Judgment : R. Balasubramanian, J. The appellants are A-1 to A-3 in S.C.No.49 of 1987 on the file of the Court of Sessions, Coimbatore Division at Coimbatore. They along with one Karuppanna Thevar were tried for the following offences: A-1 to A-3 were tried for an offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. read with Sec. 34, I.P.C. A-4 was tried for an offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C. read with Sec.109, I.P.C. Learned trial Judge after analysing the entire evidence placed before him, found the fourth accused not guilty of the offence alleged against him. However on the same set of evidence, learned trial Judge found A-1 to A-3 guilty of the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. read with Sec.34, I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Accused 1 to 3 in the said case challenging the above referred to conviction and sentence in the present appeal. 2. The occurrence is stated to have taken place on the night of 8. 1986 and the early morning of 8. 1986 i.e., at about 2.30 a.m. The deceased is the wife of P.W.1. P.W.1 in his evidence states that his first wife Valliammal is dead. After her death, he married his elder sister’s daughter Pappammal alias Krishnaveni as his second wife. Pappammal alias Krishnaveni is the deceased in this case. Pappammal was deaf and dump. Kuppathal is the only daughter bone to P.W.1 and Pappammal. A-2 is her husband and the marriage between the said Kuppathal and A-2 took place about five years prior to the occurrence. A-2 is also called as Angamuthu. P. W.2 is the brother-in-law of P.W.1. In other words, the deceased is the sister of P.W.2. P.W.1 and the deceased were residing in a house on the west of Masaniamman temple at Irugur and the said house was owned by Pachiammal. P.W.1 was working at Kothari Mills and he is also a freedom fighter. P.W.1 in his capacity as a freedom fighter was drawing a pension of Rs,500 granted by the Central Government and a pension of Rs.100 granted by the State Government and he is entitled to the pension till his lifetime. The order passed in favour or P. W. 1 granting pension is marked as Ex.P-25. P.W.1 in his capacity as a freedom fighter was drawing a pension of Rs,500 granted by the Central Government and a pension of Rs.100 granted by the State Government and he is entitled to the pension till his lifetime. The order passed in favour or P. W. 1 granting pension is marked as Ex.P-25. P.W.1 also claims that as a freedom fighter, he is entitled to travel through out India in First Class with another person and that the pass issued by the Government is Ex.P-26. P.W.1 was also given other awards in reognition of his movement in freedom fighting. 3. P. W.6 was working as the Manager in Canara Bank at Ondipudthur, from May, 1986. P.W.6 states that pension to freedom fighters was arranged to be disbursed through his bank. The pension will be credited to the freedom fighter’s account either at the end of the month or on the first of the following month and thereafter, the freedom fighters will come and draw their pension amount. The Savings Bank Account No. relating to P.W. 1 is 9993. The pass book given by the bank to P.W.1 is marked as Ex.P-16. That pass book was in force upto 8. 1987. P.W.1 used to over draw his account and that is endorsed in Ex.P-16. To avail the over drawn facilities P.W.1 used to give a cheque to P.W.6 and P.W.6 will sign on the same. P.W.6 says that he knows P.W.1 very well. 4. A-2 is without any permanent employment, He was working in a work shop. A-2 used to take liquor and roam about. When Pappammal was given in marriage to A-2, P.W.1 assured him that out of his pension amount, he would provide a sum of Rs.150 per month for household expenses. P.W.1 accordingly was giving the said monthly payment. P.W.1 was afflicted with skin disease, and his wife Pappammal was afflicted with leprosy. Therefore P.W.1 was not in a position to provide the money as promised every month to A-2. P.W.3 is residing on the west of the house of P.W.1 and the deceased Pappammal. P.W.3 is a tailor by profession. P.W.3 knows P.W.1 and the deceased Pappammal. P.W.1 was afflicted with skin disease, and his wife Pappammal was afflicted with leprosy. Therefore P.W.1 was not in a position to provide the money as promised every month to A-2. P.W.3 is residing on the west of the house of P.W.1 and the deceased Pappammal. P.W.3 is a tailor by profession. P.W.3 knows P.W.1 and the deceased Pappammal. About one week prior to the occurrence A-1 to A-4 came to the house of P.W.1 and questioned him as to why he was not providing monthly household expenses to A-2 as promised, and even threatened hint Hearing this noise, in the house of P.W. 1 on that day, P.W.3 claims to have gone to the house of P.W.1. He found a number of people assembled there. P.W. 3 claims to have told the people to disburse and they accordingly disbursed. On 27. 