M. Karpagavinayagam, J.: The first appellant/ first accused was convicted for the offences under Secs. 148 and 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Sec. 148, I.P.C. and life imprisonment for the offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C. and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months; appellants 2 and 3/accused 2 and 3 were convicted for the offences under Secs. 148 and 302 read with 149, I.P.C. and each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Sec. 148, I.P.C. and life imprisonment for the offence under Sec. 302 read with 149, I.P.C. and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months; appellants 4 to 6/accused 4 to 6 were convicted for the offences under Secs. 147 and 302 read with 149, I.P.C. and each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Sec. 147, I.P.C. and life imprisonment for the offence under Sec. 302 read with 149, I.P.C. and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Challenging the same, this criminal appeal has been filed by all the accused. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: "(a) The deceased Madhavan was the Deputy Secretary of A.I.A.D.M.K. political party of Kalingarajapuram. The accused were illicit arrack vendors. The deceased warned the accused not to indulge in the distillation of the illicit arrack. He also prevented the accused from indulging themselves in the business of sale of illicit arrack in the village, Kalingarajapuram. Due to this, the accused has a grudge against the deceased. (b) On 4.7.1995 at about 2.45 p.m., the deceased Madhavan came to the grocery shop belonging to P.W. 1, Kesavan, the brother-in-law of the deceased, and sat on the bench put in front of the shop. Then, the deceased took a newspaper and was reading the same. P.W. 1 Kesavan was sitting in the shop looking after the sale. At that point of time, the accused 1 and 2 each armed with sword (vettukathi), 3rd accused with iron rod and accused 4 to 6 each with Thadi, came in front of the shop and began to attack the deceased. P.W. 1 Kesavan was sitting in the shop looking after the sale. At that point of time, the accused 1 and 2 each armed with sword (vettukathi), 3rd accused with iron rod and accused 4 to 6 each with Thadi, came in front of the shop and began to attack the deceased. Accused 1 and 2 gave cuts on the stomach and right upper arm of the deceased respectively. 3rd accused beat the deceased with iron rod on his back. Accused 4 to 6 with thadi caused injuries on the back of the deceased. The accused picked up the wrist watch which had fallen down from the hand of the deceased during scuffle and ran away from the scene of occurrence after threatening P.Wr. 1. P.W. 2 Abdul Rasheed and P.W. 3 Pushpakaran also witnessed the occurrence. P.W. 5 Saraswathi, who was a nursing assistant, came and saw the occurrence. She obtained a cloth from P.W. 1 and put a bandage on the wounds of the deceased. At that time, P.W. 4 Appu was also present. The deceased was then taken in a car and admitted in the Thiruvanandapuram Medical College Hospital, which is nearby. (c) P.W. 7, Dr. Anilkumar working in the Thiruvanandapuram Medical College Hospital examined the victim at 4.50 p.m. on 4.7.1995 and issued wound certificate Ex.P-2. Thereafter, the victim was sent for operation. (d) In the meantime, P.W. 11, Head Constable attached to Nithiraavilai Police Station, received a message through wireless at 8.30 a.m. on 5.7.1995. Accordingly, on 5.7.1995 at about 11.00 a.m., P.W. 11 came to the Thiruvanandapuram Medical College Hospital and recorded a statement from the victim Madhavan. Ex.P-5 is his statement. (e) P.W. 13, Sub Inspector of Police took up investigation of the case, which was registered originally by P.W. 11 for the offences under Secs. 147, 148, 324, 323, 379, 307 and 506 Part II, I.P.C., came to the spot, examined the witnesses and prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P-1. (f) On 8.7.1995, the deceased died. Cm receipt of death intimation Ex.P-3, P.W. 14, Inspector of Police took up further investigation. He came to the hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and examined the witnesses. Ex.P-9 is the inquest report and as per the request of P.W. 14, P.W. 9 Doctor conducted postmortem and found five injuries and issued post-mortem certificate Ex.P-4. He came to the hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and examined the witnesses. Ex.P-9 is the inquest report and as per the request of P.W. 14, P.W. 9 Doctor conducted postmortem and found five injuries and issued post-mortem certificate Ex.P-4. P.W. 14 Inspector of police continued the investigation. (g) Further investigation was taken up by another Inspector P.W. 16. After completing investigation, he filed charge sheet against all the six accused for the offences under Secs. 147, 148, 323, 307, 302 read with 149, I.P.C.” 3. During the course of trial, P.W. 1 to P.W. 16 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-10 were filed and M.O. 1 was marked on the side of prosecution. When the accused were questioned under Sec. 313, Crl.P.C. with reference to the incriminating materials available on record against them, they pleaded innocence. 