Judgment 1. The above appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.2.1992 made in S.C.No.316 of 1990 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Sec.304(II), I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment. 2. The appellant, who was A-l before the court below, was facing trial in S.C.No.316 of 1990 for the offence punishable under Sec.304-II, I.P.C, along with two others namely A-2 and A-3, with regard to an alleged occurrence said to have taken place on 20.1.1990 at about 9 p.m. wherein A-1 along with A-2 and A-3 said to have attacked one Ganapathy, who was the husband of P. W. 1 and eldest brother of P. W.2, by using a casuarina Stick, which was produced as M.O.1. Admittedly, A-2 and A3 are husband and wife and A-1 and A-2 are cousin brothers. 3. According to the prosecution, there was a dispute between A-1 and one by name. Ganapathy with regard to the irrigation of lands. That apart, the said Ganapathy also said to have objected A-2 conducting pooja in the village temple, on account of which, A-2 challenged that the said Ganapathy would be done away by his cousin brother A-1, on the date of occurrence, just two hours prior to the time of occurrence. Accordingly, with the intention to cause the death of the said Ganapathy, A-1 attacked Ganapathy on his head by using Casuarina Stick, at about 9 p.m. on hearing the alarm by the said Ganapathy, P.Ws.l and 2 came to the scene of occurrence and witnessed the further attack by A-1 on the said Ganapathy. As per the evidence of P.W.3, independent witness, he along with one Balakrishnan, who was the son-in-law of P.W.I and the deceased Ganapathy, went to the scene of occurrence and immediately took the said Ganapathy to P.W.9 the doctor who was having his clinic in the same village, by engaging a truck of P.W.7. After the first aid by P.W.9, the said Ganapathy was shifted to the Government Hospital at Palayamkotai, who was immediately attended by P.W.11, who registered the accident register certificate. Thereafter, the said Ganapathy was attended by P.W.12, the doctor who took x-ray. After the first aid by P.W.9, the said Ganapathy was shifted to the Government Hospital at Palayamkotai, who was immediately attended by P.W.11, who registered the accident register certificate. Thereafter, the said Ganapathy was attended by P.W.12, the doctor who took x-ray. A complaint was registered by P.W.13 namely the Head-constable, originally under Secs.341 and 325, I.P.C. In spite of the treatment, the said Ganapathy died on 21.1.1990 at about 5.30 p.m. Therefore, the charge was converted as 304-II, I.P.C. 4. 19 witnesses were examined as P.Ws.l to 19, 27 documents were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-27, 7 materials objects were produced as M.Os. 1 to 7, of which it is suffice to mention that P.Ws.l and 2 were the eye-witnesses, who were the wife and brother of the deceased Ganapathy, P.W.3 was the independent eye witness, P. W.4 was the Village Administrative Officer who was examined as observation witness for mahazar, P.W.5 and 6 through independent witness turned hostile P.W.7 was the driver of the truck which carried the deceased Ganapathy to P.W.9. P.W.8 was the driver of the taxi wo was engaged to shift the said Ganapathy from the hospital of P.W.9 to the Government Hospital at Palayamkottai, P.W.9 the doctor who immediately attended to the deceased Ganapathy; P.W.10, who certified the death of the said Ganapathy; P.W.11 was the doctor who was on duty at the time of admitting the said Ganapathy P.W.12 was the doctor who took x-ray which is marked as M.O.6. P.W.13 was head-constable who registered the complaint; P.W.18, the doctor who conducted post-mortem and issued post-mortum certificate which is marked as Ex.P-23. and P.W.19 who conducted the preliminary investigation. 5. The trial court, in the light of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who were the eye-witnesses and the evidences of P.Ws.9, 10, 11, 12 and 18 read with Exs.P-11, P-23, and M.Os.1 and 6, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sec.304-II, I.P.C. Since A-2 died during the trial and A-3 was acquitted, A-1 was convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.304-II, I.P.C. Hence, the above appeal. 6. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that it would not be safe to convict the appellant for the offence punishable under Sec.304-II, I.P.C. merely on the basis of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are admittedly close relatives of the deceased Ganapathy, particularly no motive was established by the prosecution against the appellant. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, assuming the deceased Ganapathy objected A-2 to conduct pooja in the village temple, the only probability is that A-2 would have attacked the deceased Ganapathy but there is no reason to believe the motive on the part of A-1 to attack the deceased Ganapathy to cause his death or to cause any injury without intention to cause death or knowledge that such an injury would cause the death of the said Ganapathy. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant further contends that even though P.W.3 speaks about the motive behind the commission of offence, P.W.3 do not connect either of the accused to the occurrence. Therefore, the only remaining evidence which were relied upon by the trial court were the evidences of P.Ws. 1 and 2, who were admittedly interest witnesses as P.Ws. 1 and 2 were the wife and brother of the deceased Ganapathy, respectively. He further contends that one Balakrishnan, who was the son-in-law of P.W.1 and the deceased Ganapathy, who along with P.W.3 went to the seen of occurrence and took the deceased Ganapathy to the hospital, was not examined by the prosecution and the reason for not examining the said Balakrishnan was not given by the prosecution. