Accident Register. The injuries sustained by her were simple in nature. P.W.7 also examined P.W.3 at 5.50 p.m. and found on him an abrasion with teeth mark on the right forearm measuring 1” x 1”. She complained of pain over upper jaw. Her teeth were found shaking. Ex.P-7 is the extract of the Accident Register. The injuries sustained by her were simple in nature. P.W.7 also examined P.W.3 at 5.50 p.m. and found on him an abrasion with teeth mark on the right forearm measuring 1” x 1”. He stated that he had been bitten by teeth and beaten with an iron wire by 4 known persons in the course of the occurrence in which his parents had sustained injuries. Ex.P-8” is the extract of the Accident Register. In the option of P.W.7 the injuries sustained by P.W.3 were simple in nature. 7. At or about 11.15 a.m. on 14.9.1984, P.W.11 arrested the appellants at Thodialur Bus Stand in the presence of P.W.5 and another. A-3 volunteered a confession, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P-2. In pursuance of his confession, he took P.W.11 and his party to the garden land of Srinivasan and produced M.Os.1 and 2, which were kept concealed in a pipe underneath the water tank. They were seized under a mahazar Ex.P-3 attested by P.W.5. P.W.11 sent a requisition to the committal court to forward the material objects to the laboratory, for chemical analysis. Exs.P-11 and P-12 are the reports of Chemical Analyst and Serologist respectively. Ex.P-12 discloses that M.O.2 knife allegedly used by A-3 contained ‘a’ group human blood, the same blood group as that of the deceased. After completing investigation P.W.11 laid the charge-sheet against the appellants and two others before the Committal Court on 7.12.1984. 8. When the appellants were examined under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. by the learned trial Judge, to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in evidence, they chose to deny their complicity in the crime. They did not choose to adduce any evidence in defence. 9. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case, rejected the defence and dealt with the appellants in the manner indicated earlier. 10. Mr.S.R.Sundaram, learned counsel for the appellants contended that though several independent witnesses must have been available, near the scene of occurrence, none of them had been examined. P.Ws.1 to 3 examined as ocular witnesses, were closely related to the victim. Further P.W.4 another eye witness, who belonged to a different village, belonged to the caste of the deceased and hence credibility cannot be attached to his version. P.Ws.1 to 3 examined as ocular witnesses, were closely related to the victim. Further P.W.4 another eye witness, who belonged to a different village, belonged to the caste of the deceased and hence credibility cannot be attached to his version. He then pointed out that there was no motive whatsoever for A-3 to commit this heinous crime. He would plead that A-3 may be exonerated, since on the sarnie evidence A-4 and A-5 had been acquitted by the trial Judge. 11. On these contentions, we have heard Mr.B.Sriramulu, learned Public Prosecutor. He contended that P.Ws.1 to 4 were natural witnesses and their presence at the scene cannot be doubted. Mere interestedness or relationship would not be sufficient to throw away their evidence though their versions may require careful scrutiny. He contended that the evidence of P.W.4 was that of an independent witness. Belonging to the same caste as that of the deceased, would not be sufficient to christen him as non-independent witness. He fairly stated that there was no motive for any of the appellants to commit this crime and in a sudden quarrel, A-3 had given one stab with a pen knife. It will be possible ‘to conclude, that A-3 may not be liable for murder, but only for an offence under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C. 12. We have carefully considered the contentions of the prosecuting and defence counsel. This is a simple case, where the evidence is clear, cogent and consistent, totally portraying the truth. As far as the motive is concerned, it is so petty, that it could not have led to the commission of the capital crime. A loan transaction between the son of A-2 and Jayapal, son of P.W.2 had led to this unfortunate incident. There had been a quarrel on the earlier morning as well as altercation in the evening between the parties. This sort of altercations are not uncommon in villages when money transactions are involved. Merely because of these altercations, which are normally inconsequential, it cannot be held, that there was any deep-seated animosity, to lead to. the killing of Mahendran, who was not even concerned with the loan transaction as such. This sort of altercations are not uncommon in villages when money transactions are involved. Merely because of these altercations, which are normally inconsequential, it cannot be held, that there was any deep-seated animosity, to lead to. the killing of Mahendran, who was not even concerned with the loan transaction as such. We have the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, the ocular witnesses, who have deposed in unison, about the overt acts committed by the appellants and the other accused, the acquittal of A-4 and A-5 was based on the ground that they had not attacked the deceased and it was not possible to accept, at its face value, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 that A-4 and A-5 had caught hold of the deceased to facilitate his killing, since the act of A-3 was so sudden and unexpected, which A-4 and A-5 could not at all have foreseen. The refore there cannot be any basis to contend, that merely because A-4 and A-5 were acquitted, A-3 should also be acquitted, though he had caused the vital injury on the deceased. This argument is rejected as without merit. 