C.Nagappan, J.: Both the accused in Sessions Case No.140 of 1991, on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Vellore, are the appellants herein, who challenge the conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life imposed upon them. 2. The learned Sessions Judge framed a charge under Sec.302 read with Sec.34 of I.P.C. against both the accused on an allegations that in furtherance of their common intention to commit the murder of Dhamodaran, the first accused Raja beat Dhamodaran on the head and chest by iron pipe and the second accused Ravi beat Dhamodaran on the face and chin by wooden log resulting in his death. 3. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused Raja under Sec.302 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and convicted the second accused Ravi under Sec.302 read with Sec.34 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life under the charge. 4. Both the accused have preferred the present appeal and in this judgment the appellants will be referred to as first and second caused for the sake of convenience. 5. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 16 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-21 besides M.Os.1 to 8. 6. The case of the prosecution as could be discerned from oral and documentary evidence can be summarised as follows: P.W.1 Devaraj is a coolie and the deceased Dhamodaran is his eldest son and P.W.2 Radhika is his daughter and all of them were residing in the same house at Mangammapettai and the deceased Dhamodaran was a rickshaw puller. P.W.3 Kuppusamy is the village menial of Vadamabakkam and his residence is two houses away from the house of deceased. Both the accused belong to Mangammapettai and they are brothers. The first accused was working as Constable in Kancheepuram Armed Reserve Unit. 7. On 10.5.1991, Kannan alias Mangali died in Mangammapettai and Dhamodaran came from Arakonam for garlanding the body. At about 4.00 p.m. Dhamodaran was standing in front of his house and both the accused came there and demanded money from Dhamodaran for drinking arrack and Dhamodaran replied that he had no money. The second accused abused him by saying that nobody had denied payment for the demand made by his Constable Brother. Both the accused tried to beat Dhamodaran and Dhamodaran, out of fear, went inside his house and locked the door. The second accused abused him by saying that nobody had denied payment for the demand made by his Constable Brother. Both the accused tried to beat Dhamodaran and Dhamodaran, out of fear, went inside his house and locked the door. P.W.1 pleaded with the accused not to attack his son, still both the accused pushed away P.W.1 and the second accused broke open the door and pulled Dhamodaran out of the house. The first accused beat Dhamodaran on the head and chest by M.O.1 Iron Pipe and the second accused beat Dhamodaran with M.O.2 Log on the face and both the accused throw away the weapons and went to their house. Dhamodaran, to save his life, ran to the nearby house of Muthu and fell down there. Both the accused again came back and beat Dhamodaran with hands and kicked him. P.W.2 and P.W.3 witnessed the occurrence. Both the accused threatened others with dire consequences and went away. P.W.1 called others for taking Dhamodaran to hospital but nobody helped him. 8. By 6.00 p.m., Manoharan, brother of Dhamodaran, returned to his house and he and P.W.1 took Dhamodaran to Government Hospital, Arakonam. P.W.6 Dr.Sarojini examined Dhamodaran at 7.00 p.m. on 10.5.1991 in Government Hospital, Arakonam and found the following injuries. “1. A lacerated injury 8 c.m. x 2 c.m. x 2 cm. trasverly placed in front of chin. 2. A lacerated injury 3 cm. x 1 cm. medial aspect of left eye. 3. A lacerated injury 2 c.m. x 1 c.m. with diffused contusion at parietal region. 4. Diffused contusion left side of the chest. Multiple abrasions all over the body.” She referred the patient to Government General Hospital, Madras for further investigation and management. She sent Ex.P-6 Intimation to Arakonam Police Station and Ex.P-7 is the wound certificate issued by her. 9. P.W.15 Sub-Inspector Balakrishnan received Ex.P-6 Intimation by 7.15 p.m. and went to Government Hospital Arakonam. He recorded Ex.P-1 statement given by P.W.1 and returned to the Station. He registered a case in Crime No.204 of 1991 under Sec.307 of I.P.C. and prepared Ex.P-17 First Information Report and took up the case for investigation. 