1986 at 8.30 a.m. P.W.1 gave a complaint to the Head Constable P.W.10 of the Singanallur Police Station and the said complaint was marked as Ex.P-1 in this case. P.W.10, on this complaint, examined P.W.1 and accused 1 to 4 in the presence of P.W.5 and Kupathal and told the accused that what they did was not correct. The accused also gave a statement reduced into writing before the police that they will not thereafter commit such mistakes and this statement is marked as Ex.P-3. In Ex.P-3, P.W.1 and the accused 1 to 4 have signed besides P.W.5 and Kuppathal. P.W.1 and A-1 to A-4 thereafter disbursed in peace and P.W. 1 accordingly reported this to the police by giving Ex.P-2. In Ex.P-2 P.W.1, P.W.5, Kuppathal and accused 1 to 4 have signed. P.W.10 after completing the enquiry and finding that the parties to the proceedings had disbursed in peace, kept the records Exs.P-1 to P-3 on his office filed. However, accused 1 to 4 though promised not to create any problem and gave it in writing, yet they did not keep up their promise. 5. P.W.1 went to a native Doctor at 10.00 a.m. on 8. 1986 to take treatment for his skin infection. The Doctor told him to come after a fortnight to commence the treatment. Therefore P.W.1 at about 12.00 noon, came to the bus stand at Ondipudthur. He took tea in a near-by shop and he was taking rest for some time. P.W.1 went to a native Doctor at 10.00 a.m. on 8. 1986 to take treatment for his skin infection. The Doctor told him to come after a fortnight to commence the treatment. Therefore P.W.1 at about 12.00 noon, came to the bus stand at Ondipudthur. He took tea in a near-by shop and he was taking rest for some time. About 2.00 or 2.30 p.m. on that day, he was proceeding to his place. P.W.4 knows P.W.1 and A-1 to A-4. P.W.4 was running an eatable shop just outside the toddy shop situated there. On 8. 1986, P.W.1 while passing the toddy shop, noticed A-1 coming from the toddy shop. At that time, he picked up a quarrel with P.W.1 saying “you are not able to provide money for the household expenses to A-2, this being so, why do you need an umbrella and towel?” Saying this, accused 1 is stated to have taken custody of of M.Os.1 and 2 from P.W.1 P.W.4 seeing the quarrel between A-1 and P.W.1 told them that if they create any scene there, his business would be spoiled and on that protest, he asked both of them to go. P.W. 1 says that affected by such act on the part of A-1, he went to his house at 6.00 p.m. on that day and informed his wife Pappammal. Pappammal, on hearing this, started crying. At that time, Pappammal’s younger brother Balakrishnan came to the house of P.W.1 and enquired as to why she was crying. P.W.1 told him about what had happened earlier on the day. For that, the said Balakrishnan told P.W. 1 that he need not worry about it and he need not give any complaint to the police and assured that he would get M.Os.1 and 2 from A-1 and hand over them to P.W.1. 6. At 10.00p.m. on the night of 8. 1986, P.W.2 came to the house of P.W.l, where Pappammal was also residing. P.W. 1 also told P.W.2 at that time about the first accused having taken his umbrella and towel. For that, P.W.2 assured P.W. 1 that he would enquire the first accused and he would get M.Os. from him and then hand over the same to him. P.Ws.1 and 2 slept in the house. P.W.1 and P.W.2 slept on the southern pial and the deceased Pappammal was sleeping on the northern pial. For that, P.W.2 assured P.W. 1 that he would enquire the first accused and he would get M.Os. from him and then hand over the same to him. P.Ws.1 and 2 slept in the house. P.W.1 and P.W.2 slept on the southern pial and the deceased Pappammal was sleeping on the northern pial. The photographs of the house are marked as Ex.P-4. At about 2.00 a.m. on the night of 8. 1986 and in the morning of 8. 1986 A-1 to A-3 armed with thorny sticks (M.Os.3 to 5) came to the house of P.W.1 along with A-4. At that time, A-4 is stated to have shouted “kill both the people by beating.” On hearing the noise of A-4, P.W. 1 and P.W.2 got up from their bed and stood. At that time, A-1 armed with the stick is stated to have caused an injury on the deceased - on her left cheek and left hand. A-2 armed with M.O.4 attacked the deceased on her right thigh and left hand. Likewise, A-3 armed with M.O.5 attacked the deceased on her right leg calf muscle and right hand. After that, A-1 caught hold of the deceased by her blouse and pulled her which resulted in her blouse being torn. A-4 shouted at A-1 to A-3 and asked them to beat P.Ws.1 and 2 also. On hearing this, P.W.1 and P.W.2 apprehending danger to their personal safety, ran away from the scene and hid themselves in a nearby Government land. At 5.00 a.m. on the morning of 8. 