Judgment :- This Appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 30-8-1988, in S.C. No. 188 of 1987 on the file of the Sessions Court, South Arcot District at Cuddalore, convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 304, Part II, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 7 years 2. Originally the appellant was charged for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. on the allegation that the appellant since had a grievance, that his father, the deceased Ramalingam, after mortgaging his land, handed over the amount to his daughter, without giving any money to the appellant. On 13-5-1987, at about 5.30 p.m. at Kadapperikuppam, opposite to the house of Panchayat Union Leader, the appellant picked up a quarrel with his father, the deceased Ramalingam and beat him with his hands and pushed him on the road and by catching hold of his legs pulled him on the road up to Chavukkuthope, thereby the deceased sustained injuries on all over his body, including his head with the result he died 3. On the side of prosecution, 13 witnesses were examined, 15 exhibits were filed and 4 material objects were marked 4. From these witnesses, the following facts could he culled out :- The deceased Ramalingam is the father of the appellant. P.W. 1 Rajendran is the Village Administrative Officer. P.W. 10 Sadhurvedan is working as a Thalayari under P.W. 1. P.W. 2 Dhanalakshmi was having a tea shop at Kadaperikuppam main Road. The house of P.W. 2 which was attached with the above tea shop was situate at a distance of 400 feet away from the house of the deceased Ramalingam. In the house, opposite to the house of P.W. 2, P.W. 3 Balu, a Tailor was residing with his tailoring shop. The house of P.W. 4 Kannan was also situated nearby 5. On the date of occurrence i.e. on 13-5-1987 at about 5.30 p.m. P.W. 2 was in the process of preparing tea in her tea shop. At that time she found that the deceased Ramalingam was beaten and pushed down by the appellant with his hands and the deceased fell down in front of her tea shop. P.W. 2 asked the appellant not to beat any more in front of the tea shop and asked him to take his father to his house. Then the appellant, took the deceased in the jalli road proceeded towards the graveyard. P.W. 2 asked the appellant not to beat any more in front of the tea shop and asked him to take his father to his house. Then the appellant, took the deceased in the jalli road proceeded towards the graveyard. P.W. 3 Balu was at that time in his house and witnessed the incident. P.W. 4 Kannan, on hearing the sound came out of the house and saw the appellant, beating the deceased and pushing down on the road. Then, the appellant caught hold of the legs of the deceased when he was lying down and pulled him in the road up to the graveyard. When the deceased fell down on the road side, where the jalli stones were spread, and dragged the deceased sustained injuries. P.W. 5 Anjalal saw the appellant, near the deceased while he was lying down in the colony, near graveyard. She also saw that after the deceased sustained injuries, the appellant poured some water into his mouth and then, the appellant took the deceased on his shoulder and went towards the side of his house 6. P.W. 7 Swaminathan, is the brother-in-law of the appellant and son-in-law of the deceased. On the date of occurrence, he was not in the station. The deceased Ramalingam has got one son, the appellant and two daughters. P.W. 7 married one of them. While the deceased was alive, he sold his land measuring about 8 kulees and spent the entire amounts for the ear-boring ceremony of the children of P.W. 7, following which misunderstanding arose between the appellant and the deceased. In retaliation to this, the other lands which belonged to the deceased were forcibly occupied by the appellant. Even then, the appellant insisted for the payment of the mortgage amount which the deceased obtained by mortgaging the other lands. On the date of occurrence, along with the family P.W. 7 came back to his village at 9.00 p.m. and saw the deceased dead 7. P.W. 1, V.A.O. and P.W. 10 Thalayari, on 13-5-1987, after finishing their jamabandhi work, came to the village at 6.00 p.m. On hearing this incident, P.W. 1 came to the house of the deceased and found the deceased with injuries on the body and the head. It was at 6.30 p.m. On enquiry P.W. 1 came to know that the deceased was done to death by the appellant. It was at 6.30 p.m. On enquiry P.W. 1 came to know that the deceased was done to death by the appellant. Then P.W. 1 at 11.00 p.m. went to the police station and gave Ex.P1 complaint. On receipt of Ex.P1 complaint, P.W. 12 Mohamed Khan, Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr. No. 55 of 1987 under Section 302, I.P.C. and prepared Ex.P12 printed F.I.R. He sent the same to the Court as well as to the senior officials 8. P.W. 13, Raju, Inspector of Police, on 14-5-1987 at 6.00 p.m. on receipt of the copy of F.I.R. took up the investigation and went to