10. P.W.1 and P.W.4 Mani took Dhamodaran in a taxi to Madras and on their way, near Thiruvalangaud, Dhamodaran died at 8.30 p.m. and they returned to Government Hospital, Arakonam. P.W.5 examined Dhamodaran at 9.45 p.m. and declared him dead. 10. P.W.1 and P.W.4 Mani took Dhamodaran in a taxi to Madras and on their way, near Thiruvalangaud, Dhamodaran died at 8.30 p.m. and they returned to Government Hospital, Arakonam. P.W.5 examined Dhamodaran at 9.45 p.m. and declared him dead. She sent Ex.P-5 death intimation to Arakonam Town Police Station. P.W.1 5, on receipt of death Intimation, altered the case to Sec.302 of I.P.C. and prepared Ex.P-18 Express Report and sent it to the Court and higher officers. 11. P.W.16 Inspector Parasuraman obtained the express report and took up the investigation. He went to the occurrence place at 10.30 p.m. and prepared Ex.P-2 observation mahazar in the presence of P.W.5 and another and he also prepared Ex.P-19 rough sketch. At 11.30 p.m. he recovered M.O.1 iron pipe and M.O.2 log from the occurrence place under Ex.P-3 mahazar attested by P.W.5 and another. At 12.00 in the midnight, he recovered M.O.3, M.O.7 and M.O.8 under Ex.P-4 Mahazar attested by P.W.5 and another. On 11.5.1991, from 00.30 a.m. to 4.30 a.m., he examined P.Ws.2, 3, and 5 and some other witnesses and recorded their statements. He conducted inquest on the body of Dhamodaran from 6.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. and prepared Ex P-20 Inquest Report. In the inquest, he examined P.W.1, P.W.4 and some other witnesses and recorded their statements. He sent the body for post-mortem with Ex.P-8 requisition through P.W.8 Constable Shanmugam. 12. P.W.7 Dr. Radhakrishnan conducted postmortem on the body of Dhamodaran at 11.30 a.m. on 11.5.1991 and found the following external injuries. “1. A lacerated injury 8 x 2 x x cm across the chin. 2. A laceration 3 x 1 cm. over medial side of the left eye. 3. A laceration 2 x 1 x 1/2 cm. over a contusion 5 cm. x 4 cm. over right parietal scalp. 4. Two abrasion over left neck each 1.5 x 1.5 cm. 5. An abrasion 3 x 3 cm. over a contusion 4 x 4.5 cm below right collar bone. 6. Two abrasions 2.5 x 2.5 cm., 7 cm below right Axilla. 7. An abrasion 2 x 2 cm over contusion 3.5 x 3 cm over medial end of left collar bone over left chest. 8. A contusion beginning from mid line of chest extends 8 cm laterally and vertically measuring 7 cm in size. 9. Five abrasions each measuring 1.5 x 1.5 c.m. lineraly placed across injury No.8. 10. 7. An abrasion 2 x 2 cm over contusion 3.5 x 3 cm over medial end of left collar bone over left chest. 8. A contusion beginning from mid line of chest extends 8 cm laterally and vertically measuring 7 cm in size. 9. Five abrasions each measuring 1.5 x 1.5 c.m. lineraly placed across injury No.8. 10. A contusion 5 x 5 cm., below left Axilla. 11. Four abrasions each measuring 3 x 2.3, 12 cm. below injury No.10. 12. Three abrasions over left shoulder place each measuring 3.5 cm x 3.5 cm. 13. An abrasion 3.0 x 3.5 c.m. over middle of right shoulder place. 14. A dark coloured contusion 4 x 3.25 c.m. over midline of back of chest. 15. Five abrasion measuring 2.5 x 3.00 c.m. irregularly scattered over right side of back of abdomen. 16. An abrasion 3.0 x 3.5 cm. over a contusion 5 x 5 c.m. over left shoulder. 17. An abrasion over right shoulder 3.5 x 3 cm. 18. An abrasion 3.0 x 3.5 cm, over upper part of right upper arm. 19. Three abrasions each measuring 3.0 x 3.0 cm. over middle of right upper arm. 20. An abrasion 3 x 2.5 cm. over left elbow. 21. Three abrasions each measuring 3 x 3cm. just below left elbow. 22. An abrasion 3.5 x 3 c.m. just below left Iliack crest. 23. An abrasion 3 x 2.5 cm. over right glottal region. 24. An abrasion 3.5 x 3.0 c.m. just below right Iliack crest. 25. Two abrasions over right knee each 2.5 x 2.5 cm., over right knee. 26. An abrasions 3 x 2.5 cm. over middle of right leg. 27. An abrasion 2.5 x 2 cm. over left knee. On dissection of injury No.7 fracture left collar bone. Injury No.8 fracture sternum over the middle at the junction of left 4th rib.” P.W.7 post-mortem doctor issued Ex.P-9 postmortem certificate and he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage and injury to vital organs about 15 to 20 hours prior to post-mortem. 13. P.W.16 Inspector seized M.O.4, M.O.5 and M.O.6 clothes found on the body under Form 95. He examined P.W.8, P.W.15 and some more witnesses on 12.5.1991 and recorded their statements. He gave Ex.P-10 requisition to send the materiel objects for chemical-examination to the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Arakonam. 