Judgment :- Kanakaraj, J. This appeal has been preferred against the conviction and sentence imposed on the sole accused in S.C. No.195 of 1988 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai. Learned Sessions Judge found the accused/ appellant guilty of an offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. insofar as the deceased is concerned and under Sec.324, I.P.C. insofar as P.W. 1 and P.W.2 are concerned. The trial Judge imposed punishment of life sentence under Sec. 302, I.P.C. and one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Sec.324, I.P.C. two counts, and directed the sentences to run concurrently. 2. The facts leading to the appeal are as follows: The scene of occurrence is the door step of Prabu Video Vision bearing Door No.6, in the Bus-stand road, in the town of Aruppukottai. P.W. 1 is the owner of the said shop. P.W.2 who was unemployed at that time along with the deceased, Rajaram, were sitting on the door-step of the said shop and engaged in conversation at about 10.00 p.m. on 13,5,1988. Only a few other shops were open at that part of the day. P.W.3 and one Murthy were also standing in front of the shop, talking to each other. At that time the accused is said to have suddenly appeared with a knife and shouted saying there was a long-standing enmity between him and the deceased, Rajaram and that he had once been tied to an electrical post by the deceased and defamed and he was there, to take vengeance on the deceased. So saying he struck at the deceased repeatedly with the knife shouting at the same time: (The meaning you die with these stab injuries). Stabs given by the accused fell on the right hip, right chest and on the right hand. P.Ws. 1 and 2 tried to prevent the attack. Thereupon the accused is said to have attacked by both P.Ws. 1 and 2 inflicting bleeding injuries. P.W. 1 received a stab on the left side of his chest and the right wrist. The accused thereafter ran away towards south. P.W.3 and Murthy chased him for some distance. They however, unable to catch the accused saying that he had gone away towards Malaiarasan temple. A taxi TNI 5625 was arranged and all the three injured persons namely, the deceased and P.Ws.l and 2 along with P.W.3 and Murthy proceeded to the Government Hospital, Aruppukottai. P.W.3 and Murthy chased him for some distance. They however, unable to catch the accused saying that he had gone away towards Malaiarasan temple. A taxi TNI 5625 was arranged and all the three injured persons namely, the deceased and P.Ws.l and 2 along with P.W.3 and Murthy proceeded to the Government Hospital, Aruppukottai. They reached there at about 10.30 p.m. P.W.5 was the Doctor in attendance at the Government Hospital, Aruppukottai. He examined P.W.2 at about 10.30 p.m. on 15. 1988 and found two injuries on him. P.W.2 had told the Doctor that a known person had stabbed him at about 10.00 p.m. Ex.P-2 is the wound certificate issued in respect of P.W.2. In his opinion the injuries could have been caused by a weapon like M.O.1. At about the same time he examined P.W. 1 and found on him a single injury. Ex.P-3 is the wound certificate relating to P.W. 1 The doctor also opined that the injury on P.W.1 could have been caused by weapon like M.O.1. At about 10.45 p.m. he examined the deceased Rajaram brought by P.W.3 and Murthy. At the time of examination the deceased was not conscious and his breathing was-irregular. He found on him three injuries. In spite of treatment given to the deceased, he passed away. Since all the three had been brought without any police memo, the Doctor P.W.5 sent an intimation Ex.P-4, to the Sub Inspector of Police, Aruppukottai. Ex.P-5 death intimation was despatched at about 11.00 p.m. to the police station noting the time of death as 10.45 p.m. P.W. 13 was the Sub-Inspector of Police (Law and Order), Aruppukottai Police Station. He received intimation at about 10.50 p.m. from the Government Hospital, Aruppukottai, regarding the attack on the deceased and P.Ws.l and 2. He proceeded to the hospital at about 11.00 p.m. and found that Rajaram had already passed away at about 10.45 p.m. In fact, the death memo Ex.P-5 was handed over to the Sub-Inspector, P.W. 13 in the hospital itself. He recorded a statement from P.W. 1 and read over the same and get his thumb impression after reading over the same to him. P.W.5, Doctor was present throughout the recording of the statement and he has attested Ex.P-1. The father of the deceased one Kandavelu also signed Ex.P-1 as a witness. He recorded a statement from P.W. 1 and read over the same and get his thumb impression after reading over the same to him. P.W.5, Doctor was present throughout the recording of the statement and he has attested Ex.P-1. The father of the deceased one Kandavelu also signed Ex.P-1 as a witness. He recovered from P.W.1 blood stained shirt M.O.2 and from P.W.2 lungi, towel and shirt M.Os. 3 to 5. However, he did not prepare mahazar for the same. He came back to the Police Station at 11.40 p.m. and registered Crime No.351 of 