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant further contents that when the said Ganapathy was immediately taken to the doctor in the village, P.W.9 it was stated that the said Ganapathy had fell down in the field and sustained injury. But, neither P.W.1 nor P.W.2 or the said Balakrishnan stated anything about the occurrence nor against A-1, A-2 and A-3, Further, there is no convincing reason for not taking the said Ganapathy to the Government Hospital at Palayamkottai, immediately after the occurrence, in spite of bleeding in the nose and mouth and also the said Ganapathy was found in an unconscious stage, nor there is any convincing explanation for dropping the truck and waiting to engage a taxi to shift the said Ganapathy from the hospital of P.W.9 to the Government Hospital at Palayamkottai. Hence, he contends that the delay in giving treatment could have been the cause of the death of the said Ganapathy. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant also contends that there was a delay of 20 hours in lodging the complaint. In view of the evidence of P.W.9 delay in giving proper treatment to the Ganapathy and the delay in lodging the complaint, it would not be safe to rely upon the evidences of P.Ws. 1 and 2, who were interested witnesses. 10. Per contra, learned Government Advocate contends that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 cannot be lightly disregarded merely because they happened to be the wife and brother of the deceased Ganapathy respectively. According to the learned Government Advocate, the evidences of P.Ws.l, 2 and 3 corroborates with each other as to the motive behind the occurrence. All the three witnesses namely P.Ws.l and 2 and 3 have categorically stated that there was dispute between the deceased and A-1 with regard to the irrigation of lands and there was a dispute between the deceased and A-2 as the deceased Ganapathy objected A-2 to conduct pooja in the village temple, on account of which A-2 challenged the deceased that he Would be done away by his cousin brother, A-1, two hours prior to the occurrence. Thereafter, A-2, at the intimation of A-2. cousin brother of A-1 and A-3, wife of A-1, went to the scene of occurrence and A-1 started attacking the said Ganapathy, on whose alarm P.Ws.l and 2 came to the scene of occurrence and witnessed the further attack by A-1. 11. The learned Government Advocate further contends that the evidence of P.W.I 2 read with M.O.6 and the evidence of P.W.18 read with Ex.P-23 and M.O.1 would prove that the injury caused on the deceased Ganapathy by the attack of A-1 using MO1, would cause the death, He also contends that even though no intention is required to constitute an offence punishable under Sec.304-II, I.P.C. in the instant case, the prosecution has proved the motive behind the occurrence, which was categorically spoken by P.Ws.l to 3, beyond all reasonable doubt, against A-1 for the offence punishable under Sec.304-II, I.P.C. 12. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. 13. In my considered opinion, the prosecution had never relied upon the evidence of P.W.3 as an eye-witness, in this case. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of both sides. 13. In my considered opinion, the prosecution had never relied upon the evidence of P.W.3 as an eye-witness, in this case. But, the evidence of P.W.3 was relied upon by the prosecution only for the purpose of establishing the motive behind the occurrence to corroborate with the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. Therefore, it is not necessary for P.W.3 to connect the accused for the said commission of offence and merely because P.W.3 do not connect the accused to the said commission of offence, it cannot be said that the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 2 can be brushed aside, as they are the eyewitnesses to the said occurrence. When P.Ws.1 and 2 had categorically stated the motive behind the occurrence which corroborates with the evidence of P.W.3, their evidences as to the commission of offence by A-1 cannot be lightly disregarded when the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 18 also corroborates with the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 2. 14. That apart, as per Ex.P-11, the said Ganapathy was admitted on 20.1.1990 for having beaten with a stick by a known person. On examination, he was found to be in an unconscious stage and the respiration was irregular. Therefore, it is clear that the injuries caused on the deceased Ganapathy by using a casuarina stick was grievous in nature and sufficient to cause death sine the motive for such an attack by A-1 was categorically proved by the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 3, the evidences of the eyewitnesses namely P.Ws.1 and 2 are clear and direct and the medical evidences also clearly shows that the grievous injury caused on the said Ganapathy was sufficient to cause death, I do not find any good and sufficient reason to interfere with the order of conviction for the offence punishable under Sec.304-II, I.P.C. 15. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was the victim of circumstances as there was no prior enmity between the appellant and the deceased, even as per the evidence of P.W.1, except the stray instances as alleged by P.W.1 that there was some quarrel with regard to the irrigation of lands and there was enmity between the deceased Ganapathy and A1, the accused would not have any knowledge that the said commission would cause the death and that the appellant is the only bread winner of the family and therefore the sentence may be reduced deserves consideration, even though the plea of first offender, in the matter of such offence punishable under Sec.304-II, I.P.C. do not deserve any consideration. 16. Taking note of the submissions that the appellant is the victim of the circumstances, at the instance of A-2 and A-3, and there is no prior enmity between the appellant and the deceased as well as only one injury was caused by A-1 on the deceased, I am obliged to reduce the sentence from seven years rigorous imprisonment and the appellant is at liberty to approach the jail authorities for availing benefit of remission, invoking relevant Government order, if is entitled to. 17. In the result, order of conviction for the offence punishable under Sec.304-II, I.P.C. is confirmed and the sentence is modified. Criminal Appeal is ordered accordingly. No costs.