13. P.W.16 Inspector seized M.O.4, M.O.5 and M.O.6 clothes found on the body under Form 95. He examined P.W.8, P.W.15 and some more witnesses on 12.5.1991 and recorded their statements. He gave Ex.P-10 requisition to send the materiel objects for chemical-examination to the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Arakonam. P.W.9 Head Clerk Rangan, Judicial Magistrate Court, sent the materials objects for chemical examination under Ex.P-11 letter of the Court. Ex.P-12 Chemical Examiner Report and Ex.P-13 Serologist Report were received in the Court. P.W.16 Inspector examined P.W.17 post-mortem doctor on 19.5.1991 and recorded his statement. He examined P.W.1 on 19.5.1991 and recorded his further statement. The accused surrendered before Judicial Magistrate No.III, Vellore on 29.5.1991. He examined P.W.6 Dr.Sarojini on 5.6.1991 and recorded her statement. He examined P.W.10 Sub-Inspector, Kancheepuram Armed Reserve on 19.6.1991 and collected Ex.P-15 and Ex.P-16 copies of General Diary, dated4.5.1991 and 11.5.1991. He also collected Ex.P-14 Para Relief Book. He examined P.W.11 Assistant Head Constable and P.W.12 Head Constable and some more constables on 25.6.1991 and recorded their statements. He examined P.W.14 on 26.6.1991 and recorded his statement. He completed the investigation on 15.7.1991 and filed the final report. 14. Both the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of Crl.P.C. and they denied complicity. Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2 were marked on their side. 15. The learned Sessions Judge convicted both the accused as stated above. Both accused have preferred the present appeal. 16. The prosecution case is that both the accused in furtherance of their common intention to commit the murder of Dhamodaran, the first accused Raja beat Dhamodaran on the head and chest by iron pipe and the second accused Ravi beat Dhamodaran on the face and chin by wooden log resulting him his death. To prove the occurrence, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 3 as having witnessed the occurrence. P.W.1 is the father and P.W.2 is the sister of the deceased. P.W.3 is a neighbour of P.W.1. The occurrence is said to have happened around 4.00 p.m. on 10.5.1991 in front of the house of the deceased. P.W.1 is the complainant in Ex.P-1 and in that complaint he has stated about the occurrence. During the trial, he has not stated that he witnessed the occurrence and hence he was treated as hostile, but, he has admitted that he only gave Ex.P-1 complaint. P.W.1 is the complainant in Ex.P-1 and in that complaint he has stated about the occurrence. During the trial, he has not stated that he witnessed the occurrence and hence he was treated as hostile, but, he has admitted that he only gave Ex.P-1 complaint. P.W.2 and P.W.3 have stated that on the occurrence day, Mangali died in Mangammapettai and Dhamodaran came from Arakonam for garlanding the body of Mangali and at about 4.00 p.m. he was standing in front of his house and both the accused came there and demanded money from Dhamodaran for drinking arrack and Dhamodaran replied that he had no money and the second accused abused him by saying that nobody had denied payment for the demand made by his constable brother, namely, first accused and both the accused tried to beat Dhamodaran, who out of fear went inside the house and locked the door. They have further stated that the second accused broke open the door and pulled Dhamodaran out of the house and first accused beat Dhamodaran on the head and chest by M.O.1 iron pipe and the second accused beat Dhamodaran with M.O.2 wooden log on the face and the body and both the accused threw away weapons and went to their house and Dhamodaran, to save his life, ran to the neighbouring house of Muthu and fell down there and both the accused again came back and beat Dhamodaran with hands and kicked him. 17. The learned counsel for the appellants/ accused contends that the occurrence could not have happened as alleged by the prosecution and the defence came out with a plea of alibi in so far as the first accused is concerned. The accused are brothers and the first accused was working as a Constable bearing No.842 in Armed Reserve, Kancheepuram. According to the defence, the first accused was actually on duty at Sriperumbudur Power Station as a security personnel on the date of occurrence and he could not have been present in the occurrence place on that day and the testimony of P.Ws.10 to 14 was relied on in this regard. 18. According to the defence, the first accused was actually on duty at Sriperumbudur Power Station as a security personnel on the date of occurrence and he could not have been present in the occurrence place on that day and the testimony of P.Ws.10 to 14 was relied on in this regard. 