Judgment :- The six accused who have been convicted and sentenced by the trial court have filed this Criminal Appeal. All the accused I to 6 have been convicted under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, first accused has been convicted under section 304 part II and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, and third accused has been convicted under section 326, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case against the accused is that PW 1 Karunanidhi, PW 3 Sivamani and PW 4 Natarajan are brothers. PW 1 was the eldest of them. PW 2 Ramachandran and Govindarajan deceased in the case were brother-in-law of them. They all belong to Aavikkottai village. PW 1 Karunanidhi had obtained a power of attorney on 5-8-1985 from one Deivanai for cultivating 11 1/2 Maa of land for Rs. 5,000/- in Oolayakunnam village. In that land there is a well, a pumpshed and a pumpset. 3. As the pumpset decayed, to take it for repair, on 13-8-1985 at 3-00 p.m. PW 1 Karunanidhi went to the field in a double bullock cart along with his brothers PW 3 Sivamani and PW 4 Natarajan, and his brothers-in-law PW 2 Ramachandran and deceased Govindarajan, and PW 5 Shanmugham his sister's son. On reaching the field they all went inside the pump shed. In a short while they heard a noise from outside and they came out. They found there first accused holding a crowbar and other five accused each holding a stout stick. First accused questioned them why did they come there and with whose permission they purchased the land. To that PW I Karunanidhi replied that there was no need for them to ask for anybody's permission. 4. Upon that the first accused with his crowbar aimed a hit at the head of PW 1. As PW 1 just slipped to the side, the hit fell on his right cheeck and eye-brow causing bleeding injuries. Second accused beat PW 1 with his stick at his left ear. When the deceased Govindarajan tried to prevent further hit from second accused, first accused hit him with his crowbar at his head. Govindarajan fell down dropped. As PW 1 just slipped to the side, the hit fell on his right cheeck and eye-brow causing bleeding injuries. Second accused beat PW 1 with his stick at his left ear. When the deceased Govindarajan tried to prevent further hit from second accused, first accused hit him with his crowbar at his head. Govindarajan fell down dropped. When PW 4 Natarajan cried not to beat the third accused be at him with his stick at his head. Natarajan too fell down. When PW 2 came running shouting not to beat, the fourth accused and fifth accused beat him with their sticks at his head and body. When PW 3 came to prevent, the fourth accused beat him also with his stick at his head and body. Then sixth accused beat PW Shnmugham with his stick. Then all the accused dropping the crowbar and sticks ran away. 5. The seriously injured deceased Govindarajan and PW 4 Natarajan were brought in the said double bullock cart to Mathukkoor Police Station. As the deceased and PW 4 were unconscious, PW 1 Karunanidhi narrated the incident which was recorded by PW 8 Sub Inspector, (It has been marked in the case as Ex. P1), and he registered a case under sections 147, 148, 323 and 326, IPC. Then he took up investigation of the case. 6. In Pattukkottai Government Hospital PW 9 Dr. Somasundaram examined PWs 1 to 5 and Govindarajan and found all of them to have sustained injuries which have been noted by him in the wound certificate Exs. P. 10 to P. 15. PW 8 Sub Inspector examined witnesses and recovered the bloodstained banian MO 6 from PW 1 blood-stained shirt MO 7 and Blood stained dhothi MO 8 from PW 2. Next day i.e. on 14-8-1985 he went to the scene and recovered from there MO 1 Crowbar and M.Os. 2 to 5 stout sticks lying there. On the same day at 12-00 Noon he arrested Accused 2 to 5 at Keezakurichi village. 7. As the deceased Govindaraj and PW 4 Natarajan were unconscious they had been transferred to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital for further treatment. On 19-8-1985 at 7-15 PM. PW 8 received information that the deceased Govindarajan died in the hospital. Upon that he altered the Section into 302, IPC. 8. Thereupon PW 16 Inspector Sivasubramaniam took up further investigation of the case. On 19-8-1985 at 7-15 PM. PW 8 received information that the deceased Govindarajan died in the hospital. Upon that he altered the Section into 302, IPC. 8. Thereupon PW 16 Inspector Sivasubramaniam took up further investigation of the case. On 20-8-1985 between 9-00 and 11-00 a.m. he held an inquest over the dead body of Govindarajan during which he examined PW 1 Karunanidhi, Vasuki, PW 6 Ratnavelu, PW 7 Kaliyamurthy, one Thangavelu and Chokkalingam. Then he arranged for postomortem examination. PW 14 Dr. Palani conducted postomortem examination on 20-8-1985 at 1-30 p.m. He found injuries on the head and other parts of the body. He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of head injuries sustained by him. 9. On completion of the Investigation the Inspector filed the charge sheet. 