JUDGMENT (Per N. Dhinakar, J.) The appellants are accused 1 and 2 respectively in Sessions Case No. 57 of 1989 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari, Nagercoil. They were charged before the learned Sessions Judge for an offence of murder with an allegation that at 3.45 p.m. on 19-8-1988, they caused the death of Gnananantham. 2. To prove the above charge, the prosecution, before the trial Court, examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-9 as well as M.Os. 1 to 13. The learned Sessions Judge, on the evidence adduced, held that the first appellant, who hereinafter will be referred to as the first accused (A-1), has to be convicted under Section 302 IPC and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The second appellant, who hereinafter will be referred to as the second accused (A-2), was convicted under Section 324 IPC and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months. Hence, the present appeal by both the accused. 3. The facts necessary to dispose of the appeal are as follows: 4. P.W. 1 is the wife of the deceased and P.W. 2 is the brother of P.W. 1 and the brother-in-law of the deceased. A-1 is the brother of the deceased and A-2 is the father of A-1 and the deceased. They were residents of Veeyannur Alambaravilai in Kanyakumari District. The deceased had six children and was residing with his wife, P.W. 1, in the house belonging to the joint family. Along with him, other brothers including A-1 and A-2, the father, were also residing. The deceased purchased five cents of land at Thiruvandivilai village in his name and decided to put up a hut. On 19-8-1988 at about 3.00 p.m. with a view to erect a hut P.W. 1 and the deceased removed some wooden planks from the house belonging to the joint family and threw them in a channel that was running nearby to enable the planks to reach the place where the deceased has decided to erect a hut. After throwing the wooden planks in the channel P.W.1 and the deceased walked on the banks and reached the place where they have decided to erect a hut and started removing the planks which were floating on the water. After throwing the wooden planks in the channel P.W.1 and the deceased walked on the banks and reached the place where they have decided to erect a hut and started removing the planks which were floating on the water. On coming to know of this A-1, the brother of the deceased, and A-2, the father of the deceased, reached the place and A-1 questioned the deceased as to how he could remove the wooden planks which is a common property to all of them. So saying A-1 lifted one of the planks, M.O. 8, that was laying on the ground and beat the deceased on his right cheek. The deceased fell down. A-2 with the blunt portion of an arrival hit the deceased on the chin. Once again the deceased was hit by A-2, which was warded off by the deceased resulting in an injury on the right little finger. A-1 with a wooden plank M.O. 8, beat the deceased on the right side of his chest as well as on the neck and also on the cheek. The occurrence was witnessed by P.W. 2, who was standing on the other side of the channel, as well as by one Christhudas who rushed to the scene. On seeing P.W. 2 and Christhudas rushing towards the scene the accused ran away towards north. The occurrence was at 3.45 p.m. The deceased was found unconscious and P.W. 2, after examining him, found him dead, P.W. 2 left for Kumarapuram and Kotriyodu to inform the relatives. P.W. 1 and Christhudas were staying by the side of the dead body. P.W. 2 returned by about 10.30 p.m. and thereafter, they left the scene and reached Thiruvattar Police Station where P.W. 1 gave a complaint, Ex.P-1, to P.W. 6, the Sub-Inspector of Police, at 11.00 p.m. P.W. 6, on the basis of Ex.P-1, registered a case in Crime No. 245 of 1988 under Section 302 IPC and prepared a printed First Information Report, Ex.P-6. Ex.P-1 and a copy of the printed F.I.R. were despatched to the higher officials and to the Court. Ex.P-1 reached the hands of the learned Magistrate by 7.00 a.m. on the next day. 5. Ex.P-1 and a copy of the printed F.I.R. were despatched to the higher officials and to the Court. Ex.P-1 reached the hands of the learned Magistrate by 7.00 a.m. on the next day. 5. On receipt of the information about the registration of a crime, P.W. 7, the Circle Inspector of Police, Vilavancode Circle, took up investigation in the case and reached the scene of occurrence by 6.00 a.m. on 20-8-1988 where, between 6.15 a.m. and 7.00 a.m., he prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P-2, in the presence of P.W. 3. He conducted inquest between 7.00 a.m. and 10.00 a.m. over the dead body of Gnananantham in the presence of panchayatdars. At the time of inquest, he examined P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and Christhudas. Ex.P-8 is the inquest report. A photographer took photos of the scene. He also seized M.Os. 3 to 12, 14 and 15 under a Mahazar Ex.P-3 attested by witnesses. The dead body was sent for post-mortem with a requisition Ex.P-4. 6. On receipt of the requisition and the dead body, P.W. 4 the Medical Officer attached to Government Hospital, Kulasekharam, conducted autopsy on the body of Gnananantham and found the following ante-mortem injuries:–– 1. Lacerated injury 2" x 1/2" x 1/2" on the right side of the chin. Blood clots present. On dissection of the injury extravasation of blood into the tissues present. 