M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal which has been preferred by the State of Karnataka assails an order of acquittal recorded in favour of original accused nos. 1 to 3 in Sessions Case No. 22 of 1992 disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge, Dakshina Kannada, by Judgment and Order dated 29. 11. 1993. The incident in question had taken place on the evening of 7. 11. 1991 at about 5. 30 p. m. on Kolla-Maderi Main Road at a place called Koppa in Nelyadi Village of Puttur Taluk. The deceased is one T. G Jose and it is alleged that on the previous day an altercation had taken place between A-3 and the deceased in connection with some timber business. It is not very clear as to what the nature of the quarrel was and we can only assume from the limited references that either it was with regard to some sharing of profits or that the deceased Jose had fallen out with the A-3 and he either did not want to continue with the business or the last possibility and probably the last plausible one is that there are references to some case having been booked against the accused persons by the Forest Department from the evidence of P. W. 18 who is the Assistant Conservator of Forest; the usual possibility of a-3 having believed that the prosecution had emanated because of the deceased. However, at the end of that altercation A-3 is supposed to have threatened to finish off the deceased within two days and to also bum his house. It is clear therefore that the quarrel had a serious basis. On the evening of 7. 11. 1991, the deceased informed his wife that he is going to purchase some groceries and he made his way to the shop of P. W. 5 where he purchased some salt. He was accompanied by P. W. 2-Chacko and the two of them were supposed to have been returning at which time, the three accused confronted them. A-2 is supposed to have taken a towel and swung it around jose and thereby restrained him from running away where upon A-1 inflicted a series of knife injuries on the deceased. The majority of these injuries are located on the back and one of them is close to the neck near the shoulder. A-2 is supposed to have taken a towel and swung it around jose and thereby restrained him from running away where upon A-1 inflicted a series of knife injuries on the deceased. The majority of these injuries are located on the back and one of them is close to the neck near the shoulder. The deceased Jose is supposed to 'have called out to his wife who is P. W. 1-Molly when the assault started. P. W. 2 states that when he tried to intervene that he was threatened and that therefore there was nothing that he could do. In the mean while, it is the case of P. W. 1-Molly who is the wife of the deceased that she had taken her two children to the tank which is nearby to the road and the place where the incident took place and that the moment she heard the cry of her husband, that she rushed to the scene. She claims that she had seen A-2 restraining Jose by holding on to him through the means of the towel and that She had also seen A-1 inflicting knife injuries to her husband. According to her, she screamed for help and at the same time sat down close to where the incident took place as she had felt dizzy. She states that her brother P. W. 4 ran to the spot and revived her. No specific role is attributed to A-3 apart from the fact that it is alleged that he was present. The accused are supposed to have gone away from that spot after the assault. According to the witnesses, Jose tries to walk a few steps and that he collapsed and died in no time. Thereafter, a message is supposed to have been relayed to the brother P. W. 9 by the name of Mathew Kutti who is a doctor having his dispensary at puttur and after his arrival, the wife-Molly along with two or three other persons proceeded to the Police Station at Uppinangadi and the complaint was lodged at about 1 A. M. that night. There is some controversy with regard to the Police coming to the village at about 3. 30 A. M. or whether they only came in the morning which we shall deal with. There is some controversy with regard to the Police coming to the village at about 3. 30 A. M. or whether they only came in the morning which we shall deal with. The inquest was held in the morning after which the investigation commenced and it is alleged by the Investigating Officer that in the course of the investigation, A-1 and 3 made certain statements pursuant to which A-1 produced two blood-stained lungies from his house and A-3 produced a blood-stained knife. These were attached under panchanamas but we need to mention that even though they were forwarded to the Chemical Analyser and the reporters are available, there is a letter on record which states that since the material objects were not collected by the investigating authorities within the prescribed time, that the same have been destroyed. The two blood-stained iungies and the knife were therefore not exhibited and the respondents' learned Counsel has advanced certain submissions with regard to the same which