1986, P.Ws.1 and 2 came back to the house and found Pappammal lying profusely bleeding through nose and mouth and she was found dead. According to P.W.1, at the time of occurrence, a hurricane lamp M.O.9 was burning in his house. At the time of occurrence, the deceased was wearing M.O.6 blouse, M.O.7 saree and M.O.8 inner skirt. P.Ws.1 and 2 went to Singanallur Police Station at 6.00 a.m. on 8. 1996 and P.W.1 gave a complaint to P.W.13 Sub Inspector of Police. The narration of P.W.1 to P.W.13 was reduced into writing by him and he obtained his signature on the same. Ex.P-5 is the First Information Report given by P.W.1. P.W.13 Sub Inspector of Police thereafter registered the complaint in Cr.No.835 of 1986 under Sec.302, I.P.C. and prepared the Printed F.I.R. Ex.P-24. The narration of P.W.1 to P.W.13 was reduced into writing by him and he obtained his signature on the same. Ex.P-5 is the First Information Report given by P.W.1. P.W.13 Sub Inspector of Police thereafter registered the complaint in Cr.No.835 of 1986 under Sec.302, I.P.C. and prepared the Printed F.I.R. Ex.P-24. P.W.13 sent Ex.P-5 and P-24 to Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore and a copy of the F.I.R. (Ex.P-24) to the higher officials. P.W.13 gave a copy of Ex.P-24 to P.W.1 and obtained his signature. Thereafter, P.W.14 Inspector of Police took up the investigation. 7. P.W.14 on 8. 1986 at 7.00 a.m. received a copy of the Express F.I.R. and commenced investigation. At 7.45 a.m. he went to the spot and prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P-27 in the presence of Selvaraj and Nachimuthu and got Ex.P-27 attested by them. P.W. 14 prepared the rough plan Ex.P-28 and he made arrangements for taking photographs of the place of occurrence, through a photographer. The photographs are marked as Ex.P-4, 6 to 8 and their respective negatives are Exs.P-29 to P-31. P.W.14 conducted inquest between 9.00 a.m. and 1.30 p.m. on the dead body of Pappammal and prepared inquest report Ex.P-33. During his enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 4, Balakrishnan and Kuppathal were examined and he recorded their statements. After inquest, P.W.14 sent the dead body for post-mortem under requisition Ex.P-9 through P.W.8 to the Government Hospital at Coimbatore. At about 1.30 p.m. on that day, P.W.14, recovered blood stained earth M.O.10, sample earth M.O.11 under Mahazar Ex.P-34 attested by witnesses. At 1.45 p.m. he inspected the house of the deceased and recovered blood stained that M.O.12 and pillow M.O.13 and M.0.9 lamp under Ex.P-35 attested by witnesses. P.W.14 continued his investigation by examining other witnesses and recorded their statements. P. W.8 the Constable handed over Ex.P-9 requisition for conducting post-mortem on the dead body of Pappammal at Government Hospital, Coimbatore, on 8. 1986 and he was present when the postmortem was conducted. 8. P.W.7, the Professor attached to the Government Hospital received Ex.P-9 at 2.15 p.m. on 8. 1986 and commenced post mortem on the dead body at 2.30 p.m. In the post-mortem, he found the following symptoms: "condition: Cold and Rigor Mortis present in all the four limbs. Appearances: Fairly nourished body of a female. External Injuries: 1. 8. P.W.7, the Professor attached to the Government Hospital received Ex.P-9 at 2.15 p.m. on 8. 1986 and commenced post mortem on the dead body at 2.30 p.m. In the post-mortem, he found the following symptoms: "condition: Cold and Rigor Mortis present in all the four limbs. Appearances: Fairly nourished body of a female. External Injuries: 1. A horizontal lacerated wound 5 c.m. x 2 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. seen on the left side forehead just above the eye-brow. 2. A lacerated injury 3 c.m. x 0.5 cm. x 0.5 c.m. seen on the back of middle left side fore arm. 3. A lacerated injury 1 cm. x 1 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. seen on the right arm just above the right elbow. 4. Abrasion seen on the right arm just above the injury No.3 5. Abrasion seen on the right forearm 10 cm. x 1 cm. 6. A horizontal abrsion 7 cm. x 1 cm. seen on the right thigh just above the right knee. 7. A contusion 15 cm. x 10 cm. seen on the middle of left leg. Multiple abrasions 8 cm. x 6 cms. seen on the dorsum of left foot. Internal injuries: 1. On opening the skull a contusion 18 c.m. x 12 c.m. seen not he left side scalp. 2. Fracture of left side frontal bone involving both parietal bones. 3 Diffused sub-arachnoid hemorrhages noticed. 