2. Lacerated injury 1" x 1/2" x 1/4" 2" below the right little finger. Blood clots present. On dissection of the injury, extravasation of blood into the tissues present. 3. Contusion 5" x 3" with abrasion 4" x 1/1" on it on the right cheek. 4. Contusion 7" x 1/2", 2" below the right clavicle. 5. Contusion 9" x 1/2", 1" above injury No.4. 6. Contusion 6" x 1/2", 2" above injury No.5. 7. Contusion 4" x 1/2'" 1" above injury No.6. Stick marks present on the above five injuries. On dissection of injuries No.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 extravasation of blood into the tissues present. 8. Contusion 4" x 1/2" with laceration 1" x 1/4" x 1/2" on the right side of the anterior aspect of the neck. Blood clots present. On dissection, extravasation of blood into the tissue with blood clots present. 9. Contusion 5" x 1/2", 1" above injury No.8. On dissection extravasation of blood into the tissues present. Multiple fractures of hyoid bone seen. Blood clots present. On dissection, extravasation of blood into the tissue with blood clots present. 9. Contusion 5" x 1/2", 1" above injury No.8. On dissection extravasation of blood into the tissues present. Multiple fractures of hyoid bone seen. Anterior wall of the trachea is found lacerated. 10. Contusion 3" x 2" on the left cheek. He issued Ex.P-5 the post-mortem certificate, with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of haemorrhage and shock due to multiple injuries. 7. P.W. 7 continued his investigation and questioned other witnesses in the case. On receipt of an information, he reached the bus-stand at Thakkalai where he arrested both the accused at 9.00 p.m. on 25-8-1988, who were then brought to the police station and locked up. Thereafter they were sent for remand. After completing the investigation, the successor-in-office to P.W. 7 laid a final report against the accused. 8. When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, both the accused have denied their complicity. A-1 has filed a written statement wherein he has stated that P.W. 2 wanted to marry his sister, which was refused and on account of that, P.W. 2 had come out with a false version. He has further stated that the deceased had many enemies and an information reached them that Gnananantham is lying dead on the banks of a river. He has further stated that he and A-2 have been falsely implicated in the case. A-2 adopted the statement of A-1. 9. The case of the prosecution that Gnananantham was beaten to death is proved through the evidence of the postmortem doctor, P.W. 4, who deposed that on conducting autopsy, he found ten injuries and that injury No. 9 has resulted in the death and it is fatal in nature. According to him, injuries No.1 and 2 are possible by beating with a blunt portion of 'vettukkathi' and other injuries are possible by beating with a wooden plan. The fact that the deceased died on account of the injuries is also not disputed by the defence. Therefore, we hold on the evidence, that Gnananantham died on account of homicidal violence. 10. To speak about the occurrence proper, the prosecution, before the trial Court, examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 as eye-witnesses. The fact that the deceased died on account of the injuries is also not disputed by the defence. Therefore, we hold on the evidence, that Gnananantham died on account of homicidal violence. 10. To speak about the occurrence proper, the prosecution, before the trial Court, examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 as eye-witnesses. P.W. 1, is the wife of the deceased and P.W. 2, is the brother of P.W. 1 and the brother-in-law of the deceased. It is the evidence of P.W. 1 that at 3.00 p.m. on 19-8-1988, she and her husband, the deceased, removed certain wooden planks from the house belonging to the deceased and his brothers and threw them in a channel so that they can be retrieved at Thiruvandivilai where the deceased has purchased five cents of land and decided to erect a hut. It is her further evidence that after throwing certain wooden planks in the channel, they walked on the riverbed and on reaching Thiruvandivilai, they were removing the wooden planks and at that time, A-1 and A-2 reached there after coming to know that the deceased had taken away certain wooden articles which is a common property. P.W. 1 has further deposed that A-1 questioned the deceased as to how he could remove the wooden planks and beat him on the right cheek near the ear and that the deceased fell down. A-2 with a blunt portion of an 'aruval' hit him on his chin and that A-2 attempted to beat him for the second time which was warded off resulting in an injury on the right little finger. A-1 thereafter beat the deceased four times with a wooden plank, M.O. 8, on the right chest and also on the neck and the cheek. 