we shall deal with at the appropriate stage. The three accused were charge- sheeted and faced the trial and the learned Trial Judge held that essentially, the witnesses were both interested and partisan in so far as they belong to the family or to the group of the deceased and that consequently, the evidence was unacceptable to the Court. The accused were accordingly acquitted and the State has challenged their acquittal through the present appeal. We have heard the learned addl. SPP at length and we have also heard the learned Counsel who represents the respondents-accused both with regard to the factual aspect as also to the legal aspects involved. The evidence has also been very carefully and completely reviewed by us because this is an appeal against acquittal wherein the State has contended that the order of acquittal is unjustified and consequently, we have followed the procedure of first examining as to whether interference would at all be justified and having come to the conclusion that the findings of the learned Trial Judge are unacceptable and unjustified both on facts and in law, we have thereafter appreciated the evidence and recorded our findings. ( 2 ) THIS being an appeal against acquittal, we shall first deal with the preliminary objection canvassed by the respondents' learned counsel Mr. R. B. Deshpande. ( 2 ) THIS being an appeal against acquittal, we shall first deal with the preliminary objection canvassed by the respondents' learned counsel Mr. R. B. Deshpande. He drew our attention to the well settled position in law namely that if the Trial Court has not bypassed or overlooked any material heads of evidence and if the Trial Court which has had the benefit of presiding over the trial and observing the demeanor of the witnesses has rejected the oral evidence after adducing reasons therefore, that merely because another view is possible this Court ought not to interfere with that decision. He has further emphasised the opinion that the law even goes to the extent of holding that in an appeal against acquittal, as long as the original judgment is sustainable or plausible that it is not open to the High court to interfere and substitute better reasoning merely because that procedure may be possible. We fully accept tne correctness of these contentions arid we also need to take cognizance of the fact that the learned Addl. SPP was quick to point out to us that if in a given case the evidence is perfectly acceptable and reliable and if a grave error has occurred in rejecting the evidence that ought not to have been done, that it is a case of miscarriage of justice and in such situations it is incumbent for the appeal Court to review the case and record findings in consonance with the well defined principles of law. He went on to submit that merely because, through a process of reasoning the findings are sought to be justified, that this will not preclude the appeal Court from interfering if it is demonstrated that the decision is palpably wrong. For this purpose, it was necessary for us to commence with a careful examination of the Judgment before going to the evidence which we have done but we need to record that while it is equally true that the High Court will not normally interfere in a case where the findings appear to be correct and reasonable, that It is equally well settled law that where the findings are demonstrated to be absolutely incorrect, that the court has to exercise appellate powers of rectification. A perusal of the Judgment indicates that the solitary ground on which the evidence had been discarded is that the witnesses are interested or in other words related or friendly and that there is no independent evidence available. The learned Trial Judge has bypassed the particularly important aspect of essential credibility and the crucial question as to whether' there was in fact any hostility between the witnesses and the accused that is good enough or strong enough to impell them to falsely implicate the accused. Also, the very important angle of law namely that merely because witnesses are relations or friends whether ipso facto their evidence could be discarded on that ground or whether as is the law, such evidence is required to be doubly scrutinised that a higher degree of caution is exercised while dealing with it and as a general rule, the Court would look to corroboration or supportive evidence. It is because of the erroneous approach of the Trial Court that we are required to embark upon a total reevaluation of the record which has been done. Having regard to this position, the preliminary objection to the effect that this is not a case in which interference is called for necessarily fails. ( 3 ) THE learned Addi. SPP has taken us through the evidence of P. W. 1- Molly. Briefly stated, according to her at about 4. 30 p. m. on the evening of 7. 1. 