4. Brain stem contusion with patechial hemorrhages noticed. Heart chambers contained few c.c. of fluid blood. Liver, spleen and kidneys were pale. Stomach contained partly digested food stuff. Mucosa pale. Lungs pale. The post-mortem report given by P.W.7 is Ex.P-10. The Doctor was of the opinion that the external injuries found in Ex.P-10 could have been caused by M.O.3 to M.O.5. The Doctor also opined that external injury No. 1 with the corresponding four internal injuries injuries mentioned in Ex.P-10 could have resulted in the death of Pappammal, and that the deceased would appear to have died of head injuries. 9. After post-mortem, P.W.8 recovered M.Os.6 to 8 the personal apparels of the deceased and after handing over the dead body to the relatives, he handed over M.Os.6 to 8 in the Police Station and they were recovered under Form 95 Ex.P-11. 10. On 8. 9. After post-mortem, P.W.8 recovered M.Os.6 to 8 the personal apparels of the deceased and after handing over the dead body to the relatives, he handed over M.Os.6 to 8 in the Police Station and they were recovered under Form 95 Ex.P-11. 10. On 8. 1986 at 8.00 a.m. near Vannanthurai in Pattanampudhur, P.W.14 enquired A-1 and A-2 in the presence of P.W.11 Shivaji and one Pechimuthu and at that time, they voluntarily gave a statement. That statement was attested by the witnesses, the admissible portion of the statement of A-1 is marked as Ex.P-17 and the admissible portion of the statement of A-2 is marked as Ex.P-18. Pursuant to the said statement, A1 and A-2 took P.W. 14 and his party to the railway track connecting Irugur and Ondipudhur and showed a shrub on the southern side of the railway track near Rajavaikal. A-1 also took the blood stained thorny stick M.O.3 from there and handed over it to P.W.14. It was recorded under a cover of mahazar Ex.P-19 attested by witnesses. Likewise, A-2 took P.W. 14 and his party to the same area and took out M.O.4 and handed it over to P.W.14 which was recovered under a cover of mahazar Ex.P-20 attested by witnesses. Thereafter, the first accused took P.W. 14 and his party to one Nagarajan residing at Kamatchipuram and got M.Os.1 and 2 from him which were also recovered by P.W.14 under Ex.P-21 attested by witnesses. P.W.14 thereafter brought A-1 and A-2 to the Police Station and locked them up. On the information received, P.W. 14 arrested A-3 and A-4 in the presence of P.W.12 at about 2.00 p.m. on 8. 1986 near Ondipudur. A-3 and A-4 also gave voluntary statements and witnesses signed them, the admissible portion of the statement of A-3 is marked as Ex.P-22. Pursuant to the said statement, A-3 took P.W.14 and his party to the east of Kathiri Mill Ginning Factory and took out blood stained stick M.O.5 and gave it to P.W.14 which was recovered under Ex.P-23 in the presence of witnesses. Thereafter, P.W. 14 brought A-3 and A-4 to the police Station and locked them up. A-1 to A-4 and M.Os. 1 to 5 were shown to P.Ws.1 and 2 by P.W.14 and they identified them. Thereafter, P.W. 14 brought A-3 and A-4 to the police Station and locked them up. A-1 to A-4 and M.Os. 1 to 5 were shown to P.Ws.1 and 2 by P.W.14 and they identified them. On that evening, P.W. 14 sent A-1 to A-4 to court for being remanded and M.Os.1 to 5 and M.Os.9 to 13 were sent to the Judicial II Class Magistrate No.III. On the same day, P.W.14 examined P.Ws.5,10, to 12 and others and recorded their statements. On 8. 1986 P.W.14 examined P.W.7 and recorded his statement. On 18. 1986 P.WJ14 sent M.Os.3 to 8,10 and 11 along with a requisition Ex.P-12 to the court to send the same for chemical examination. Under Ex.P-13, the above referred to objects were sent for chemical examination by the Court. The report obtained from the chemical examiner is marked as Ex.P-14 and serologist’s report is marked as Ex.P-15. On 18. 1986, P.W.14 examined P.W.6. Since P.W.14 was transferred on 9. 1986, P.W.15 continued the investigation from 20.10.1986. P.W.15 completed the investigation and laid the charge sheet on 23. 1987 against all the accused as stated above. 11. When the accused were questioned under Sec.313(1)(a), Crl.P.C. on the available incriminating materials against them, A-1 to A-3 answered as follows: A-1 to A-4 were in the house after the nonbu in the month of Adi and they were sleeping in the house on 8. 1986. At that time, two constables came and took A-1 to A-4, the wife of A-1 and the wife of A-2 to the Police Station at Singanallur, In the Police Station, all those persons were made to sit in different places in such a way that one could not see the other. At about 12.00 in the night, the police asked wife of A-1 and A-2 to go home and A-1 to A-4 were detained in the lock up. On the next day at about 2.00 a.m. they took the thumb impression of A-1 to A-4 and they were taken to the Central Prison. The police did not enquire them. Only in the jail, they came to know that they were implicated in the case. A-4 in his statement denied his involvement into. 12. Learned trial Judge, as already stated, on analysing the evidence on record, found A-1 to A-3 alone guilty of the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. read with Sec.34, I.P.C. 13. The police did not enquire them. Only in the jail, they came to know that they were implicated in the case. A-4 in his statement denied his involvement into. 12. Learned trial Judge, as already stated, on analysing the evidence on record, found A-1 to A-3 alone guilty of the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. read with Sec.34, I.P.C. 13. In this appeal, the question that falls for our consideration is whether the judgment of conviction rendered by learned trial Judge is correct or not and whether the evidence available on record supports such a finding of guilt. 