1988 under Secs.302 and 324, I.P.C. Ex.P-16 is the Printed First Information Report and they were sent to the higher officials. The Inspector of Police, Aruppukottai, P.W.14 came to the police station at about 00.15 hours and received the First Information Report. P.W. 14 proceeded to the spot at about 00.30 hours. He prepared the observation Mahazar Ex.P-18 in the presence of one Valliappan and Sekar. He prepared a rough sketch Ex.P-19. He took P.W. 8, Photographer and caused photographs to be taken. He recovered M.Os.13 to 15 under Ex.P-20 in the presence of the said witnesses Valliappan and Sekar. M.O.13 is the blood stained broken pieces of concrete plate. M.O.14 is a sample concrete plate. M.O.15 is a Goldflake cigarette butt. In the meanwhile P.W.5 had advised that P.Ws. 1 and 2 should be taken to the Government hospital, Madurai, for further treatment and they were accordingly, taken to the Government Hospital, Madurai. It is only after Ex.P-1 was recorded they were taken to the Government Hospital, Madurai. P.W.6 was the Doctor in the casuality ward of the Madurai Government Hospital at 01.00 hours. He examined P.W.2 who was referred to from the Government Hospital, Aruppukottai, with the Accident Register Card. The injuries found by P.W.6 tallied with the injuries noted in the Accident Register Card. On the same day 01.05 hours he admitted P.W. 1 who was also referred by the Government Hospital, Aruppukottai. The injuries found on his tallied with the injuries noted in the Accident Register Card. Both were admitted as inpatients. P.W.7 is also a Doctor in the Government Hospital, Madurai and he had examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 at about 1.30 a.m. on 15. 1988. According to him there were no injuries on vital organ and after treatment they were discharged on 20.5.1988. Both were admitted as inpatients. P.W.7 is also a Doctor in the Government Hospital, Madurai and he had examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 at about 1.30 a.m. on 15. 1988. According to him there were no injuries on vital organ and after treatment they were discharged on 20.5.1988. P.W. 14, Investigating Officer proceeded to the Government Hospital, Madurai and reached there at about 2.00 p.m. on 15. 1988. He recorded statement from P.Ws. 1 and 2 who were undergoing treatment in Ward No.99. He then came back to Aruppukottai and conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 7.00 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. Ex.P-19 is the inquest report. He examined P.Ws.3 and 4 at the inquest. He sent a requisition Ex.P-2 through P.W. 10 for the conduct of autopsy. P.W.9 is the Assistant surgeon in the Government Hospital, Aruppukottai and he received the requisition Ex.P-7 and conducted autopsy on the body at about 10.30 a.m. In his opinion, the deceased would have died of shock and hemorrhage due to multiple Injuries and injury to the liver about 10 to 14 hours prior to postmortem, Ex.P-8 is the post-mortem certificate. In his opinion all the injuries could have caused by a weapon like M.O.1. He also opined that injury No. 1 was necessarily fatal. P.W. 14, on formation proceeded to Moopar Oorani about six kilometres from Aruppukottai, and arrested the accused in the presence of P.W. 11. He recorded a confessional statement, admissible portion of which is Ex.P-9. On his information, the knife used for inflicting the injuries on the deceased and P.Ws. 1 and 2 was recovered: The accused had taken them to the place at karuvelankadu where Under a bush he had concealed the knife, P.W.14 also recovered a shirt M.O.12 under Ex.P. 10 in the presence of the same witnesses namely, Karuppusamy and others. He examined the other witnesses. On 15. 1988 he sent a requisition Ex.P-11 for sending the Materia] Objects for Chemical analysis, P.W. 12 speaks to the fact that on the requisition Ex.P-11 he sent the Material Objects under Ex.P-12 for chemical analysis. Exs.P-13 and P14 are the reports of the Chemical Analyst and Ex. P-15 is the report of the Serologist. On 35. 1988 P.W. 14 examined P.Ws. 5, 6 and 7. On completion of the investigation he filed a final report under Sec. 173(2), Crl.P.C; on 4.6,1988. .3. Exs.P-13 and P14 are the reports of the Chemical Analyst and Ex. P-15 is the report of the Serologist. On 35. 1988 P.W. 14 examined P.Ws. 5, 6 and 7. On completion of the investigation he filed a final report under Sec. 173(2), Crl.P.C; on 4.6,1988. .3. On committal by the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Aruppukottai, learned Sessions Judge, framed three charges against the accused/ appellant. The first charge related to the murder of the deceased under Sec. 302, I.P.C. The second and third charges related to the offence punishable under Sec.307, I.P.C. for attempting to murder P.Ws.l and 2. On the accused pleading not guilty, the trial Judge examined 14 witnesses and marked 20 documents and listed nine material objects. On the accused being questioned under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. he denied complicity and marked Accident Register for the relevant period from the Government Hospital, Aruppukottai, as Ex.D-1 and the Arrest Card dated 15. 