Judgment :- N.Arumugham, J. The convicted first accused, barring the three other accused who are acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Anna District, Dindigul, in S.C. No.37 of 1987 dated 11. 1987, for the offence under Secs.302 and 324, I.P.C. and consequently sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Sec.324, I.P.C. but however to run concurrently, has preferred this appeal, canvassing the correctness and legality of the same. 2. P.W.1 Kalimuthu is a resident of Poothampatti village and living therein along with his wife Kaliammal, who is the sister of witness Chellammal. He owns lands in Muniampatti. The deceased Thangavelu has married the daughter of witness Chellammal and she is living in a thatched house put up in a poramboke land on the south of the Muniampatti Village. The assignment was made in respect of the said two cents of poramboke land in favour of P. W.3 Nallamuthu and accordingly P.W.3 Nallamuthu and Chellammal were living in that thatched house. Arumugham Pillai, the father of accused 3 and 4 was constructing a house on the north of Chellammal’s house in the said poramboke land. P.W.1 Kalimuthu has stated that about 4 days prior to the occurrence, when he was going to Muniampatti, Chellammal, and P.W.3 told him that the hay-rick stocked in front of their house was removed by Arumugham Pillai’s men and they have dumped granite stones in that place. At that time, the 1st accused was attending to the construction work for Arumugham Pillai. P.W.1 told the 1st accused that they should not put stones in front of Chellammal’s house. The 1st accused told P.W.1 that Arumugham Pillai was not available in the Village and he would inform him about it and tell him on Monday. When P.W.1 contacted the first accused on Monday, he told him that he was not concerned about it. Then, P.W.1 reported the matter to the Oor Gounder Kandasamy about the dumping of stones by Arumugham Pillai’s men in front of Chellammal’s house. However, he informed P.W.1 that he would enquire Arumugham Pillai about it and inform him on Tuesday. When P.W.1 contacted the first accused on Monday, he told him that he was not concerned about it. Then, P.W.1 reported the matter to the Oor Gounder Kandasamy about the dumping of stones by Arumugham Pillai’s men in front of Chellammal’s house. However, he informed P.W.1 that he would enquire Arumugham Pillai about it and inform him on Tuesday. On Tuesday when P.W.1 contacted the Oor Gounder Kandasamy, he was told that he enquired Arumugham Pillai and the first accused about it and that they gave no reply and Kandasamy told him that they can do whatever they liked. 3. Then, on the date of occurrence, namely, 8. 1986, the following Wednesday, at about 4 p.m. P.W.1 was going to Muniampatti. At that time, A-1 to A-4 were standing in front of Chellammal’s house. They were talking that Chellammal’s house should be demolished and the front door in Arumugham Pillai’s house should be put up facing south. P. W. 1 told them that they should not do like that when there was no one in Chellammal’s house. Immediately A-1 and A-2 wielded the surul kathi and out of fear P.W.1 retreated about 50 feet towards the common pathway, even so, P.W.1 sustained injuries on his right side forehead, right hand wrist and left hand middle finger due to the cut by the surul kathi, wielded by the first accused. On seeking P.W.1 being attacked by the accused, deceased Thangavelu came running and caught hold of the first accused. Accused 1 and 2 wielded the surul kathi towards Thangavelu and Thangavelu sustained injuries. The accused 3 and 4 caught hold of P.W.1 and instigated the first accused to kill Thangavelu. The first accused dropped the surul kathi on the ground and lifted Thangavelu by holding his legs and beat his head on the ground. The first accused throttled the neck of Thangavelu and the 2nd accused squeezed the scrotum of Thangavelu. Thangavelu shouted that they are killing him. P. W. 1 wriggled out of the hold of accused 3 and 4 and went and lifted Thangavelu but Thangavelu was dead by them. On coming to know of this, the accused ran away towards south. The villagers came there. Himself, Sivankalai, Ganesan and others took the body of Thangavelu and placed it in a cot in Palaniappa Pillai cow shed. On coming to know of this, the accused ran away towards south. The villagers came there. Himself, Sivankalai, Ganesan and others took the body of Thangavelu and placed it in a cot in Palaniappa Pillai cow shed. P.W.1 got a statement written and went to Eriodu Police Station and gave the report Ex.P-1 to the Sub Inspector of Police. He also produced his blood stained shirt M.O.2 to the Police. 