18. P.W.10 was the Sub-Inspector in Armed Reserve, Kancheepuram at the relevant time and according to him, a contingent consisting of P.W.2 Head Constable, P.W.11 Assistant Head Constable and nine constables, including the first accused, was sent for guarding Sriperumbudur Power Station from 4.5.1991 to 11.5.1991 and Ex.P-14 is the Para Relief Book of that contingent. Exs.P-15 and P-16 are copies of the General Diary Entries relating to 4.5.1991 and 11.5.1991. P.W.10 has only produced the above documents and he has stated in the cross-examination that he did not go to Sriperumbudur Power Station on 10.5.1991. P.W.1l is the Assistant Head Constable of the contingent and according to him, the first accused was on Para duty from 10.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. on 10.5.1991 and there is no dispute about that. He was further stated that on 10.5.1991 at 4.15 p.m. he took over charge of guards from Head Constable P.W.12 and at 5.45 p.m. the first accused reported for duty before him and the first accused was waiting in the guard room from that time to 10.00 p.m. in the night. He was declared hostile by the prosecution and he has admitted that he did not make an entry in Ex.P-14 Para Relief Book about the reporting of the first accused for duty at 5.45 p.m. on 10.5.1991. So, the fact remains that no entry is found about the alleged reporting of the first accused at 5.45 p.m. on 10.5.1991 for duty. It is no doubt true that P.W.11 has given an explanation that the Head Constable did not make an entry in Para Relief Book at 2.00 p.m. about the relief of first accused and hence he did not make subsequent entry about the reporting of the first accused for duty at 5.45 p.m. on that day. This explanation is an after-thought and unacceptable. P.W.12 Head Constable has also stated that the first accused was on Para Duty from 10.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. on 10.5.1991 in the main gate. This explanation is an after-thought and unacceptable. P.W.12 Head Constable has also stated that the first accused was on Para Duty from 10.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. on 10.5.1991 in the main gate. He was also declared hostile by the prosecution and he has stated that was in-charge of guards till 4.15 p.m. and the first accused went on relief at 2.00 p.m. and he did not make an entry about the relief in Ex.P-14 Para Relief Book. He has further stated that he got relieved at 4.15 p.m. by handing over the charge to P.W.11 and once again he took over the charge of guards at 9.45 p.m. on that day and he posted the first accused on Para duty from 10.00 p.m. to 2.00 a.m. on 11.5.1991. So, the fact emerges from Ex.P-14 Para Relief Book that only at 10.00 p.m. on the occurrence day the first accused reported for duty. It is also evident that the first accused got relieved at 2.00 p.m. on the occurrence day and he reported for duty only at 10.00 p.m. on that day. In fact, P.W. 12 Head Constable has admitted that the first accused went out at 2.00 p.m. on that day, on saying that he would, have his lunch in the mess nearby and return and hence he did not make an entry in Ex.P-14 Para Relief Book. From this it is clear that the first accused had gone out of the premises at 2.00 p.m. on 10.5.1991. P.Ws.13 and 14 are the constables who were on duty along with the first accused on that day and they were also treated as hostile. 19. Ex-D-1 is said to be the statement given by P.W.11 before the Inspector Palanisamy of Armed Reserve on 11.5.1991 and Ex.D-2 is stated to be the statement given by P.W.12 before the Inspector Palanisamy of Armed Reserve on that day itself. Inspector Palanisamy of Armed Reserve was not examined as a witness. Further, it is relevant to note that both the above documents were marked by recalling P.Ws.11 and 12 by the defence on 12.2.1992 and in the circumstances of the case, they do not inspire confidence. 20. One other circumstances relating to the conduct of the first accused was shown for his complicity in the crime. Further, it is relevant to note that both the above documents were marked by recalling P.Ws.11 and 12 by the defence on 12.2.1992 and in the circumstances of the case, they do not inspire confidence. 20. One other circumstances relating to the conduct of the first accused was shown for his complicity in the crime. P.W.12 Head Constable has stated that he came to know that the Sub-Inspector of Arakonam Police Station was searching for the first accused in the case and Inspector of Armed Reserve was examining him inside and at that time, the first accused was present outside and when he came out of the examination, the first accused ran from that place. P.Ws.2 and 3 categorically stated that the first accused was present in the occurrence place around 4.00 p.m. on the occurrence day and is already seen, at that time the first accused was not on duty in Sriperumbudur Power Station. 