Judgment : Of the two accused the first accused has filed this criminal revision case. He has been convicted by the trial court under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, and this conviction and sentence has been confirmed by the appellate court. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 4. 1986 at 8.30 a.m. while P.W.2 Rajakumar was digging for foundation in their land at the place known as Sundavailai tank bund the two accused went there and objected to it, and while second accused caught hold of P.W.2 from behind the first accused cut him at his head with a vettukathi. P.W.1. elder brother of P.W.2. P.W.3 Anandapadmanabhan and P.W.4 Thangaraj who were on the other side of the tank rushed there. The two accused ran away with the aruval. P.W.1. took the injured P.W.2 in a taxi to Kottar Government Hospital with the help of P.W.5 Rajagopal. 3. In the hospital P.W.10 Dr. Velammal examined P.W.2 and found on him an incised wound of 6 cm. x 2cm. over the scalp, five cm. below and medial to the left ear. X-ray showed depressed fracture of skull. Then, the patient was referred to Nagercoil Head Quarters Hospital. From the Kottar Government Hospital an intimation was given to Kottar Police. 4. P.W.11 Cr.l Police Constable went to Kottar Government Hospital and as P.W.2 was unconscious he obtained a statement from his elder brother P.W.1. He registered a case. He sent a copy of the First Information Report to Nithiravilai Police Station within whose jurisdiction the place of incident was situate. P.W.17 Inspector of Police where took up the investigation of the case and after investigation was over he laid charge sheet against the two accused under Secs.341 and 307 read with 34, I.P.C. 5. Both the accused denied the charge. 6. The trial court on consideration of the evidence adduced in the case came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved that the first accused cut P.W.2 at his head with aruval. But as regards second accused it held that the prosecution has not proved the alleged offence against him satisfactorily. Thus holding, it convicted the first accused under Sec. 307, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and it acquitted the second accused. But as regards second accused it held that the prosecution has not proved the alleged offence against him satisfactorily. Thus holding, it convicted the first accused under Sec. 307, I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and it acquitted the second accused. Against the conviction and sentence the first accused appealed to the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District, but the learned Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. 7. Now in the criminal revision case, it is contended that since the case of the prosecution is that both accused 1 and 2 had common intention to kill P.W.2 and therefore a charge under Sec. 307 read 34, I.P.C., has been framed against both of them, and second accused has been acquitted of the charge, first accused also should have been acquitted. On going through the evidence in the case I find no merit in this contention. 8. As regards the second accused against whom it has been alleged that he caught hold of P.W.2 from behind, the trial court has found that there are contradictions regarding the alleged part played by second accused in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and that considering the defence evidence let in by second accused and the evidence of the prosecution, it is difficult to believe that really the second accused was at the spot and therefore it acquitted him. Because of this, it cannot be argued that first accused also should be acquitted. It is an undeniable fact that P.W.2 has been inflicted serious injury. 9. According to P.W.10 Doctor Velammal, P.W.2 had an injury of 6 cm. x 2 cm transversely over the scalp, five cm. above and medial to the left ear, and X-ray revealed fracture of skull. The Doctor has further stated in her evidence that the injury is a grievous one and if no treatment was given immediately the injury would have caused death. As both the Courts below have rightly said this injury could not have been self-inflicted. There is nothing to show that the injury could have been caused due to fall on a stone or any such thing as suggested by the defence. 10. Rightly the lower courts have said that there was absolutely no delay in preferring the complaint. As both the Courts below have rightly said this injury could not have been self-inflicted. There is nothing to show that the injury could have been caused due to fall on a stone or any such thing as suggested by the defence. 10. Rightly the lower courts have said that there was absolutely no delay in preferring the complaint. The time of incident is 8.30 a.m. and therefore there is no scope for mistaking the identity of the assailant Apart from P.W.2 himself his brother P.W.1. and also P.Ws.3 and 4 all have said in one voice that it was the first accused who inflicted the injuries. Hence, I find absolutely no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of the trial court, and the appellate court that the injury was inflicted by the first accused. 11. It is next contended that the conviction under Sec. 307, I.P.C., is not proper and if at all the case is true, first accused could be convicted under Sec. 326, I.P.C. I am unable to agree. A serious injury has been inflicted. According to the doctor P.W.10, if no treatment was given immediately, the injury would have caused death. That means the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Even if there was no intention to kill, the accused should have had knowledge that his act would cause death. The weapon used is a vettukathi which is a dangerous one. The cut injury has been inflicted in the head which is a vital part of the body. Therefore, rightly, the courts below have held that the accused is guilty of the offence punishable under Sec. 307, I.P.C. Thus, I find no merit in the revision. 12. As regards the sentence the first accused has been convicted to the year 1988. For nearly six years now he should have suffered mental agony due to the conviction and sentence. Considering this, in my view a sentence of two years and six months would meet the ends of justice. 13. In the result, the sentence of imprisonment for three years is reduced to two years and six months. In other respects the criminal revision case is dismissed.