1988 as Ex.D-2. It is on the above evidence that learned trial Judge rendered a verdict as already stated. 4. We will now consider the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution in juxtaposition with the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant. 5. This is a case where P.Ws. 1 and 2 were injured at the place of occurrence and in our opinion their evidence is entitled to considerable weight. While the time of occurrence is said to be about 10.00 p.m. on 15. 1988, Ex.P-1 was recorded at about 11 or 11.30 p.m. at the hospital by the Sub-Inspector P.W. 13 right in the presence of the doctor. P.W.5. P.W.1 who narrated the incident was at that time taking treatment and glucose was being administered through his right hand and therefore, he had affixed his left hand thumb impression. He is a person who had studied upto B.Com. and it is highly doubtful whether at that point of time he would have given facts contrary to the truth. Nothing was elicited from this witness except to show that the deceased Rajaram belonged to Maravar community whereas the accused belongs to Moopanar Community. The defence would have it that the town mostly comprised of people belonging to Maravar community and that Moopanar community people will only number about five. P.Ws.1 and 2 belong to Naicker community. Therefore, their evidence cannot be damnified on the basis of any community interest or sympathy. The defence would have it that the town mostly comprised of people belonging to Maravar community and that Moopanar community people will only number about five. P.Ws.1 and 2 belong to Naicker community. Therefore, their evidence cannot be damnified on the basis of any community interest or sympathy. It was however, suggested that the accused who belongs to Moopanar community was tied up in Maravar street and beaten up by the deceased. Though this early incident itself is denied by the defence, a question has been put in cross-examination which seems to suggest that the said early incident was in fact, a strong motive for the occurrence. This, of course, will depend upon whether the early incident can at all be believed. Having regard to the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, we will revert to this aspect of the case a little later. .6. While on the evidence of P.W. 1 we must refer to the fact that the shop of P.W. 1 was lighted both from inside and outside. There were also tube lights burning on the neighbouring shops. There was also a street light near the shop where the occurrence took place. P.W. 1 also says that there was a two-minutes wordy quarrel before the accused started attacking the deceased. It is the specific case of P.W. 1 that the deceased did not argue with the accused. The crucial answer elicited from P.W. 1 on which an argument is advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that Ex.P-1 is written in two pages and the writings on the first page is natural, whereas the writings on the second page is compressed, suggesting that the thumb impression of P. W. 1 had been taken on a blank paper and the contents of Ex.P-1 subsequently written over the same. According to P.W.2 when the accused presented himself before the deceased in front of P.W.1’s shop he stated thus: Roughly translated it means that “There is a longstanding enmity between you and me. You had defamed me by ticing me to a post. I am taking revenge for the same. With this you die.” These are the exact words spoken to by P.W. 1 also. You had defamed me by ticing me to a post. I am taking revenge for the same. With this you die.” These are the exact words spoken to by P.W. 1 also. Though the prosecution need not prove the motive before seeking to prove a person guilty, if the prosecution relies on any particular motive, feeble or strong, the entire case of the prosecution will to some extent depend upon the proof of the motive as part of the case. We are referring to this aspect because both P.Ws. 1 and 2 have deposed that the accused shouted as above before actually plunging into the attack. A suggestion was made to this witness, that he along with others were taking intoxicating liquors in the shop after switching off the lights. The suggestion was duly denied by P.W.2. .7. The evidence of P.W.3 has come up again? for sharp criticism, because in chief examination he categorically stated that he did not know the accused and that it was only at the time of occurrence that he had met the accused. In other respects he had also spoken exactly on the lines of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. P.W.3 is the witness who along with Murthy had chased the accused upto a distance of about 225 feet and thereafter gave up the chase. In cross-examination he has stated thus: He personally knew the accused being tied to an electrical post by the deceased Rajaram. He has also spoken to the fact that at