10. The accused all denied the charge. Sixth accused has also field a written statement during the questioning of the accused under Section 313, of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the effect that the land and the pump shed in question belonged to one Vasantha and he is cultivating the land, and on the date of occurrence in the night when he returned to home from his work he was informed that prosecution witnesses 1 to 7 and 20, 30, others came to the land with Aruval, stick, spear and crowbar and broke open to lock of the pump shed and tried to take away the oil motor, and also destroyed the crops, and when Vasantha tried to prevent them they threatened her with dire consequences, and when Vasantha shouted her relatives who were working nearby beat and drove away the prosecution witnesses and others. He has also filed some documents which according to him would prove that he was in possession of the land and pump shed. 11. The Court below on consideration of the evidence found that all the accused were guilty of an offence punishable under Section 148, and first accused was further guilty of an offence punishable under section 304, Part. II, Accused 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, were guilty of an offence punishable under section 324, and third accused was guilty of an offence punishable under section 326, of the Indian Penal Code, and accordingly it convicted and sentenced them as aforementioned. 12. II, Accused 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, were guilty of an offence punishable under section 324, and third accused was guilty of an offence punishable under section 326, of the Indian Penal Code, and accordingly it convicted and sentenced them as aforementioned. 12. Now, though the appeal has been filed by all the accused the learned counsel appearing for them confines his arguments only with regard to the first accused. Therefore the question now arises is whether the conviction and sentences passed against first accused by the trial court is not sustainable ? 13. With regard to the ownership and possession of the land and pumpshed, while PW 1 Karunanidhi claims that he is in possession of it the sixth accused would state that it is in his possession. I do not think it is necessary to go into the question as to who exactly has right to be in possession of the land and the pumpshed. 14. It is not in dispute that an occurrence has happened in that land. As far as first accused is concerned he does not claim any ownership or possession of the land or pumpshed. Prosecution witnesses 1 to 5 who are all injured have uniformly and in one voice deposed that the accused all came to the spot and the first accused was the first man to question them as to why did they come there and with whose permission they purchased the land. According to them he was holding a crow-bar and with that he hit at PW 1 Karunanidhi and the deceased Govindaraj. While the other accused assaulted them with stout sticks in their hands. 15. It is now argued that first accused was not at all present at the spot at the time of the alleged occurence, and he belongs to a different village which is about 2 1/2 kilometre away from the occurrence spot, and there was absolutely no necessity for the first accused to be at the spot at the alleged time of occurrence. But it is in evidence that he was a leader there in that village, and may be he was interested in protecting the interest of the sixth accused who claims that he was in possession of the land. 16. But it is in evidence that he was a leader there in that village, and may be he was interested in protecting the interest of the sixth accused who claims that he was in possession of the land. 16. The question is if first accused was not at all present at the spot at the time of occurrence, why should all prosecution witnesses would implicate him in the incident. It is submitted that he has been implicated at the suggestion of one Loganathan who was inimical towards first accused. But there is absolutely no material whatsoever to suggest that the said Loganathan had any enmity with first accused. The occurrence was at 4-30 p.m. and therefore there was no difficulty of identifying the assailants. If the vital blow had been inflicted by anybody else it is unthinkable that the prosecution witnesses leaving that person would have falsely implicated the first accused. 