the spot where the body of the deceased was lying. At about 8.00 A.M., on the next day, he prepared Ex.P2 observation mahazar and Ex.P13 rough sketch. He recovered M.O. 1 blood stained dothi from the body of the deceased in the presence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 10 under Ex.P3 mahazar. Then, he went to the place of occurrence and recovered M.O. 2 blood-stained black-stone, M.O. 3 blood-stained earth and M.O. 4 sample earth under Ex.P5 mahazar and he prepared another observation mahazar Ex.P4, and Ex.P14 rought sketch. Then he conducted inquest over the body of the deceased and examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and others. Ex.P. 15 is the inquest report. Thereafter, he sent the body for post-mortem along with Ex.P. 6 requisition. Later, he arrested the appellant at Vanoor Junction road and sent him for remand 9. P.W. 8 Doctor Haridass, on 14-5-1987 at 4.30 p.m. on receipt of Ex.P6 requisition, conducted post-mortem over the body of the deceased and found the following "External injuries 1. A lacerated injury 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the occipital region 2. Contusion whole of right side of chest. On exploration, fracture of ribs starting from 3rd to 9th ribs on the right side and on the left side from 5th to 7th ribs with clotted blood on the thoracic cavity about 200 ml 3. A contusion 3 cm x 3 cm on the right side of neck. On exploration, haematoma present. No changes in the deeper structures 4. A contusion 2 cm x 1 cm on the right cheek 5. A contusion 1 cm x 1 cm on the right ear lebule 6. A contusion 2 cm x 2 cm on the left cheek 7. On exploration, haematoma present. No changes in the deeper structures 4. A contusion 2 cm x 1 cm on the right cheek 5. A contusion 1 cm x 1 cm on the right ear lebule 6. A contusion 2 cm x 2 cm on the left cheek 7. An abrasion 2 cm x 2 cm on the left forearm 8. An abrasion 4 cm x 3 cm on the right gluteal region 9. An abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on the medial aspect of left ankle Internal Examination : Abdomen uniformly distended. Peritoneal cavity - contains about 400 ml. of clotted blood on the right side of abdomen. Thorax : as in the injuries column viz. fracture of ribs starting from 3rd to 9th ribs on the right side and on the left side from 5th to 7th ribs with clotted blood on the thoracic cavity about 200 ml. Heart : normal empty 160 grams. Lungs : normal, pale, section dry, right 500 grams left 400 grams. Hyoid bone intact. Stomach empty, only fluid. Mucous membrane normal. Liver : There is a tear on the upper surface of liver, 1400 grams. Section dry. Spleen : pale dry 100 grams. Kidneys both normal dry. Small intestines distended with gas, mucosa normal. Bladder-empty. Pelvis-no fracture. Scalp : injuries on the occipital region, no fracture. Membranes intact, brain-normal, 1350 grams. Section normal. Spinal column normal." * He issued Ex.P7 post-mortem certificate. He gave opinion that the injuries found on the head and internal injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He also opined that these injuries could have been caused by beating and fisting with hands with force, some injuries could have been caused by falling down on a rough surface and other injuries could have been caused by pulling the body of the deceased on the road. Then, P.W. 13 sent Ex.P8 requisition to the Court for sending the M.Os. to chemical examiner. P.W. 9 Selvaraj, Court Clerk on receipt of Ex.P. 8 requisition, sent the M.Os. under Ex.P. 9, letter of the Magistrate for chemical analysis. Ex.P. 10 is the chemical analyst's report and Ex.P11 is the serologist's report. After the investigation was over, P.W. 13, Inspector of Police filed the charge-sheet on 16-9-1987 10. to chemical examiner. P.W. 9 Selvaraj, Court Clerk on receipt of Ex.P. 8 requisition, sent the M.Os. under Ex.P. 9, letter of the Magistrate for chemical analysis. Ex.P. 10 is the chemical analyst's report and Ex.P11 is the serologist's report. After the investigation was over, P.W. 13, Inspector of Police filed the charge-sheet on 16-9-1987 10. When the appellant was questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating circumstances brought on record in evidence, he denied his complicity in the crime 11. After the conclusion of the trial, the Court below, after appraisal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, oral and documentary, found the appellant guilty under Section 304, Part II, I.P.C. and dealt with him as stated earlier 12. Miss Sundarakanchini, learned counsel for the appellant took me through the entire evidence and contended that the eye-witnesses, P.Ws. 2 to 4 would not have been on the scene of occurrence and as such, the prosecution case has no merits, in view of the fact that there are various vital contradictions in the evidence of ocular witnesses, which would certainly affect the case of the prosecution. She also contended that the medical evidence adduced by P.W. 8 Doctor Haridass, would show