that time, it was only after the accused challenged the others that they could not do anything with him and proceeded to remove his dhoti in the presence of everybody that the deceased had caused the accused to be tied to an electrical post and beaten him by way of warning him. The suggestion by the defence that the accused did not misbehave in the street and there was no enmity between the accused and the deceased was denied by the witness. It has been elicited in cross-examination that while the deceased and P.Ws. 1 and 2 entered into the car the clothes of P.W.3 were also stained with blood. Similarly, the clothe of Murthy was also stained with blood, P.W.3 admits that his clothes were not recovered by the police on the ground that very little blood had been seen on his clothes. 1 and 2 entered into the car the clothes of P.W.3 were also stained with blood. Similarly, the clothe of Murthy was also stained with blood, P.W.3 admits that his clothes were not recovered by the police on the ground that very little blood had been seen on his clothes. The argument of defence counsel that this lapse on the part of the prosecution is serious, cannot be accepted by us. No doubt, the prosecution should have taken care to seize the clothes to rule out any doubt. The question whether there was enough blood on the clothes is a matter for the Chemical Analyst. However, we do not think that this small lapse will affect the prosecution case. 8. P.W.4 is said to be painter who knew the accused and the deceased. According to him about two days prior to the occurrence he was talking to one Arumugham in Meenakshi street. It was about 5.00 p.m. At that time the deceased was coming from the east and was proceeding towards west. The accused was coming the west and proceeding towards east. Says the witness P.W.4 that the accused on seeing the deceased uttered a warning that unless he took revenge on the deceased he will never be in peace. P.W.4 is also said to belong to Maravar community to which community the deceased belonged. We may straightaway say that the evidence of this witness is quite artificial. 9. We may also advert to the evidence of the Doctor, P.W.5 who was the Assistant Medical Officer at the Government Hospital, Aruppukottai. Her evidence is important for the purpose of appreciating the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the genuineness of Ex.P-1. P.W.5 has attested the said document Ex.P-1 with the endorsement “patient conscious”. In cross-examination he has admitted that he did not record the fact that it was written in his presence or the time at which it was written. These questions were put to the Doctor P.W.5 only because of the statement in Chief Examination that he was present when P.W. 1 narrated to the Sub Inspector P.W. 13 as to the manner in which he was injured. He has repeated in chief examination that it was about 11.00 p.m. and that he was present. These questions were put to the Doctor P.W.5 only because of the statement in Chief Examination that he was present when P.W. 1 narrated to the Sub Inspector P.W. 13 as to the manner in which he was injured. He has repeated in chief examination that it was about 11.00 p.m. and that he was present. There is considerable argument on behalf of the appellant regarding the sequence in which P.W.5 had examined P.Ws.1, 2 and the deceased. In cross examination he says that he will make entries in the Accident Register in the sequence in which he examined the injured persons. According to the register, it was only after examining P.W.2 he examined P.W. 1 and it was only thereafter the deceased was examined. Ex.D-1 which is the Accident Register shows that Serial No.245769 relates to the deceased Rajaram, Serial No.245770 relates to P.W.2 and Serial No.245771 relates to P.W. 1. The entries in the Accident Register are normally made in triplicate. According to P.W.5 the first copy had been sent to the police. We have carefully examined Ex.D-1 with reference to the entries relating to P.Ws. 1, 2, and the deceased. By way of illustration we will proceed from Serial No.245768 which does not relate to the present case. Ex.D-1 contains the original, duplicate and the triplicate copies relating to 245768. Apparently that case did not result in any prosecution and all the copies are available in the Register. We find that the original is written in ink most probably, by a Ball point pen. The duplicate is a carbon copy and the triplicate is blank. It is interesting to note that on the reverse side of the original the entries are impressions from a carbon and the reverse side of the duplicate the entries are made by pen or Ball point pen. We are only referring to this to show that in the case of Serial No.245768 the Doctor has placed a carbon paper on the reverse side of the original and had proceeded to write in fountain pen in the duplicate copy. We are only trying to point out that these discrepancies cannot be taken serious note of. Now we come to serial No.245769 which is the entry relating to the deceased. We