1991, her husband Jose left the house stating that he was going to the grocery shop and that he left in the company of P. W. 2. Molly took the two small children to the tank which is close to the road for purposes of giving them a bath. According to her, after the children were given a bath and she was returning, she heard the cry of her husband calling out to her where upon she rushed to his assistance. She states that the distance between where she was and the scene of offence was not more than about 120 feet and according to her, she distinctly saw A-2 holding on or holding back Jose by means of the towel which he had secured round Jose and that A-1 was inflicting knife injuries to Jose most of which were on the back, one of which landed close to the neck. According to her, she screamed and sat down because she felt giddy and that after a short while her brother who had arrived at the spot revived her and took her home. She states that only after the arrival of her brother-in-law Manju from Puttur which was late at night because according to her, a message could only be put through at about 10 p. m. that they finally decided to go to the Police Station Molly was accompanied by two or three persons and she mentions that it took them considerable time to reach the Police Station from the village as it is about 18 K. ms. and that her oral complaint was taken down by the Sub-Inspector of Police. The complaint is lodged at about 1. 30 a. m. on that night. She has been cross-examined extensively and the line of cross-examination followed was that having regard to the fact that the tank is located at a level of about 25 to 30 feet lower than the road where the incident took place and further more, since it is at some distance, that even if she heard her name being called out, by the time she could have got to the road, that the incident was over, the assailants had left and that therefore; she is not an eye witness to the incident. Also, her justification with regard to the delay of eight hours between the time when the incident took place and the complaint was registered has been seriously challenged because the defence has sought to putforward the theory that the incident has taken place later that night and that the accused have been involved falsely only because of the incident that took place between A-3 and the deceased on the previous evening. The witness has with-stood the cross-examination and she has stuck to her contention that she was, a witness to the incident. We need to record here that a suggestion was put to P. W. 1 namely that she did not so much as go to the assistance of her husband or even touch the body at any time, which has been admitted by her but the reason given is that she virtually, passed out before she reached the actual spot and that her husband was long since dead by the time she revived. We do find from a total examination of this evidence that the defence has really not been able to either attack her credibility or impute motives or for that matter impeach her veracity even to the least extent. The learned Trial Judge has unfortunately devoted virtually five pages of the Judgment in an elaborate discussion before concluding that having regard to the topography of the place that p. W. 1 could not have seen the incident and there are another two pages of discussion wherein the learned Trial Judge comes to the conclusion that if P. W. 1 was accompanied by the young children, that it is physically impossible for her to have quickly made her way with the children from the tank to that spot. We need to take serious note of these very grave errors committed by the Trial Court because this conjuncture and hypothesis has absolutely no basis in so far as various angles and possibilities which he has examined ad-nausem have no bearing since there is not even any cross-examination along these lines. A perusal of the evidence will indicate that there is no challenge to P. W. 1's contention that she was able to see in so far as nothing has been brought on record to indicate that there was any object or vegetation to obstruct the visibility or for that matter that the line of vision was in any way hampered or that it would. preclude her seeing the incident from where she was and on her way to the spot. In our considered view, the evidence of P. W. 1 is perfectly acceptable. ( 4 ) NEXT, the learned Addl. SPP took us through the evidence of P. W. 2-Chacko. This witness is not related to either the Deceased or his wife but from the fact that he accompanied deceased Jose all the way from his house to the tea shop and then to the grocery shop where Jose purchased the salt and thereafter was making his way back with him, it does appear that the two of them were Wends. According to him, the three accused met them on the road and A-1 rajan started a verbal argument with the deceased. At that stage, a-2 put his bairas or towel around the neck of Jose and tried to hold him back where upon A-1 started inflicting knife injuries on jose. According to him, the three accused met them on the road and A-1 rajan started a verbal argument with the deceased. At that stage, a-2 put his bairas or towel around the neck of Jose and tried to hold him back where upon A-1 started inflicting knife injuries on