that there is no corroboration for the evidence of ocular witnesses. Learned counsel also would contend that regarding the motive part, P.W. 7, the son-in-law of the deceased has been examined and according to the evidence of P.W. 7, there were only quarrelling and misunderstanding between the appellant and the deceased with regard to the amount handed over to his daughter and as such there is no immediate motive established for the commission of the crime, that too, at the hands of the appellant 13. Mr. S. Manimaran, learned Government Advocate, countered her submissions, by pointing out the various portions of evidence of prosecution witnesses and contended that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. In short, his submission would be that the verdict given by the lower Court is correct and the sentence is a valid one 14. Mr. S. Manimaran, learned Government Advocate, countered her submissions, by pointing out the various portions of evidence of prosecution witnesses and contended that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. In short, his submission would be that the verdict given by the lower Court is correct and the sentence is a valid one 14. It is an unfortunate case, where the son, the appellant herein instead of earning and giving shelter to his aged father, the deceased, at his last days showed aversion, since he had a grievance, as the deceased had handed over the sale proceeds of his landed properties to his daughter for spending money in the ear-boring ceremony of the children of P.W. 7. The evidence of P.W. 2 Dhanalakshmi inspires confidence, because she is an independent witness, who has no axe to grind against the appellant and also her evidence seems to be quite natural, because she was in her tea stop, in front of which the occurrence had started and at that time she was preparing tea, while the appellant beat the deceased and pushed him down on the road, while jalli stones were spread and P.Ws. 3 and 4 also had the opportunity to see the occurrence, because their houses situate near the place of occurrence, which fact has been clearly proved through Ex.P2 observation mahazar. As such, nothing has been elicited in the course of cross-examination to discredit the testimony of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4. It cannot be said that this evidence has not been corroborated by the medical evidence has not been corroborated by the medical evidence. A reading of the medical evidence as projected by P.W. 8 Doctor Haridass, would clearly show that this ocular version has been confirmed by the medical evidence and as such, I do not think that the reasonings given by the trial Court, for convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 304, Part II, I.P.C. are perverse. I do not propose to take a different view from the one taken by the trial Court, after elaborate consideration of the evidence adduced in this case 15. Regarding the motive aspect, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that according to P.W. 7, misunderstanding arose between the appellant and the deceased only two years prior to the occurrence and the same cannot be the reason for the instant occurrence. Regarding the motive aspect, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that according to P.W. 7, misunderstanding arose between the appellant and the deceased only two years prior to the occurrence and the same cannot be the reason for the instant occurrence. A careful reading of the evidence of P.W. 7 would show that quarrel and misunderstanding had not taken place on a single day, but it was consistent and it was a regular practice for the appellant to abuse and beat his father, the deceased. In such fact situation, it cannot be contended that the motive has not been established by the prosecution. When there are three independent eye-witnesses to speak about the occurrence, the motive aspect becomes insignificant. On this reasoning also, I am of the view that the evidence, oral and documentary, adduced by the prosecution has established the offence committed by the appellant. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion, that the appeal has no merits, which is liable to be dismissed 16. For the foregoing reasons, the conviction and sentence as imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court are confirmed. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant requests this Court to consider the question of sentence. The sentence to undergo R.I. for 7 years under Sec. 304, Part II, I.P.C. cannot be said to be excessive, in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is a case where the 65 years old father was beaten black and blue in the daylight in the presence of witnesses, viz., the villagers, pushed down in the jalli stone road and he was pulled in the said jalli road for some distance and thereby he died. In such circumstances, I do not think that the sentence of R.I. for 7 years is excessive. So, the appeal which has no merits is dismissed.