11. P.W. 1's evidence is supported by P. W. 2 who was standing on the other side of the river. According to him on seeing the deceased being beaten, he rushed to the spot accompanied by Christhudas shouting, "Don't beat, Don't beat" and that the accused ran any from the scene. He has further deposed that after the incident, he left his sister. According to him on seeing the deceased being beaten, he rushed to the spot accompanied by Christhudas shouting, "Don't beat, Don't beat" and that the accused ran any from the scene. He has further deposed that after the incident, he left his sister. P.W. 1 and Christhudas near the dead body and left for Kumarapuram and Kotriyodu to inform his relatives and that thereafter, returned to the scene by 10.30 p.m. where he thereafter, returned to the scene by 10.30 p.m. where he was advised by the persons gathered there to give a complaint and accordingly, he and P.W.1 went to the police station and gave a complaint Ex.P-1, to P.W. 6. 12. In spite of lengthy cross-examination, the defence did not succeed in bringing anything in favour of the accused to show that they were giving false evidence. Merely because P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the relatives of the deceased, we cannot reject their evidence since it is not shown that they had a reason to come out with a false version implicating the accused. 13. The learned Counsel appearing for the accused/appellants contends that since there is delay in laying the complaint, the evidence of the eye-witnesses has to be rejected. We are unable to accept the said contention. It is the case of the prosecution that the occurrence took place at about 3.45 p.m. and a complaint was laid at the police station at 11.00 p.m. at Thiruvattar, which is at a distance of 5 kms. from the scene of occurrence. P.Ws.1 and 2 have stated that after the incident, P.W. 2 left for Kumarapuram and Kotriyodu and informed the relatives and thereafter, returned to the scene by 10.30 p.m. where he was advised by the people who gathered there to give complaint and accordingly, a complaint had been laid. A delay of about 7 hours, on the facts of this case, is not fatal, more so when the explanation offered by the prosecution is acceptable. We cannot loose sight of the fact that A-1 and A-2 are none other than the brother and the father respectively of the deceased and there would have been some hesitation on the parties to rush to the police station to lay a complaint. The delay is, therefore, not fatal. We therefore hold that A-1 and A-2 beat the deceased and the occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws. 1 and 2. 14. The delay is, therefore, not fatal. We therefore hold that A-1 and A-2 beat the deceased and the occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws. 1 and 2. 14. The learned Counsel appearing for the accused/appellants contends that the offence committed by A-1 will not attract the penal provisions of Section 302 I.P.C. It is his contention that the occurrence took place without any pre-meditation and even as per the admission made by P.W. 1 in her evidence, the accused on coming to know that the deceased has removed certain wooden planks from the house, reached the spot and thereafter, beat the deceased questioning him as to how he could remove the wooden planks which is the common property of all the brothers. His further submission is that at best. A-1 can be convicted only under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C. since he must have caused the injuries without any intention to cause death, but with the knowledge that the injuries are likely to cause death. We see some force in the contention. A perusal of the evidence of P.W. 1 shows that A-1 and A-2 reached the scene of occurrence on coming to know that the deceased has removed certain planks and that A-1 was unarmed. When he reached the scene of occurrence, he questioned the deceased as to why he removed the wooden planks belonging to all the brothers and thereafter, took one of the planks which was lying on the ground and beat the deceased with it in the heat of passion without any pre-meditation. If there was pre-meditation on the part of A-1, he would have come to the scene armed with a weapon. It is not so. Further, A-2 had a "vettukkathi" with him but did not use the sharp portion of it and he did not cause the injuries on the head, but on the other hand, hit him with the blunt portion of the weapon. This act of the accused shows that the accused wanted only to cause injuries and A-1 caused injuries which unfortunately resulted in a fracture of the hyoid bone. 15. This act of the accused shows that the accused wanted only to cause injuries and A-1 caused injuries which unfortunately resulted in a fracture of the hyoid bone. 15. From the above facts, it is dear that A-1 caused the injuries with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death and hence, he is liable to be punished only under Section 304 Part-II, I.P.C. We accordingly alter the conviction and sentence of A-1 from the one under Section 302 I.P.C. to the one under Section 304 Part-II, I.P.C. for the said conviction, we sentence him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 (five) years. The conviction and sentence imposed on A-2 by the learned Sessions Judge are confirmed. 16. With above modifications, the appeal is disposed of. The Sessions Court will take steps to commit the accused to jail to undergo the remaining period of sentence.