find that both the original and the duplicate copies have been torn from the register and apparently issued to the police authorities. We are only trying to point out that these discrepancies cannot be taken serious note of. Now we come to serial No.245769 which is the entry relating to the deceased. We find that both the original and the duplicate copies have been torn from the register and apparently issued to the police authorities. There is only the triplicate copy and there are absolutely no entries in the triplicate copy. There are only some faint carbon impression not relating to writings, but merely carbon paper impressions. What was exhibited in the court is the duplicate copy relating to the entry in the accident register so far as the deceased is concerned. Comments were made by learned counsel for the appellant that in the duplicate copy there are certain entries in original made with Ball Point pen. One such entry relates to the persons who brought the deceased to the hospital, namely, one Murthy and Gunasekaran (P.W.3). But it has to be remembered that the entry on the reverse side of Ex.P-6 is only in ink and it is not a carbon impression. This is precisely the reason why we referred to Serial No.245768 to illustrate that the Doctor who makes the entries does not always write in fountain pen or Ball point pen in the original only. Sometimes he makes the mistake of writing the duplicate with fountain pen or Ball point pen. We cannot therefore, take serious note of the fact that there are certain writings with fountain pen in the duplicate copy. In other words, we do not accept the theory that there were certain subsequent interpolation in Ex.P-6. For the same reason we do not fault the prosecution for not filing the original copy of the Accident Register. As we have already pointed out, the duplicate copy itself contains the original writings on the reverse side. It means that the original copy will contain writings in fountain pen on the front page and carbon copy impression on the reverse page. So far as P.Ws. 1 and 2 are concerned the prosecution has filed the wound certificate issued by the Doctor. We may however, refer to the entries in the Accident Register relating to P.Ws. 1 and 2 to see whether there is any serious flaw in the prosecution case. Serial No.245770 relates to P.W.2. So far as P.Ws. 1 and 2 are concerned the prosecution has filed the wound certificate issued by the Doctor. We may however, refer to the entries in the Accident Register relating to P.Ws. 1 and 2 to see whether there is any serious flaw in the prosecution case. Serial No.245770 relates to P.W.2. In fact a perusal of this entry explains the reason for the triplicate copy of Serial No.245769 being blank. What the Doctor P.W.5 has done is, to place the carbon sheet above the original copy relating to Serial No.245769 (deceased Rajaram). We find that the original of Serial No.245770 has the exact, carbon writings relating to the deceased Rajaram as found in Ex.P.6. Having realised the mistake the doctor has apparently scored of the original sheet relating to Serial No.245770. She has used the duplicate copy relating to Serial No.245770 as the original. The triplicate copy relating to Serial No.245770 has been torn of and issued to the police. Serial No.245771 relates to P.W.1. Here also we find that the original copy has certain carbon impressions and therefore, has been ignored and only duplicate and triplicate copies have been filled up so far as P.W. 1 is concerned. The duplicate has been torn of and triplicate copy is available. It is interesting to note that in the triplicate copy on the reverse side there are writings in fountain pen or ball point pen. 10. We have considered in detail the document Ex.D-1 in the light of the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant to clear ourselves from any doubt regarding the truth of the prosecution case. 11. So far as the evidence of P.W.6, who was the Doctor at Government Hospital, Madurai, is concerned., the only argument is that he had found P.W.2 being conscious but smelling of alcohol. This piece of evidence along with the suggestion put to P.W.2 is strongly relied on by learned counsel for the appellant to suggest that the defence theory of the witnesses taking alcoholic drinks at the time of occurrence could be true. We are unable to accept this contention because no such suggestion was made to P.W. 1 and there is no evidence as to when P.W.2 had consumed alcohol. There are ever so many possibilities assuming the worst against the prosecution, his evidence cannot be rejected on this ground alone. 12. We are unable to accept this contention because no such suggestion was made to P.W. 1 and there is no evidence as to when P.W.2 had consumed alcohol. There are ever so many possibilities assuming the worst against the prosecution, his evidence cannot be rejected on this ground alone. 