21. Yet another contention was raised on behalf of the first accused that the occurrence place, namely, Mangammapettai is far away from Sriperumbudur and the first accused could not have reached the occurrence place at 4.00 p.m. as alleged by the prosecution. Sriperumbudur Power Station is on the National High Way of Madras-Bangalore and the occurrence place is near Arakonam and the prosecuted witnesses were subjected to a very lengthy cross-examination on this aspect. In fact, it is relevant to note that the prosecution has suggested to P.W.12, after he was declared hostile, that the first accused had Ind-Suzuki Motor Cycle and P.W.12 has replied that he would not know about it. Even otherwise, various modes of quick transport were available to the first accused for reaching the occurrence place. As already seen, all the eye witnesses to the occurrence in one voice state about the presence of the accused at 4.00 p.m. in the occurrence place. The trial Court has elaborately considered this aspect in its judgment and we are in agreement with the conclusion thereof. Hence, the defence of alibi putforward by the first accused cannot be accepted. 22. The trial Court has elaborately considered this aspect in its judgment and we are in agreement with the conclusion thereof. Hence, the defence of alibi putforward by the first accused cannot be accepted. 22. The learned counsel for the appellants/ accused contends that P.W.2 is a child witness under the influence of tutoring and it is not safe to rely on her testimony and he relies on the decisions of Apex Court in Chagan Dame v. State of Gujarat, 1994 Crl.L.J. 56 (S.C.) and in Panchhi and others v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 276. The Supreme Court in the above decisions has held that it is not the law that the evidence of a child witness shall be rejected even if it is found reliable. It is only said that the evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully with greater circumspection because children are susceptible to be swayed by what others tell them. In the present case, P.W.2 is a 10 year old girl, who is a school drop-out in IV Std. and on account of her mother being employed at home, including for cooking, she was subjected to a very lengthy cross-examination and we do not find anything to discard her testimony with regard to the occurrence. Further, the testimony of P.W.3, who is a neighbour, lends support to the evidence of P.W.2 regarding the occurrence. 23. Another contention was raised by the appellants that there is inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence and it affects the prosecution case. This contention is devoid of merit. On the occurrence day, by 6.00 p.m., Manoharan, brother of Dhamodaran, returned to his house and he and P.W.1 took Dhamodaran to Government Hospital, Arakonam. P.W.6 Dr.Sarojini examined Dhamodaran at 7.00 p.m. on 10.5.1991 and found three lacerated injuries and one diffused contusion over the body and she referred the patient to Government General Hospital, Madras for investigation and management. She had also issued Ex.P-7 wound certificate. P.W.1 and P.W.4 took Dhamodaran in a taxi to Madras and on the way, Dhamodaran died at 8.30 p.m. and they returned to Government Hospital, Arakonam and P.W.6 Dr.Sarojini had declared him dead. P.W.7 Dr.Radhakrishnan had conducted post-mortem on the body of Dhamodaran and he had found a total of 27 injuries on the body, most of which are abrasions. P.W.1 and P.W.4 took Dhamodaran in a taxi to Madras and on the way, Dhamodaran died at 8.30 p.m. and they returned to Government Hospital, Arakonam and P.W.6 Dr.Sarojini had declared him dead. P.W.7 Dr.Radhakrishnan had conducted post-mortem on the body of Dhamodaran and he had found a total of 27 injuries on the body, most of which are abrasions. A contention was raised that there is inconsistency between the testimony of both the doctors with regard to the injuries. P.W.6 Dr.Sarojini has clearly mentioned in Ex.P-7 wound certificate about the multiple abrasions found all over the body and in her testimony she had stated that she was in a hurry to save the patient Dhamodaran by referring him to Madras and in those circumstances she had not noted the particulars of the multiple abrasions found all over the body. The above explanation speaks for itself and there is no inconsistency in the testimony of both the doctors with