jose. According to him, immediately on the knife assault, Jose started shouting out very loudly calling out to his wife and P. W. 1 came running from the nearby tank to the spot. His case is that he did not have any opportunity to intervene or save Jose because he was threatened. According to him, Jose was bleeding very heavily and that he virtually fell to the ground and died in no time. In examination- in-chief he has categorically stated that there was illwill between the accused on the one side and the deceased on the other as the deceased had advised the accused to stop smuggling of forest wood. According to him, this was the reason for the assault. This witness has been cross-examined in great detail and the line adopted is basically to indicate that there have been several violent instances in which this witness and all the other persons involved in this case were participants, that there was even one murder and that generally, the witness is not well disposed towards A-3. The witness has not admitted any of these and as regards in incident, it was suggested to him that he could not have been present at the place as otherwise, there is no explanation for his not having intervened and gone to the assistance of Jose. The learned Trial Judge has again rejected this evidence on the ground that this witness admittedly belongs to the camp of the deceased and is therefore heavily interested and equally hostile to the accused. The learned Addt. SPP has pointed out to us that the quality of this evidence is such that it is not permissible for a Court to reject it. The learned Addt. SPP has pointed out to us that the quality of this evidence is such that it is not permissible for a Court to reject it. On the other hand, what the defence has contended is that it is inconceivable that P. W. 2 could have been a silent spectator to such a serious incident particularly when his friend was being assaulted and the fact that there is absolutely no blood on his clothes, that he did not sustain any injury and that he himself admits that he did not intervene, would conclusively establish that he could never have been there. Further more, it is pointed out to us by the defence that even if there were two persons on the other side that one of them was not armed and that therefore, there was hardly any ground for P. W. 2 to have been either outnumbered or over-powered. We have taken note of these heads of criticism but we do find that the incident is rather sporadic in so far as it was obviously one of relatively short duration and further more that merely because P. W. 2 did not intervene out of a sense of fear, does not necessarily brand him as a liar. It was for the defence to have brought some worthwhile material on record on the basis of which alone it could have been argued that the evidence should be discarded and in the absence of anything along those lines, we see no ground on which this evidence could be rejected. ( 5 ) THE evidence of P. W. 3 is of some consequence. He is a resident of Koppa locality and he states that he saw the deceased and P. W. 2 passby at about 5. 15 p. m. on their way back from the grocery store. He states that after talking to him, the two persons proceeded ahead and when he heard the shouting, he ran to the spot and found Jose in a fatally injured condition, that he saw people running and he was immediately informed that A-1 and 2 were the assailants. As far as this witness is concerned, the defence has pointed out that he is a handicapped person, being lame and that therefore, he cannot run fast. As far as this witness is concerned, the defence has pointed out that he is a handicapped person, being lame and that therefore, he cannot run fast. It has also been brought on record that there are several houses in that locality and the defence contention is that the prosecution ought to have examined one or more of those persons as independent witnesses. The learned addl. SPP has pointed out to us that this evidence is important because it establishes two very crucial facts, the first being that p. W. 2 had accompanied the deceased at the time of the incident and the second, that immediately after it happened, the witness was informed that A-1 and 2 were the assailants. The defence has contended that this witness has deliberately been planted in an attempt to support the prosecution case and that he himself admits that he has not seen the incident. The submission is that this evidence is of no assistance to the prosecution. As far as the quality of the evidence is concerned, it is virtually faultless and we are in total agreement with the learned Addl. SPP that this evidence corroborates P. W. 2 on not one but two material points, the first being that it establishes that P. W. 2 was very much on the spot when the incident took place and more importantly that the names of the assailants who had been seen were disclosed within minutes of the incident having taken place. ( 6 ) NEXT, under this head we have the evidence of P. W. 5 who is the shop keeper at Koppa. He deposes to the effect that the deceased Jose and P. W. 2-Chacko came to his shop at about 4. 