4. P.W.2 Ganesan is a resident of Muniampattai and he has stated that on the date of occurrence at 4.00 p.m. the accused were talking in front of Chellammal’s house and that they were telling that they should demolish the house of Chellammal and place the front door of Arumugham Pillai’s house facing South and P.W.1 told them that they should not do so in the absence of any one in Chellammal’s house. There was a wordy quarrel between P.W.1 and the accused and immediately, the accused 1 and 2 took out each a surul kathi from their waist and wielded it. Out of fear, P.W.1 retreated to a distance of about 50 feet towards the pathway and due to the hit by the surul kathi wielded by the first accused P.W.1 sustained injuries on right side fore-head right hand wrist and left hand middle finger. He would further claim that on seeing this deceased Thangavelu came running and the first accused wielded the surul kathi towards him and Thangavelu sustained injuries on his face and body. When Thangavelu tried to catch hold of the 1st accused, the first accused lifted him by holding his legs and beat his head on the ground. Accused 3 and 4 instigated the accused 1 and 2 to kill Thangavelu. The first accused throttled the neck of Thangavelu and the 2nd accused squeezed the scrotum of Thangavelu. In the result, he shouted that they are killing P.W.1 wriggled out of the hold the accused 3 and 4 and found Thangavelu dead. 5. P.W.3 Nallamuthu is living along with Chellammal in the poramboke land, where he has constructed a thatched house on the western side of the village. That land has been assigned to him by the Government and Ex.P-2 is the assignment order. P.W.3 is also paying kist for that land under Ex.P-3 to Ex.P-5. the kist receipts. 5. P.W.3 Nallamuthu is living along with Chellammal in the poramboke land, where he has constructed a thatched house on the western side of the village. That land has been assigned to him by the Government and Ex.P-2 is the assignment order. P.W.3 is also paying kist for that land under Ex.P-3 to Ex.P-5. the kist receipts. He would claim that Arumugham Pillai attempted to construct a house in the land assigned to him by removing the thattai rick, which was put up on his land, and that he told the first accused about it but the first accused did not take any action. Then he told P.W.1 about the removal of that tairick from his land by Arumugham Pillai’s men P. W. 1 told him that he will enquire the first accused and Arumugham. P.W.1 asked the first accused about it but his reply was that he was not concerned about it. So himself and P.W.1 reported the matter to the Oor Gounder and he told him that he asked Arumugham Pillai and the first accused about it and that they did not give any reply. 6. P.W.4 Mariappan, the village Administrative Officer of Pottanampatti has stated that in S.No.495/3, two cents of land in natham poramboke has been assigned to P.W.3 and accordingly he is paying the kist under Ex.P-3 to Ex.P-5, Kist receipts. 7. P.W.10 Karuppiah, the Sub Inspector of Police. Eriodu, would claim that at about 6.30 p.m. on 8. 1986 when he was in the Station, P.W.1 appeared in the Station and gave a written complaint Ex.P-1, which was registered in his Police Station Crime No. 130 of 1986 for the offences under Sec.324 and 302, I.P.C. and prepared the first information report Ex.P-7. He sent the first information report to the Judicial second Class Magistrate’s Court through P.W.8 and also the express report to the higher officials. 8. P.W.7 Dr.Muthusamy, Medical Officer, attached to the Government Hospital, Dindigul, has stated that at about 4.45 p.m. on 8. 1986 on receipt of the requisition from the Sub Inspector of Police, Eriodu, he examined P.W.1 Kalimuthu, for certain injuries said to have been caused on the same day at 4.00 p.m. due to assault with surul Kathi and found the following injuries: 1. An abrasion 2 x 1/4 cm. transversely on the front of right wrist. 2. 1986 on receipt of the requisition from the Sub Inspector of Police, Eriodu, he examined P.W.1 Kalimuthu, for certain injuries said to have been caused on the same day at 4.00 p.m. due to assault with surul Kathi and found the following injuries: 1. An abrasion 2 x 1/4 cm. transversely on the front of right wrist. 2. An abrasion 3 x 1/4 cm on the front of base of left middle finger transversely. 3. An abrasion l x l/4 cm. above downwards on the outer end of right eye brow. He would opine that all the above injuries are simple in nature and that they are possible by cutting with a weapon like M.O.1 Ex.P-10 is the wound certificate issued by him. 9. P.W. 13, the inspector of Police, Vadmadurai, having jurisdiction over the Eriodu Police Station, received the express first information report registered in this case at about 8 p.m. on 8. 1986 and took up the investigation. By 9 p.m. on that day, he inspected the scene of occurrence in the presence of P.W.4 and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P-6 attested by P.W.4 along with a rough sketch Ex.P-17. He made arrangements to take photographs of the scene of occurrence through P.W.6 Kannan. M.O.3 series are the prints of the photos and M.O.4 series are its negatives. By about 9.45 p.m. on the day, he inspected in kottam where the dead body was kept and prepared an observation mahazar Ex.P-7 in the presence of P.W.4. He also prepared a rough sketch Ex.P-8 in respect of that place. On the same night, from 10.30 p.m. to 1.00 a.m. he conducted inquest over the dead body and prepared the inquest report Ex.P-19. Then he sent the dead body for post- mortem Examination through constable P.W.9 with a request to the Government Hospital, Dindigul and the constable accordingly escorted the same to the hospital and he was present through out the post-mortem examination. 10. P.W.12 Dr.Sankaranarayanan, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Dindigul, on the receipt of the requisition given by P.W.13, commenced autopsy over the dead body by 12 noon on 8. 1986 and found the following injuries: 1. A Linear irregular abrasion below right eye over the right cheek 3 cm in length. 2. 10. P.W.12 Dr.Sankaranarayanan, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Dindigul, on the receipt of the requisition given by P.W.13, commenced autopsy over the dead body by 12 noon on 8. 