14. We heard Mr.V. Gopinath, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr.Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Government Advocate for the State. 15. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would urge that the prosecution had not made out it’s case beyond all reasonable doubt, and therefore the judgment of the learned trial Judge cannot be sustained. In elaborating his argument, he would point out that except the evidence of P.W.1 there is no other evidence which could be looked into by the Court. According to him, though P.Ws.1 and 2 were eye witnesses, yet P.W.2 turned hostile and the court is left only with the solitary evidence of P.W.1. According to learned senior counsel, the relationship between P. W. 1 and the accused, even according to the prosecution is strained as could be seen from Exs.P-1 to P-3, and therefore there is a bright chance for implicating the accused falsely. He would also urge that the overt acts attributed to all the accused by P.W.1 as reflected in Ex.P-5 is not spoken to by him in his oral evidence before court. According to learned Senior Counsel, though in Ex.P-5, it is stated that A-1 is attributed with the overt act of causing an injury on the left forehead of the deceased with M.O.3, yet in court, P.W.1 would not speak about it, but would say that A-1 caused injury only on the left cheek of the deceased. He would further submit that the overt acts attributed to the accused in Ex.P-5 do not have the corresponding injury as reflected in the medical record on the body of the deceased and likewise, some injuries found on the body of the deceased are not correlating with the overt acts attributed to any of the accused. He would further submit that the overt acts attributed to the accused in Ex.P-5 do not have the corresponding injury as reflected in the medical record on the body of the deceased and likewise, some injuries found on the body of the deceased are not correlating with the overt acts attributed to any of the accused. He would further say that the medical evidence is at variance with the overt acts attributed to the accused as found in Ex.P-5 on the one hand and the medical evidence and the oral evidence before court on the other hand. On these broad facts, learned senior counsel for the appellants wanted us to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 and give the benefit of doubt to the accused. Learned senior counsel also submitted that A-4 having been acquitted of the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. read with Sec. 109,‘I.P.C. and it having become final, it would be doubtful whether the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. read with Sec.34, I.P.C. is made out. According to him, on this aspect, there is nothing on record to show that all the accused shared the common intention of killing the deceased. Learned senior counsel contended, admitting the entire case of prosecution as true, even then, the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. is not made out. Learned Senior counsel also pointed out that there is delay on the part of P.W.1 in giving the complaint. Lastly, learned senior counsel contended that though the case of prosecution is that the occurrence took place at 2.00 a.m., the medical evidence available on record would disprove the time of occurrence as put forth by the prosecution. 16. In contra distinction to the arguments of learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, learned Government Advocate for the State would contend that there is nothing in the evidence of P.W.1 which would make us to disbelieve his evidence and according to him, the evidence of P.W.1 is natural and convincing. There are no reasons at all to disbelieve his evidence. He would further add that there is no delay at all in giving the complaint. The circumstances under which the complaint came to be lodged in the police is satisfactorily explained by P.W.1. On these submissions, learned Government Advocate wanted us to sustain the judgment of the court below. 