45 p. m. on 7. 11. 1991 and that Jose purchased one K. G. of salt from his shop. He states that at about 6 p. m. he saw the persons running towards the direction of the house of Jose and he also followed them and found Jose lying in a pool of blood having sustained injuries on his back. He states that P. W. 1 was present there and further more, that the persons present informed him that Jose had been murdered by A-1 and 2. He states that P. W. 1 was present there and further more, that the persons present informed him that Jose had been murdered by A-1 and 2. In cross-examination, it was sought to be alleged that he was a man of loose moral character and that certain criminal cases were filed against him but he has denied these allegations. Thereafter, he "has also been grilled with regard to the question as to who told him the names of the assailants and it is true that he has replied that he does not remember exactly who gave him the names. Also, the defence has taken him to task for not having lodged a complaint with the Police about the murder. The learned Addl. SPP relies on this evidence for purposes of support to the evidence of P. W. 2 as also P. W. 1 and further more, in order to re-inforce the fact that the assault by A-1 and 2 was witnessed by several persons and that is the reason why their names have been disclosed to this witness at the earliest point of time, on the other hand, the defence has contended that there is hardly any ground on which this person could have left his shop and gone to the scene of offence and it was also sought to be contended that merely because a packet of salt had been found at the scene of offence, that the prosecution has tried to use the shop keeper in order to support the evidence of the other witnesses. In our considered view, the presence of that packet of salt is very significant because it fully establishes the version of P. Ws. 1 and 2 with regard to the movements of the deceased just prior to the incident and it lends support to what has been pointed out by them. Again, it is very crucial because this witness again points out that P. W. 1 was at the scene of the incident and the most important part of the evidence is from the disclosure of the names of the assailants. Nothing has come on record to discredit this witness and the learned Trial Judge has virtually brushed aside this evidence on the ground that once the main eye witness evidence is rejected, that this evidence is of no consequence. Nothing has come on record to discredit this witness and the learned Trial Judge has virtually brushed aside this evidence on the ground that once the main eye witness evidence is rejected, that this evidence is of no consequence. We are of the view that this evidence is of considerable importance because we shall presently point out that the defence theory that independent evidence is absent in this case is completely set at rest from the evidence of P. Ws. 3 and 5. ( 7 ) WE do not propose to deal in any detail with the evidence of P. Ws. 4 and 6 because their evidence follows more or less on similar lines and more importantly, they have gone to the scene of offence slightly later on. What we need to address ourselves to is that the serious charge from the defence that the F. I. R. which was lodged by P. W. 1 at 1. 30 a. m. i. e. eight hours after the incident has to be rejected outright. It is well settled law that if there is abnormal delay in the lodging of the F. I. R. that it is almost fatal and the respondents' learned Counsel drew our attention to the decision of the Supreme court reported in AIR 1974 SUPREME COURT page 606 in support of his contention that where there is a background of hostility, any delay in the lodging of the F. I. R. calls for grave suspicion because it is during that crucial time that the witnesses who have met can decide on false involvement. In the first instance, the learned Counsel submitted that since the most important witnesses i. e. P. Ws. 1 and 2 do not have a single drop of blood on them or any injury on them would lead to the irresistible conclusion that they were not present when the assault took place and the extension of this argument proceeds to state that if the complaint was lodged at 1. 30 a. m. that making allowance for all the other factors such as distance travelled etc. , that the incident must have taken place long after sunset and that A-1 to 3 have been involved only because of the incident of the previous day and the background of hostility. 