1986 and found the following injuries: 1. A Linear irregular abrasion below right eye over the right cheek 3 cm in length. 2. Elliptical incised wound 1 x 1/4 cm x muscle deep which is tailing downwards and medially with scab formation over the upper 3rd of left upper arm. 3. Incised elliptical wound 1 x 1/4 cm x muscle deep which is tailing downwards and medially with scap formation, over the lateral margin of middle of left “upper arm”. 4. An abrasion with scab formation 3 cm in length over the lateral surface of lower 3rd upper arm left. 5. Two linear abrasions tailing downwards and laterally over the posterior surface of left arm upper half. Nose: Blood stained fluid flowing through the mostrils present. Mouth and lip closed. Tongue inside. Jaws clenched. Teeth complete. Thorax and abdomen normal. Scrotum normal. Chambers empty. Lungs: right side 350 grams. Left 300 grams mottled and congested. Larynx glottis trachea normal. Hyoid bone intact. Stomach partially digested rice particles weighing 750 grams. Liver spleen normal but congested. On opening of the head: Bones, membranes no injury. Underneath the membranes over the right parietal region blood clots coring the lateral surface of the right parietal bone present (Sub-dural haematoma). Blood clot over the gyri of right parietal lobe present. Spinal cord normal. He has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock due to sub-dural bleeding and death would appear to have occurred 18 to 22 hours prior to post-mortem. Ex.P-16 is the postmortem certificate issued by him. He has also opined that injuries 1 to 5 are possible by a weapon like M.O.1. It is also his evidence that subdural haematoma could have been caused due to throwing the body with a heavy force touching the head on the ground. According to him, sub-dural haematoma is necessarily fatal to cause the death and sub-dural bleeding will also cause instantaneous death. After the post-mortem examination, M.O.5 Kaili, M.O.6 towel, M.O.7 jatti from the dead body was seized by P.W.9 and handed over at the police station. 11. According to him, sub-dural haematoma is necessarily fatal to cause the death and sub-dural bleeding will also cause instantaneous death. After the post-mortem examination, M.O.5 Kaili, M.O.6 towel, M.O.7 jatti from the dead body was seized by P.W.9 and handed over at the police station. 11. P.W.13 the Inspector arrested the first accused in the presence of P.W.5 Thiagarajan and one Ramu at Dindigul bus stand at about 1.00 p.m. on 8. 1986 and the first accused gave a confession statement that if he is taken, he would produce the surul kathi which was used in this crime and Ex.P-8 is the admissible portion of the confession statement. The first accused took the Inspector and his party to Subbiah Goundar’s land on the west of Ammapatti and took out a sural kathi M.O.1 from the Seemai Karuvel bush and the Inspector seized M.O.1 under the cover of a mahazar Ex.P-5 attested by P.W.5. On 18. 1986 the 2nd accused surrendered in Court at Dindigul and followed by A-3 and A-4 also on 9. 1986 at Madurai. P.W.13 sent requisition Ex.P-12 to court to send M.Os.2 and 5 to 7 for subjecting them for Chemical examination. P.W.11 the Head Clerk of Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Vedasanthur has stated that M.Os.1 and 5 to 7 were received in court on 18. 1986 and a requisition Ex.P-12 was received from the Inspector of Police for sending them to Chemical Examiner and accordingly, they were sent to the Chemical Examiner on 9. 1986 along with a covering letter, copy of which is Ex.P-13 and received the Chemical Examiner’s report Ex.P-14 on 12. 1986 and the Serologist’s report Ex.P-15 on 2. 1987. Thus after completing the investigation, P.W.13 had laid the final report against the four accused for the offences under Sec.324 and 302 read with 34, I.P.C. and 341 and 302 read with 109, I.P.C. 12. All the accused have denied their complicity in the crime when they were examined by the learned trial Judge under Sec.313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of the incriminating circumstances and materials made available against them by the prosecution but however, they did not choose to examine any witness on their behalf. 13. All the accused have denied their complicity in the crime when they were examined by the learned trial Judge under Sec.313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of the incriminating circumstances and materials made available against them by the prosecution but however, they did not choose to examine any witness on their behalf. 13. After having recorded the oral evidence from P.Ws.1 to 13 and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-19, the documentary evidence with the marking of M.Os.1 to 7 by and on behalf of the prosecution, in the context of the defence theory, namely, the total denial and after having an elaborate discussion on the pros and cons and the credibility of the materials and evidence, the learned trial Judge has found that the prosecution was able to establish the guilt and complicity of the first accused for the offences under Sec.302 and 324, I.P.C. alone and accordingly, he has convicted and sentenced the appellant herein as above referred but however, he has given a specific finding that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt and complicity of A-2 to A-4 on the charges framed and tried and for the said reasoning he found them not guilty and acquitted them by rendering the impugned judgment and it is this judgment being challenged for its correctness and validity as above referred by the appellant. 