17. There are no reasons at all to disbelieve his evidence. He would further add that there is no delay at all in giving the complaint. The circumstances under which the complaint came to be lodged in the police is satisfactorily explained by P.W.1. On these submissions, learned Government Advocate wanted us to sustain the judgment of the court below. 17. We have carefully applied our mind to the arguments advanced by both the counsel as well as the entire evidence-both oral and documentary available in this case. 18. P.W.1 was aged about 60 years on the date he gave evidence and he is a freedom fighter. His evidence that A-1 to A-4 were unhappy about his failure to provide the monthly payment to meet the household expenses to A-2 cannot be said to be unbelievable. In the background of Exs.P-1 to P-3 which show that there is some strained relationship between the parties, If the evidence of P.W.1 on the above mentioned aspect is tested, then it is not possible to reject it as an unrealistic one or as unbelievable one. No doubt, in this case, P.W.2 turned hostile. 19. P.W.3 is a neighbour residing very close to the residence of P.W.1. According to him, if anything happens in the house of P.W.1, he will be able to know. P.W.3, in his evidence speaks about the quarrel that is stated to have taken place ten days prior to the date of occurrence (according to P.W.1 seven days prior to the date of occurrence) He does not say that he saw the occurrence in question but he would say that on the next day morning i.e., on 8. 1986 at about 6.00 or 6.30 a.m. he found the police at the scene place. 20. From the evidence of P.W.3, learned Senior Counsel wants us to say that the occurrence did not take place in the manner spoken to by P.W. 1 and if really, the occurrence had taken place as spoken to by P.W.1, P.W.3 would not have failed to notice the occurrence. 21. In this context, a perusal of the evidence of P. W.4 may give some clue to decide this question. P.W.4 is also a neighbour residing very close by the residence of P.W.1. He is categorical in his evidence that if any shouting is done in the house of P.W.1, he will not be able to hear. 21. In this context, a perusal of the evidence of P. W.4 may give some clue to decide this question. P.W.4 is also a neighbour residing very close by the residence of P.W.1. He is categorical in his evidence that if any shouting is done in the house of P.W.1, he will not be able to hear. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.4 nullifies the evidence of P.W.3 on this aspect. In the circumstances, a reading of the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 together will not lead one to come to a definite conclusion whether they could or could not have heard any noise from the house of P.W.1. Therefore, we are left only with the evidence of P.W.1 and if we believe the evidence of P.W.1 then the appellants must fail and if we disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1, the consequential result in favour of the accused would follow. 22. Learned senior counsel for the appellants would vehemently argue that from the circumstances available in this case, the evidence of P.W. 1 is not free from doubt and that it cannot be disbelieved on the face value. According to him, if really the occurrence had taken place as spoken to by him, he would not have allowed his wife to go in front of him because that would be against the normal conduct of any husband. He would also say that the failure on the part of P.W.1 to run to the house of P.W.3 or P.W.4 and inform them of the occurrence is abnormal and unusual. Lastly, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would invite us to hold that the conduct of P.W. 1 that he was hiding with P.W.2 in a near by area behind his house till 5.00 a.m. and thereafter went to the police station for giving complaint is far from convincing and therefore, that aspect should also be taken into account to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1. He would further add that P.W.1 did not stick to the overtacts attributed by him to the accused as stated in Ex.P-5 while he gave evidence before court and therefore his evidence is not free from doubt and no court can satisfactorily accept his evidence. 23. We have considered this point as urged by learned Senior Counsel for the appellants as to whether we should believe or disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1. 23. We have considered this point as urged by learned Senior Counsel for the appellants as to whether we should believe or disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1. The occurrence had taken place during night hours. It has been repeatedly held by this Court as well as by the Apex Court that when persons more than one would join in attacking an individual, it is not possible for any witness to speak very precisely the exact role played by oath of the accused in inflicting injuries on the victim. Therefore, to say that P.W.1 must have been precise in distributing the overt acts attributed to all the accused is not easy to accept. He gave the complaint on 8. 