30 a. m. that making allowance for all the other factors such as distance travelled etc. , that the incident must have taken place long after sunset and that A-1 to 3 have been involved only because of the incident of the previous day and the background of hostility. We have dealt with the latter part of the submission already but we need to very carefully examine as to whether at all there has been what can be termed as undue or unexplained delay. We need to reiterate that the Supreme court in the decision referred to supra and in several other cases has laid down an equally valid proposition that mere time lag cannot work against the prosecution if it is fully and correctly explained. In the present case, the F. I. R. itself states that there has been some delay because P. W. 1 had to come a long way to the Police Station and that it was also necessary to wait for the relatives. P. W. 9-Mathew is the elder brother of the deceased and is a Doctor who is based at Puttur. P. W. 8-Joseph is the witness who contacted him and we have carefully scrutinised his evidence because he has pointed out that he had to go all the way to Uppinangady and make a telephone call from there. He has also pointed out to us that P. W. 9 who is a doctor was not available earlier and it has come in the evidence of p. W. 1 that they were able to send a message to P. W. 9 only at about 10 p. m. Thereafter, P. W. 9 had to make a long journey from Puttur all the way to the village and having regard to the distance and the type of terrain, this would not have taken anything less than one hour. P. W. 9 being the elder person of the family must have been briefed with regard to what had happened and by the time he and the others decided to go to the Police Station, atleast another hour must have elapsed. Also, having regard to the status of the persons it is clear that they had to make their way all the way from the village to the Police Station which is about 18 K. ms. Also, having regard to the status of the persons it is clear that they had to make their way all the way from the village to the Police Station which is about 18 K. ms. and that they were dependent on whatever transport they could get at that late hour of the night. If they have however reached to Police Station at about 1-0-Clock in the morning, the whole of the interim time period is more than fully explained. One has to take note of the fact that the complaint which runs to about two pages was an oral complaint which was recorded by the P. S. I. who has thereafter indicated the time as 1. 30 a. m. We do not see any justification for the charge that the complaint is belated or unreasonably delayed and we find that there is a valid and correct explanation for the time that has elapsed particularly in view of the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2. A perusal of the F. I. R. will indicate that the incident has been described and more importantly, all the three accused have been named there. In this background, we are unable to uphold the contention raised on behalf of accused that the F. I. R. is suspect or that it suffers from infirmities and must therefore be rejected. These are the grounds on which the learned Trial Judge has virtually rejected the F. I. R. but we see no justification for such a finding. ( 8 ) THE last head that we require to deal with is with regard to the recoveries. It has come on record that in the course of the investigation, A-1 and A-3 are alleged to have made certain statements pursuant to which two lungies and a knife were recovered at the instance of A-1 and A-3. We shall deal with this head of evidence very briefly because even though the defence attacks the recoveries on the ground that the Investigating Officer has not in his evidence reproduced the contents of the mahazar with regard to the voluntary statements contained in Exhibits P. 13 and P. 14, we are not inclined to accept this objection. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court reported in VIJAYAKUMAR vs STATE' wherein it was held that the recoveries under Section 27 have to be proved like any other facts. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court reported in VIJAYAKUMAR vs STATE' wherein it was held that the recoveries under Section 27 have to be proved like any other facts. There is a passing reference to the type of evidence which is required from the P. S. I. and we have scrutinised the record before us from this point of view. First of all, we do not share the view that it is incumbent on tho P. S. I. to reproduce the contents of the voluntary statement. As long as the mahazar is produced and properly proved and as long as the evidence establishes the facts relating to the recovery, that is all that the law requires. In fact, any further statement from the Investigating Officer would bring it dangerously close to being inadmissible in so far as it is only very limited evidence in relation to such voluntary statements that can be looked at by the Court under Section 27 of the Evidence act. Normally, the recovery of two bloodstained lungies and the bloodstained knife at the instance of A-1 and A-3 would have been very incriminating circumstances but we prefer not to attack any significance to this head of evidence because tho items in question were not taken back by the investigating authorities after analysis and were therefore not reproduced before the Court and in the absence thereof, since they were not even shown to the P. Ws, out of a since of fairness to the accused, we would prefer not to