14. We have heard the bar for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment on very many aspects found in the First Information Report as well as on the credibility of the witnesses who are interested in nature and on the basis of preponderance of improbabilities and the contra from the learned Government Advocate, justifying the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. 15. 15. It was the very effort of Mr.K.S.Ramachandran,-learned counsel appearing for the appellant that it was the case of the prosecution that emanated from the evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 3, they are the close to the deceased and always affiliated with him and that therefore, their version could not be believed unless they had inspired the court to believe their version and while considering so, the said element of truthfulness and genuineness is absent and that therefore, they could not be believed at all secondly, it was contended that in the absence of any motive between the accused and the deceased in the instant case, the prosecution has failed to explain as to why the deceased had suddenly intervened in the melee between P.W.1 and the accused and that therefore, the version of the prosecution could not be believed. Thirdly, learned counsel pointed out that the doctor who did the autopsy has stated that the instantaneous death happened to the deceased was due to sub-dural haematoma, for which there was no external injury and if the doctor’s evidence is to be accepted and believed then, it must be that the prosecution case was on some other evidence, for the reason that the doctor has stated that with heavy force the body of the accused might have been lifted by catching the legs and turned upside down and hit on the ground with greater force. Inasmuch as none of the prosecution witnesses claim so, and only made a nebulous claim, it was commented by the learned counsel that the learned trial Judge has not looked into the said aspect in its proper legal perspective. Therefore, according to him, under the circumstances, the medical evidence made available in this case is in direct conflict with the claim of P.Ws.1 to 3 and that therefore, if there are two views possible and one conflicting with each other, the benefit of such conflict would have to be necessarily ascribed in favour of the accused by giving the benefit of doubt. 16. We have also heard the learned Government Advocate in this case, who places every one of his effort and reliance upon the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3. 16. We have also heard the learned Government Advocate in this case, who places every one of his effort and reliance upon the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3. He would insist that the evidence of P.W.1 could not be rejected or suspected for the reasoning that he was found to have sustained three type of injuries as seen by the doctor and substantiated by the medical certificate given by him and according to the doctor, these three injuries though are simple in nature, possible could have been caused by the weapon used by the accused during the time of occurrence. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 could be believed and no materials are made available to suspect or reject the claim of P.W.1 Regarding P.W.2 and P.W.3 the same were also of the same category and that therefore, their evidence is quite natural, cogent and convincing. The medical evidence, if properly probed, amounts, according to the learned Government Advocate, to substantiate the case of the prosecution and not otherwise. Even the opinion given by the doctor is to be subjected to the scrutiny of the court very carefully and that court of law is not bound by the opinion if it was found otherwise by the court. By stating so, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence was justified and maintained. 17. In the light of the above rival circumstances, we have to see whether the prosecution has established the guilt and complicity of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and if so, whether the impugned judgment rendered by the learned trial Judge is proper of not? 18. The fact as spoken to by P.W.4 that an extent of two cents of land belonging to the Government was assigned to P.W.3 who along with his wife Chellammal was living in a hut put-up therein and in the place nearby Arumugham Pillai was putting up a construction with the actual aid and help of his men and associates has not been denied and it is not in dispute or controversy among the parties herein. In connection with the same the claim of P.W.1 that since the accused, Arumugham Pillai’s group, did not evince any interest even on prior occasions to remove the granite stones stored in front of Chellammal’s house after removing her hay rick stocked, the matter was reported to the Oor Gounder are also admitted facts. In connection with the same the claim of P.W.1 that since the accused, Arumugham Pillai’s group, did not evince any interest even on prior occasions to remove the granite stones stored in front of Chellammal’s house after removing her hay rick stocked, the matter was reported to the Oor Gounder are also admitted facts. The accused are the close associates of Arumugham Pillai