13. P.W.1 had preferred to complaint soon after the occurrence and in Ex.P-1 so preferred, the overt acts of each one of the appellants and the other accused have been stated in clear and certain terms. Even the motive, which led to this occurrence has been narrated. The evidence in Court is fully in tune with the averments found in the first information report. P.Ws.1 to 3 having sustained injuries, in the course of this occurrence, has also been stated. The first information report also contains the name of P.W.4 as an ocular witness. We have no hesitation in accepting the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 as true. Nothing has been elicited in cross-examination, to cast any suspicion even remotely to discredit their evidence, which inspires confidence. It is true that P.Ws.1 to 3 are interested witnesses. But it is settled law that on mere interestedness their versions cannot be discarded. We have examined their evidence with great care and caution and we do not find any infirmity in accepting their versions. P.W.4 is from a different village. He is totally an independent witness. Merely because P.W.4 is a caste man of the deceased, he will not become an interested witness. We have examined their evidence with great care and caution and we do not find any infirmity in accepting their versions. P.W.4 is from a different village. He is totally an independent witness. Merely because P.W.4 is a caste man of the deceased, he will not become an interested witness. P.Ws.1 to 3 being injured witnesses, their presence at the scene gets fixed. 14. The medical evidence furnished by P.W.7 Dr.Kanchana and P.W.6 Er.Natarajan fully corroborates the ocular version regarding the occurrence. We have no hesitation whatever in concluding, that it was A-3, who by his act had caused the death of the deceased. A-3 had further caused simple hurt to P.W.3. We also find that A-1 and A-2had caused hurt to P.Ws.1 and 2 in the course of the same transaction. 15. As far as A-1 and A-2 are concerned, they have been only convicted for minor offences and sentenced to pay a fine which, we are told, has already been paid. There is no scope whatever for interfering with the convictions and sentences recorded and imposed on A-1 and A-2. 16. Though we have concluded that A-2 had caused the death of the deceased, we have to still find out the nature of offence, he can be stated to have committed. We have already found that there was no animosity between A-3 and the deceased. The fact remains that at or about 7.15 A.M. on the occurrence morning, A-1 had questioned P.W.1 and caused hurt to him. The prosecution witnesses have rushed to the scene, so also the other accused. We are able to see that there must have been a quarrel during the course of which not only P.Ws.1 to 3 sustained injuries but also the deceased met his death. We are unable to hold, that there must have been a time lag, to facilitate A-3 to get himself armed. It is more probable that A-3 had a small pen knife with him and in the course of the quarrel he had used the pen-knife to stab once on the chest of the deceased. On the facts and circumstances of this case, we have to conclude that A-3 had no mensreato commit murder of the deceased. Anyhow, A-3 must be held to have had the intention, of causing such bodily injury on the deceased, as was likely to cause death. On the facts and circumstances of this case, we have to conclude that A-3 had no mensreato commit murder of the deceased. Anyhow, A-3 must be held to have had the intention, of causing such bodily injury on the deceased, as was likely to cause death. If that be so, A-3 will be liable under Sec.304, Part I I.P.C., and not under Sec.302, I.P.C. We set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on A-3 by the trial court for murder, and instead convict him under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C. We sentence A-3 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. His conviction and sentence under charge No.5 for having caused the simple hurt to P.W.3 shall stand confirmed. The substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. In the result, the appeal is totally dismissed as far as A-1 and A-2 are concerned. As far as A-3 is concerned, subject to the modification regarding the nature of offence and the consequential sentence, the appeal shall stand dismissed.