regard to the injuries found on the body. Both the doctors, namely, P.Ws.6 and 7, have clearly stated that the lacerated injuries and the diffused contusion found on the body were possible by hitting with weapons like M.Os.1 and 2 and the abrasions found were possible by a fall and kick and the person coming into contact with hard object by rolling. P. Ws.2 and 3 have stated that during the occurrence, the first accused attacked Dhamodaran with M.O.1 iron pipe and the second accused beat Dhamodaran with M.O.2 wooden log and subsequently both the accused beat Dhamodaran with hands and kicked him. In these circumstances, there is no inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence as contended by the appellants. 24. In the present case, we are satisfied that the testimonies of P.Ws.2 and 3 infuses confidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that their testimonies can be safely relied on. It is pertinent to note that P.W.3 is related both to the accused and the deceased and there is no reason for him to falsely implicate the accused. We may also point out that on behalf of the appellants no material contradictions have been pointed out. Some minor discrepancies and contradictions will not persuade this Court to discard the testimonies of P.Ws.2 and 3. We may also point out that on behalf of the appellants no material contradictions have been pointed out. Some minor discrepancies and contradictions will not persuade this Court to discard the testimonies of P.Ws.2 and 3. Hence, it is clear that both the accused persons have attacked Dhamodaran during the occurrence as stated by P.Ws.2 and 3 and have caused injuries on him. 25. P.W.7 Dr.Radhakrishnan, who conducted autopsy on the body of Dhamodaran has stated that on dissection of injury No.8, namely, the contusion found on the left chest, fracture sternum at the junction of left 4th rib was found and 300 ml. of blood was found in chest cavity and that injury is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course. He has also stated in his Ex.P-9 post-mortem certificate that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage and injury to vital organs. Hence, it is established that Dhamodaran died of homicidal violence. 26. There appears to be no motive for the occurrence. On the occurrence day, Mangali died in Mangammapettai and Dhamodaran came from Arakonam for garlanding the body and at about 4.00 p.m. he was standing in front of his house and both the accused came there and demanded money from Dhamodaran for drinking arrack and after some conversation, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased resulting in the occurrence. P.W.2 has stated that both the accused used to talk with her brother Dhamodaran and there was no enmity between them. P.Ws.2 and 3 have categorically stated that before the occurrence, both the accused and deceased were talking with each for half-an-hour in a peaceful manner and then a sudden quarrel took place and in a heat of passion both the accused attacked Dhamodaran. From the version of P.Ws.2 and 3, it becomes clear that the occurrence had taken place upon a sudden quarrel and in a heat of passion and the deceased was attacked by both the accused with weapons and by hands. The accused did not act in an unusual and cruel manner. From the version of P.Ws.2 and 3, it becomes clear that the occurrence had taken place upon a sudden quarrel and in a heat of passion and the deceased was attacked by both the accused with weapons and by hands. The accused did not act in an unusual and cruel manner. Therefore, we are of the view that both the accused are entitled to the benefit of Explanation No.4 Sec.300 of I.P.C. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that both the accused had no intention to cause the death of Dhamodaran, but, they had knowledge that they would be causing such bodily injury as was likely to cause death. If that be so, the appellants/accused will be liable to be convicted under Sec.304 Part I of I.P.C. and not under Sec.302 of I.P.C. 27. For all the above reasons, we set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the first appellant/ first accused under Sec.302 of I.P.C. and the conviction arid sentence imposed on the second appellant/ second accused under Sec.302 read with Sec.34 of I.P.C. and instead, we convict both the appellants/ accused under Sec.304, Part I read with Sec.34 of I.P.C. and sentence each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. 28. It is reported that the appellants are on bail. The Sessions Judge shall take steps to secure and commit them to jail to undergo the remaining period of sentence.