and the first accused according to the prosecution, it is seen that, has rendered his assistance in putting up the construction for Arumugham Pillai and all the accused were in hand and in aid of the rival claimant Arumugham Pillai in remodeling his house or putting his house against Chellammal’s house by removing his main door. The evidence of P.W.3 to the above said effect renders full corroboration, namely, that the hay rick stored before Chellammal’s house were removed by the accused and instead they had stored stones belonging to Arumugham Pillai on his behalf for the purpose of putting up construction. But however, the enquiry or the accosting by the Oor Gounder was of, no yield and accordingly P.W.1 and P.W.3 were informed. Then, on the day of occurrence, the trouble started between the first accused and P.W.1. It was claimed that P.W.1 was attacked with sural Kathi and P.W.1 sustained three injuries as evident from the medical evidence tendered by P.W.7 and the wound certificate Ex.P- 10. The very fact that he sustained the simple injuries goes to substantiate the version of P.W.1 as he claims that he retreated to an extent of about 50 feet towards the common pathway and if he had not done so, he might have sustained other injuries also at the hands of the first accused by M.O.1. But when this happened, the deceased who is stated to have been an ex-army man, suddenly intervened and came to the seen and caught hold of the first accused. Even according to the prosecution case, intervention of the deceased was not at all expected by any one but it is noticed that he was able to catch hold of the first accused. The first accused by wielding the sural Kathi, M.O.1, was able to get rid of this catch and however, it was claimed that that the deceased was lifted by his legs upside down and made to fall down to the ground with force. The first accused by wielding the sural Kathi, M.O.1, was able to get rid of this catch and however, it was claimed that that the deceased was lifted by his legs upside down and made to fall down to the ground with force. Though there arises a doubt as to whether a single man would be able to life another man by legs to the top and turn him upside down and make him to fall to the ground is possible or not, it is the consistent and definite case of the prosecution and that has to be accepted for the reasoning that the doctor who did the autopsy has claimed that death for the deceased could have been instantaneous due to the subdural haematoma happened, which could have been caused by making the head of the deceased to come into contact with the ground with heavy force. The further claim of the prosecution that the scrotum of the deceased was squeezed and his neck was throttled by the accused cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the medical evidence had not rendered any support for this and no symptom, or ligature mark could be seen from the dead body. Taking the cumulative effect of the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and the doctor who did the autopsy, it was patently clear that because of the lifting of the deceased by pulling his legs to the top and making him to fall down to the ground with every force and making his head to come into contact with the ground, the sub-dural haematoma was found in the head of the deceased and consequently, he was dead. 19. It was the definite finding of the learned trial Judge that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of accused 2 to 4 for charges framed and tried against them. We have perused the various observations made by the learned trial Judge in paragraphs 19 to 22 of his judgment. It is noticed that he has come to the conclusion that in view of the various anomalies and inconsistencies and inherent laches made available in the prosecution case the complicity and guilt of the other accused could not be held as proved. It is noticed that he has come to the conclusion that in view of the various anomalies and inconsistencies and inherent laches made available in the prosecution case the complicity and guilt of the other accused could not be held as proved. But however, the overt act of the first accused in causing the simple injuries to P.W.1 and causing fatal injury to the deceased has been clearly establish beyond all reasonable doubts. Having thus meticulously seen and perused the legal evidence adduced by the prosecution in the instant case with the established circumstances, we are inclined to endorse our view to the findings given by the learned trial Judge with regard to the guilt and complicity of the first accused. At the same time, we are totally unable to persuade ourselves to concede the effort of Mr.K.S.Ramachandran, learned counsel for the appellant. 