1986 and he was examined in court on 8. 1987 almost one year later and therefore some allowance must be given to failing human memory, especially when P.W.1 was aged 60 when he gave evidence. Therefore, we are unable to attach much importance to the failure on the part of P.W.1 in not sticking to any specific overtact attributed by him to all the accused in Ex.P-5 while he gave evidence before court. However P.W.1 is very certain that the injury caused by A-1 on the deceased was on her face. In Ex.P-5, it is mentioned as left fore head, and in his evidence before court he would say that the injury was on the left chin. The medical evidence in this case shows that the injury found on the body of the deceased was above the left eye brow and the parietal region. Therefore, from the above materials, we are able to hold that P.W.1’s evidence is certain and clear about the injuries caused by A-1 on the deceased. The injury on the forehead with corresponding internal injury alone is proved fatal according to the evidence of Doctor. 124. The other aspect of P.W. 1’s conduct namely his failure to inform P.W.3 or P.W.4 and hiding himself till the morning of 8. 1986 also does not affect his evidence in our view. His evidence is that he was threatened by the accused and therefore, apprehending danger, he ran away from the scene. 124. The other aspect of P.W. 1’s conduct namely his failure to inform P.W.3 or P.W.4 and hiding himself till the morning of 8. 1986 also does not affect his evidence in our view. His evidence is that he was threatened by the accused and therefore, apprehending danger, he ran away from the scene. Whether any person in the position of P.W.1, will try to run away from the scene of occurrence or face the situation and try to resist the assault, would depend upon the individual concerned and the conduct would very from individual to individual. As a matter of fact, certainly it cannot be said that all the individuals would act uniformly in resisting the assault or run to the houses of others for help. Therefore, we find no merit in the argument of learned Senior Counsel made in this regard. P.W.1 has satisfactorily, according to us, explained as to why came to lodge the complaint only at 6.00 a.m. on the next day morning. The Police Station is at a distance of nearly 10 kms. from the scene of occurrence. He was obviously, justified in going to the Police Station only in the early morning of 8. 1986 to avoid any danger to his personal safety. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no fault, worth mentioning, on the part of P.W.1 in setting the law in motion. 125. The next contention of learned Senior Counsel for the appellants is that the occurrence would not have taken place at 2.00 a.m. as can be seen from the medical evidence, also needs our attention. P. W.7 Doctor who conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased found that the stomach contained partly digested food stuff. It is his further evidence that the normal period of digestion is 4 to 5 hours depending upon the nature of the food, and the food taken by the deceased on that day would have been in the stomach for a period of three hours. It is the further evidence of the Doctor that the deceased would have taken her last meal about 2 to 3 hours prior to the death. It is the further evidence of the Doctor that the deceased would have taken her last meal about 2 to 3 hours prior to the death. Learned Senior Counsel relying upon this evidence in conjunction with the evidence of P.W.1 that he (P.W.1) and the deceased had their dinner (idly) at about 8.00 p.m. on the previous night, wants us to hold that the occurrence would not have taken place at 2.00 a.m. as putforth by the prosecution. The Doctor, in his evidence, nowhere states when the death could have occurred., which is normally found in the medical evidence. Therefore, from’ the presence of the undigested food particles alone, in the stomach of the deceased coupled with the evidence of P.W.1 as states supra, it is not possible to hold that the occurrence would have taken place long prior to 2.00 a.m. and on that account, the entire prosecution case must be disbelieved. In our considered opinion, the time of occurrence does not stand shifted by any vital period which would affect the case of the prosecution. Therefore, under the available circumstances and for the reasons stated above, we are unable to persuade ourselves to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 who is the sole available eye witness in this case. Therefore, we hold that the evidence of P.W.1 establishes beyond doubt the guilt of A-1 to A-3. 