17. It is next argued that when the occurrence is said to have happened at 4-30 p.m. and the Police station is six kilometres away from the place of occurrence, the complaint has been given only at 7-45 p.m. and therefore there is a long delay in lodging the complaint and it is quite possible that only after some deliberation and consultation with Loganathan first accused's name had been included in the complaint. But as already stated above, there is nothing to show that Loganathan had really any anmity with first accused, and further considering the nature of the injuries sustained it is most incredible that the injured Prosecution witnesses would have falsely implicated first accused as the prime accused only because Loganathan wanted that. Then the police station is six kilometres away from the scene place. Govindarajan the deceased and Natarajan PW 4 fell unconscious at the spot on receipt of injuries. They had to be carried in the double bullock-cart and all the injured accompanied them. In these circumstances lodging of the complaint at 7-45 p.m. cannot be said to be after a long delay. Then in the complaint all the details of the occurrence has been given and this strongly corroborates the evidence of PWs 1 to 5. 18. They had to be carried in the double bullock-cart and all the injured accompanied them. In these circumstances lodging of the complaint at 7-45 p.m. cannot be said to be after a long delay. Then in the complaint all the details of the occurrence has been given and this strongly corroborates the evidence of PWs 1 to 5. 18. The next argument is that the prosecution witnesses did not known the names of the fathers of the accused but it is the evidence of the Investigating Officer PW 8 that PW 1 had stated to him the names of the fathers of the accused and this would show that somebody else should have narrated the incident to PW 8 and that should be Loganathan. PW 1 of course has stated that he did not tell the names of the fathers of the accused 2 to 6. PW 3 also has stated that he did not know the fathers names of the accused. But the other prosecution witnesses i.e. PWs. 2, 4 and 5, have not stated so. They might have stated the names of the fathers of the accused. Only because the investigating officer PW 8 has stated that PW. 1 told him the names of the fathers of the accused it cannot be said that the names of the fathers of the accused was told by sone-one else other than the prosecution witnesses. 19. The further argument advanced is that the evidence of PW 9 Doctor who first examined the deceased Govindarajan is that he noted two injuries in the head of the deceased but the evidence of the eye witnesses is that first accused had given only one blow with the crow-bar and therefore another blow should have been given by somebody else and as regards this there is no evidence and as per the evidence of the postmortem Doctor PW 14 the deceased died due to the two head injuries and therefore it cannot be said that first accused was responsible for the death of Govindarajan. This submission is devoid of any merit. PW 9 Doctor has stated clearly that the two injuries in the head were close to each other and rarely two injuries happened due to one blow. Therefore the two injuries should have happened due to the one blow given by first accused with the crow-bar. 20. This submission is devoid of any merit. PW 9 Doctor has stated clearly that the two injuries in the head were close to each other and rarely two injuries happened due to one blow. Therefore the two injuries should have happened due to the one blow given by first accused with the crow-bar. 20. I do not find any reason whatsoever to interfere with the Judgment of the Court below convicting the accused. Therefore the conviction of first accused is confirmed. 21. As regards the sentence, as seen above, first accused has been awarded rigorous imprisonment for five years under section 304, Part II, and one year each under sections 148, and 324, of the Indian Penal Code. It is seen from the records that first accused must be now aged about 70 years, He has been convicted and sentenced in the year 1987. All these years, i.e. for about 6 1/2 years he should have been suffering from mental agony because of the conviction and sentence. Considering these I think that the ends of justice would be met if he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years under section 304, Part II. Accordingly it is ordered. 22. With this modification in the sentence of first accused under Section 304, Part II, of the Indian Penal Code, the appeal is dismissed in all other respects. Appeal dismissed.