20. But the question remains, what is the nature and type of the offence made out by the prosecution against the appellant A-1? The learned trial Judge has given a finding that from the nature of the injury and the part where it had happened, one can infer the knowledge and intention of the accused and that therefore based the conviction. We have looked into the established circumstances. We have already noted that when the first accused has caused the injury to P.W.1, on seeking this, the deceased against whom there was no motive for any of the accused nor vice versa, had run to the scene of crime and caught hold of the first accused. The case of the prosecution that the accused 3 and 4 caught hold of the deceased or P.W.1 and wielding of the surul kathi by the other accused and all the overt acts of the other accused were disbelieved by the trial Judge. It was the specific case of the prosecution that the first accused has also wielded surul kathi against the deceased and all the superficial injuries would have been the resultant position of the wielding of the surul kathi M.O.1, as found in the post mortem certificate. It was the specific case of the prosecution that the first accused has also wielded surul kathi against the deceased and all the superficial injuries would have been the resultant position of the wielding of the surul kathi M.O.1, as found in the post mortem certificate. But according to the opinion of the doctor who did the autopsy, the death for the deceased was definitely due to subdural haematoma found on the parietal region of his head and that could be possible by the head of the deceased coming into contact with a rough surface or earth with great force and in the circumstances, the injury was necessarily fatal and death would have been instantaneous. This part of the evidence would clinch the fact that the prosecution case tendered by P.W.1 and P.W.2, the injured and another, that the first accused lifted the deceased by pulling both of his legs to the top and turned him upside down, with the result, the head of the deceased came to the ground and as a result of which, the subdural haematoma has been caused must be true. It is therefore, clear from the above said facts and materials, the accused did attack upon the deceased only when he intervened and caught hold of him but while wriggling out he wielded the surul kathi M.O.1 and then he was able to lift the deceased by pulling his legs and make his head to come into contact with the ground. Therefore, it is under these circumstances, after having perused the entire legal evidence adduced by the prosecution, we are unable to identify a semblem of evidence to show that the accused had preconceived idea or pre-meditation in his mind against the deceased and therefore he caused the injury, which resulted in the death of the deceased. The learned trial Judge has overlooked the said aspect, which is very unfortunate in this case and accordingly, we hold that the approach by the learned trial Judge in finding him guilty under Sec.302, I.P.C. and consequently sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for his life is not correct but erroneous. The learned trial Judge has overlooked the said aspect, which is very unfortunate in this case and accordingly, we hold that the approach by the learned trial Judge in finding him guilty under Sec.302, I.P.C. and consequently sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for his life is not correct but erroneous. Therefore, in the absence of any premeditation or pre-planning or pre-concert in the mind of the accused/ appellant herein in causing the head injury and that too, internally to cause sub-dural haemotama on the right parietal region, the accused may not have the knowledge but however, that injury caused to the deceased is likely to cause even instantaneous death and very fatal. Therefore, we hold on having considered the said facts into the gamut of law, that the offence would come clearly under Sec.304, Part I of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, for all the said reasonings, while setting aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence made by the learned trial Judge against the first accused/ appellant, we find him guilty for the offence under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C. instead of Sec.302, I.P.C. Accordingly, we award a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with a fine of Rs.1,000 payable within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment in default to suffer a further imprisonment for a period of six months. Insofar as the conviction for the offence under Sec.324, I.P.C. against the first accused/ appellant is concerned, we accept the various findings and observations given by the learned trial judge as it has been clearly proved through the evidence of P. W. 1 the injured, supported by the medical evidence tendered by the medico. For the said reason, we confirm the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant for the offence under Sec.324, I.P.C. 21. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Consequently, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Dindigul Anna District, Dindigul, in S.C. No.37 of 1987 dated 11. 1987 for the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. against the first accused/ appellant is set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Consequently, the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Dindigul Anna District, Dindigul, in S.C. No.37 of 1987 dated 11. 1987 for the offence under Sec.302, I.P.C. against the first accused/ appellant is set aside. Instead, the appellant is found guilty under Sec.304, Part I, I.P.C. convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with a fine of Rs.1,000 payable within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and in default, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Sessions Judge against the appellant for the offence under Sec.324, I.P.C. are confirmed and maintained. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. Bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant/ first accused shall stand cancelled forthwith.