26. On this finding namely that the guilt of the accused stands established by the evidence of P.W.1 and the other evidence let in by the prosecution, learned Senior counsel for the appellants would still submit that the offence under Sec.302 I.P.C. read with Sec.34 I.P.C. is not made out at all. According to him, learned trial Judge had disbelieved the case of the prosecution about the role of abetment played by A-4 and he had been acquitted. Therefore, there is nothing on record to show that the accused came to the scene place with a common intention to kill the deceased. He would further submit that the deceased was nowhere in the picture. The earlier strained relationship was only between the accused on the one hand and P.W.1 on the other hand and if at all, the accused had any grievance, P.W.1 alone could be their target. He would further submit that the deceased was nowhere in the picture. The earlier strained relationship was only between the accused on the one hand and P.W.1 on the other hand and if at all, the accused had any grievance, P.W.1 alone could be their target. The accused in this case, had not inflicted any injury on P.W.1 and therefore it cannot be said that by causing the death of the deceased, they had the intention to cause the death. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that utmost, it can be said that the accused had only knowledge that the injuries inflicted by them are likely to cause death. In support of this position, he placed reliance own the judgment of the Supreme Court in Madhusudan Sathpathy and others v. State of Orissa, 1995 S.C.C. (Crl.) 155. On the strength of the above submission and the judgment referred to supra, learned Senior Counsel argued that on the admitted facts, assuming it to be true, the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. is not made out and if at all this Court can hold the accused guilty, it can be only for a lesser offence. He would also point out that there is only one injury on the head which resulted in the death of the deceased and the accused have caused minor injuries on the leg and hand/He would also invite us to take into account the nature of the weapon said to have been used by the accused. The weapons used by the accused are thorny sticks. The submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the appellants were carefully analysed by us in the context of the arguments advanced by learned Government Advocate, we do feel that there is some force in the submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the appellants. If the role played by A-4 is eschewed from the scene of occurrence (learned trial Judge had done it), then there is nothing on record to show that the accused came to the scene place with an intention to cause the death of the deceased. The facts and circumstances available do not establish beyond doubt that the accused assembled in the scene place with an intention to cause the death. They were not armed with very deadly weapon but they were armed with thorny sticks only. There was only one head injury on the deceased which proved to be fatal. The facts and circumstances available do not establish beyond doubt that the accused assembled in the scene place with an intention to cause the death. They were not armed with very deadly weapon but they were armed with thorny sticks only. There was only one head injury on the deceased which proved to be fatal. Therefore, we are of the opinion that at best it can be said that the accused had the knowledge that the injuries inflicted by them were likely to cause death. A-2 and A-3 were also present at the scene of occurrence and they followed A- by causing further injury, though on non-vital parts, of the deceased. Therefore, it cannot be said that they did not share the intention with A-1. The facts and circumstances clearly establish that all the accused shared the common intention, but not assembled there with the intention to cause death. 27. For the reasons stated above, we hold that the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. read with Sec.34, I.P.C. is not made out. The accused are however found guilty for offence under Sec.304, Part II, I.P.C. read with 34, I.P.C. Accordingly, we set aside the Judgment dated 28. 1987 in S.C.No.49 of 1987 on the file of Court of Sessions, Coimbatore Division at Coimbatore, convicting and sentencing the appellants herein for an offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. read with Sec.34, I.P.C. and to undergo imprisonment for life and instead, the accused are convicted for an offence under Sec.304, Part II, I.P.C. read with Sec.34, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for a period of four years. According, this appeal is dismissed with the abovesaid modification.