12. We next come to the evidence of P.W.9 who conducted the post-mortem on the deceased and issued post-mortem certificate Ex.P-8. For the purpose of appreciating the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant we would do well to refer to the external injuries found on the deceased. “1. A stab injury + shaped over the right laternal chest below the right axilla about 6 x 6 cm going deep. 2. An incised wound 6 cm x 6 cm skin deep in the right upper medial aspect. 3. A stab injury 5 x 2 cm on the laternal aspect or right hip going deep. All the above injuries are antomortum in nature.” The doctor has opined on internal examinations that the injury to the liver was corresponding to the first external injury. In cross examination the doctor has opined that a single stab can cause a plus shaped injury. The doctor has denied that the contents of the stomach smelt of alcohol and that he had suppressed the same. The doctor also denied that the death should have been instantaneous because of the injury to the liver. The defence theory that the occurrence should have taken place long earlier and not at about 10.00 p.m. in the manner spoken to by the prosecution, cannot be accepted. 13. We will now advert to the arguments on the genuineness of Ex.P-1. We have carefully examined Ex.P-1 and we do find that the writing on the first page is natural, but the writing on the reverse side is a little congested and compressed as rightly pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor it may be because the writer namely, P.W. 13 thought of providing sufficient space for the signature or thumb impression of P.W. 1, space for the signature of witnesses, space for doctor’s certificate and his own endorsement regarding the time of recording the statement. We find that after the thumb impression there are endorsements by the doctor and the Sub Inspector P.W.3, apart from the signature of the attestors. We find that after the thumb impression there are endorsements by the doctor and the Sub Inspector P.W.3, apart from the signature of the attestors. It is quite possible that the writer P.W. 13 started writing little closely, so that space can be provided for the other endorsements at the end. Therefore, on this circumstance alone we cannot reject Ex.P-1 as wholly false and fabricated. In this connection we have to remember that the doctor P.W.5 has clearly signed the statement with the endorsement “patient conscious.” Further Ex. P-1 has reached the Magistrate at 1.30 a.m. on 15. 1988 hardly 2 1/2 hours later. We do not therefore, accept the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant, that no reliance can be placed on Ex.P-1. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant also referred to Ex.P-16 the printed First Information Report where there is a reference to the fact that P.W. 13 received intimation from the Government Hospital, Aruppukottai at about 10.50 p.m. and he proceeded to the hospital at 11.00 p.m. and recorded the statement Ex.P-1 at 11.40 p.m. Argues, learned counsel for the appellant, that Exs. P-2 and P-3, wound certificates issued to P.Ws. 1 and 2 show that the doctor examined P.W.2 at 10.30 p.m. and examined P.W.1 also at 10.30 p.m. Ex.P-5, death intimation shows that it was despatched at 11.00 p.m. He therefore, argued that P. W. 13 could not have received information at 10.50 p.m. We do not find any discrepancy in the time as recorded in Ex.P-5 and the time as noted in Ex.P-16. We have come to this conclusion because there is evidence to show that the police station is just across the road and opposite to the Government Hospital. Therefore, there is no surprise in the information having reached the police immediately. 15. What remains is, to find out whether the prosecution had proved the motive for the offence and whether the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 are admissible, on this aspect, under Sec. 32 of the Evidence Act and whether the evidence of P.W.3 is reliable. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is not only hearsay and do not become admissible under Sec.32 of the Evidence Act. 1 and 2 are admissible, on this aspect, under Sec. 32 of the Evidence Act and whether the evidence of P.W.3 is reliable. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is not only hearsay and do not become admissible under Sec.32 of the Evidence Act. The case of the prosecution is that about 16 months prior to the date of occurrence at about 8.00 p.m. in front of the house of the deceased Rajaram, the accused was uttering words in a filthy language. He also challenged others by saying that nobody could harm him and proceeded to remove his dhoti in the presence of everybody. Thereupon the deceased caught hold of the accused and tied him to the electric post. It is only after the father of the accused came there and asked for forgiveness that the accused was released. Two days prior to the occurrence the accused had threatened the deceased that he will wreak vengeance for the earlier incident, namely, 16 months prior to the occurrence. We have already referred to the fact that the street in which Rajaram was residing was mostly occupied