attach any significance to this entire head of evidence. Though the learned addl. SPP submitted that the Court can draw the requisite inference, in our considered view where the direct evidence is satisfactory and conclusive, it would be only correct not to burden the record by seeking to debate about the value of this head of evidence. ( 9 ) ON the basis of the evidence before us and after a careful scrutiny, we find that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 who have witnessed the incident and the supportive evidence of P. W. 3 and p. W. 5 establish firstly, the movements of the deceased on that evening and thereafter. ( 9 ) ON the basis of the evidence before us and after a careful scrutiny, we find that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 who have witnessed the incident and the supportive evidence of P. W. 3 and p. W. 5 establish firstly, the movements of the deceased on that evening and thereafter. We accept the fact that the deceased Jose when he was on the road was caught hold of by A-2 by means of a towel and was stabbed by A-1 Rajan who dealt several blows with a knife on his back and on his shoulder. We also accept the position that this incident was witnessed by P. Ws. 1 and 2 and that the reason why there was no intervention by P. W. 2 was because of the threat from A-1. We have also held that from a careful scrutiny of the record, we find that the incident was clearly and completely visible to P. W. 1. The evidence of P. W. 1 also establishes that she was near the tank when the incident took place and we do not see the propriety of going into any debate with regard to the children because the evidence is silent in that regard. Whether the children followed their, mother or whether somebody else took care of them has not come on record and neither has the defence nor the prosecution questioned about it and consequently, we do not see any reason either why we could address ourselves to that question. Suffice it to say that the incident was witnessed by P. Ws. 1 and 2 and we have also held that there is no material on record to support the charge that P. Ws. 1 and 2 had any ground to falsely implicate the accused. We also take note of the other obvious features namely that since we are fully satisfied that P. Ws. 1 and 2 were eye witnesses, it is more than obvious to us that they would not under any circumstances falsely implicate the accused if any other persons were the real culprits. ( 10 ) WE now come to the last question namely the liability of the accused. The evidence that has been carefully scrutinised does not indicate any overt acts or any offences made out as far as accused no. 3 is concerned. ( 10 ) WE now come to the last question namely the liability of the accused. The evidence that has been carefully scrutinised does not indicate any overt acts or any offences made out as far as accused no. 3 is concerned. The fact that he was involved in the incident on the previous day or the fact that it may be that the incident was the outcome of some hostility between him and the deceased is not of any relevance because the evidence does not ascribe any role to him as far as the assault is concerned. This is a case in which there are passing references to his presence but in so far as there in nothing to indicate that the others participated or instigated A-1 and 2, as far as A-3 is concerned, the order of acquittal recorded in his favour by the Trial Court will have to be confirmed. ( 11 ) COMING to the case of A-1 and 2, the learned Addl. SPP pointed out to us very correctly that even though A-2 was not armed with any weapon and even though A-2 has not inflicted any injury, that he has played virtually a dominant role in so far as it was he who initially caught hold of Jose and it was he who put the towel around the neck of Jose and prevented him from either escaping or moving away and it was because of his virtually holding one, that a-1 was able to inflict several knife injuries on Jose. The participation of A-2 under these circumstances to this extent clearly establishes that he shared the common intention of A-1 to assault the deceased. A-1 was armed with a knife and A-2 continued to hold on to the deceased after A-1 started the assault which clearly shows that the two of them were acting in furtherance of their common intention. Normally, having regard to the fact that Jose died on the spot, Section 302 read with 34 IPC would be the one applicable. We have however scrutinised the medical evidence very carefully and there is one small lacuna in this case namely that the weapon though recovered has not been produced by the prosecution. Normally, having regard to the fact that Jose died on the spot, Section 302 read with 34 IPC would be the one applicable. We have however scrutinised the medical evidence very carefully and there is one small lacuna in this case namely that the weapon though recovered has not been produced by the prosecution. It is therefore not possible for us to fathom as to what, type of weapon was used which would make a big