by Maravar whereas the accused belongs to the Moopanar community. But what is more, P.W. 1 has clearly stated that all these informations were known to him only because the deceased Rajaram had told him so. Except the deceased Rajaram, nobody else had told him about the incident 16 months prior to the occurrence. Similarly, P.W.2 has also categorically stated that he know the earlier incident only because the deceased Rajaram had told him. He had admitted that he did not know the incident personally. So far as P.W.3 is concerned we have already noticed that in his chief examination he had denied knowledge about the accused, except for having seen him first time on the date of occurrence. But in cross examination he has deposed that he personally knew the incident 16 months prior to the occurrence, relating to the tying up of the accused in an electric post and being beaten by the deceased. We may straightaway reject the evidence of P.W.3 in so far as the earlier incident said to have taken place 16 months prior to the occurrence because of his contradictory statements referred to above. We may straightaway reject the evidence of P.W.3 in so far as the earlier incident said to have taken place 16 months prior to the occurrence because of his contradictory statements referred to above. We also reject the evidence of P.W.4 regarding the statement of the accused threatening to take revenge two days prior to the occurrence. Therefore, so far as the motive aspect of the case, we are left only with the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. The question is whether their evidence is admissible under Sec.32 of the Evidence Act. For the purpose of our case Sec.32 of the Evidence Act reads as follows: “Statements, written or verbal, or relevant facts made by a person who is dead are themselves relevant facts in the following cases: When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person’s death comes into question. Such statements are relevant whether the person who made them was or was not, at the time when they were made, under expectation of death, and whatever may be the nature of the proceeding in which the cause of his death comes into question.” Learned Public Prosecutor argues that on the bare reading of Section, it is clear that the deceased Rajaram could have made the statements at a time when he was not expecting death. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant relies on a decision in In re. Appalanurasayya, A.I.R. 1941 Mad. 101. In that case a person was convicted by accepting the motive as derived from statements made by the deceased to his wife and to his wife’s sister. Rejecting that evidence, the Division Bench observed: “There is nothing in Sec.32 Evidence Act, which makes them admissible. They are not statements made by the deceased as to the cause of his death or to circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death.” Learned Public Prosecutor rightly relies on a decision in Sharad v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1622: (1984)4 S.C.C. 116 : 1984 Crl.L.J. 1738: 1984 S.C.C. (Crl.) 487. Pointing out the difference between English Law and the Indian Law. Pointing out the difference between English Law and the Indian Law. The Supreme Court observed as follows: “Thus, from a review of the authorities mentioned above and the clear language of Sec.32(1) of the Evidence Act, the following Propositions emerge: (1) Sec.32 is an exception to the rule of hearsay and makes admissible the statement of a person who dies, whether the death is a homicide or a suicide, provided the statement relates to the cause of death, or exhibits circumstances leading to the death. In this respect, as indicated above, the Indian Evidence Act, in view of the peculiar conditions of our society and the diverse nature and character of our people, has though it necessary of our people, has though it necessary to widen the sphere on Sec.32 to avoid in justice.” In that case the Supreme Court relied upon certain statements and letters written by the deceased which were directly connected with or related to her death. The Supreme Court observed that the distance of time alone in such cases would not make the statement irrevelant. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court we are of the opinion that in this case, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 relating to the motive for the crime are admissible in evidence. Consequently, even the evidence of P.W. 1 that two days prior to the occurrence the accused had threatened the deceased with dire consequences is also accepted though we have rejected the evidence of P.W.4 on that aspect. 16. For all the above reasons we hold the accused/ appellant guilty of charges of murder in so far as the deceased and offence under Sec.324, I.P.C. in so far as P.Ws. 1 and 2 are concerned. The conviction and sentence as imposed by learned Sessions Judge, Ramnad at Madurai, in S.C. No. 195 of 1988, are therefore, confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.