difference while gauging as to whether the intention was to seriously injure or to kill. We have virtually re-created the incident with an amount of precision and what we find is that the assault was proceeded by a virtual altercation. It would really be this that triggered of the assault and even at that stage we find that all the injuries except one have been directed towards the back and not on the chest of the deceased. The one injury which was obviously not aimed at the back has landed on the shoulder and this fact is sufficient to indicate to us that there was not definite intention on the part of the accused to kill the deceased. The doctor has also opined that the injuries though serious were not of such a nature that would necessarily have caused death if medical attention had been available. In sum and substance therefore, on a correct application of the law, we hold that the offence would come under section 304 part 2 IPC, Section 34 being applicable in so far as the two accused have acted in furtherance of their common intention. Consequently, the A-1 V. K. RAJAN @ VERGHESE and A-2 BAB! @ V. MATHEW are found guilty of the offences punishable under sections 304 part 2 read with 34 IPC. ( 12 ) ON the question of sentence, the learned Addl. SPP submitted that in so far as a death has occurred and having regard to the number of injuries inflicted, that this is a case which calls for a deterrent sentence. ( 12 ) ON the question of sentence, the learned Addl. SPP submitted that in so far as a death has occurred and having regard to the number of injuries inflicted, that this is a case which calls for a deterrent sentence. On behalf of the accused, it was pointed out that they are relatively young persons but more importantly that there was some kind of cause that emanated from the side of the deceased; also, that the incident was of a sporadic and sudden nature, that there was no premeditation and that this is not a case in which any extreme levels of brutality are involved. We have taken note of all these factors and we propose to impose a sentence that is in consonance with the seriousness of the case but while deciding on a just and adequate punishment having regard to the fact that the deceased has left behind a young widow and two minor children, we are of the view that the interest of justice would require that even if the Court shows some consideration in the matter of sentence, that a relatively, heavy fine should be imposed on the accused which amount will be directed to be paid over as compensation to the widow of the -deceased. On some what similar reasoning, in the decision reported in the case of SARUP SINGH vs STATE OF haryana REPRESENTED BY THE HOME SECRETARY, the supreme Court while convicting the accused under Section 304 part 2 IPC had reduced the sentence to the period already undergone but had imposed a relatively heavy fine of Rs. 20,000/- that was in keeping with the status Of the accused in that case, and had directed that it be paid over as compensation to the widow of the deceased. While we are of the view that the latter aspect is of considerable consequence in so far as while the law requires that the accused must be adequately punished, it is equally the intention of the law to ensure that justice is done to the victim. Having regard to these considerations in our considered view, the sentence of three years r. I. would meet the ends of justice but we propose to impose a fine of Rs. 25,000/- on each of the accused with no indefault sentence. ( 13 ) THE appeal partially succeeds. Having regard to these considerations in our considered view, the sentence of three years r. I. would meet the ends of justice but we propose to impose a fine of Rs. 25,000/- on each of the accused with no indefault sentence. ( 13 ) THE appeal partially succeeds. As far as A-3 is concerned, the order of acquittal recorded in his favour by the Trial Court stands confirmed and the appeal vis-a-vis A-3 stands dismissed. As far as a-1 and A-2 are concerned, the order of acquittal recorded in their favour by the Trial Court is set aside. A-1 and A-2 are convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 304 part 2 read with 34 IPC and it is directed that they shall undergo R. I. for a period of three years each and further that they shall pay a fine of Rs. 25000/- each. No indefault sentence is being awarded. The A-1 and A-2 are granted twelve weeks time to deposit the fine amount in the trial Court and if the fine is not deposited within that period, the trial Court to take out recovery proceedings for recovery of the amount. The Trial Court to issue notice to P. W. 1 - MOLLY who is the widow of the deceased and to pay over the amount of compensation to her stipulating that this amount shall be used for her benefit and for the benefit of the minor children. ( 14 ) WITH these directions, the appeal to stand disposed of. The A-1 and A-2 shall be entitled to set off for the period already undergone by them in custody. The bail bonds of all the three accused to stand cancelled. --- *** --- .