4. On scrutinizing the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial Court concluded that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted 1st accused for the offences under Secs. 148 and 302, I.P.C., accused 2 and 3 for the offences under Secs. 148 and 302 read with 149, I.P.C. and accused 4 to 6 for the offences under Secs. 147 and 302 read with 149, I.P.C. and sentenced them as stated supra. Challenging the same, this criminal appeal has been filed. 5. The learned counsel for the first appellant and learned counsel for the appellants 2 to 6 would strenuously contend the following: “The evidence adduced by the prosecution would not indicate that the accused came and attacked the deceased with the intention to commit murder and on the other hand, they merely wanted to teach a lesson to the deceased. The deceased did not die at the spot. Though the occurrence took place on 4.7.1995, the deceased died only on 8.7.1995. Therefore, it cannot be said that the offence was made out under Sec. 302, I.P.C. The evidence of P.W. 1, eye witness, has not been sufficiently corroborated by the medical evidence adduced by P.W. 7 and P.W. 9 Doctors, and as such, the appellants are liable to be acquitted. At any rate, even assuming that the occurrence had taken place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution, the accused could be convicted only for the lesser offence and not for the offence of murder." 6. At any rate, even assuming that the occurrence had taken place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution, the accused could be convicted only for the lesser offence and not for the offence of murder." 6. On these aspects, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor made his reply. 7. We have carefully considered the rival contentions urged on either side. We have also gone through the records. 8. According to prosecution, when the deceased Madhavan was sitting in the bench put in front of the shop of P.W. 1, all the accused came with weapons and attacked the deceased on 4.7.1995 at about 2.30 p.m. The victim deceased fell down from the bench on receipt of injuries and he was taken immediately to the hospital, where P.W.7 Doctor examined him and issued wound certificate Ex.P-2 and sent him for operation, as his condition was so serious. This aspect of the evidence has been clearly spoken to by P.W. 1, who is the owner of the shop, in front of which, the occurrence has taken place. 9. P.W. 11, Head Constable attached to Nithiraavilai Police Station, on receipt of wireless message, went to the hospital and obtained a statement from the victim deceased at about 11.00 a.m. on 5.7.1995. The evidence adduced by P.W. 1 with reference to the details of the occurrence had been completely given in Ex.P-5, the statement given by the deceased to P.W. 11. 10. The motive for the occurrence, according to prosecution, is that the accused indulged in distillation of illicit arrack and sale of the same to the public and this was objected to by the deceased, being the Deputy Secretary of a political party. The contents of the complaint Ex.P-5 and the evidence of P.W. 1 would clearly show that the accused came with weapons and attacked the deceased by stating that he had no business to question their act of illicit distillation of arrack. Thus, it is clear that the prosecution has established the motive aspect. 11. Though the deceased, who was attacked on 4.7.1995, died on 8.7.1995, after four days, it cannot be said that the deceased died due to some other reason. As a matter of fact, P.W. 9, postmortem Doctor would state that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained and the first injury found on the chest was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. As a matter of fact, P.W. 9, postmortem Doctor would state that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained and the first injury found on the chest was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Under those circumstances, it can be safely held that the accused came and attacked the deceased in front of P.W. 1’s shop and inflicted the injuries on the deceased, resulting in the death of the deceased on 8.7.1995, despite the treatment given to him by doctors. 12. Further, as per Ex.P-5 and according to P.W. 1, P.W. 5 Saraswathi, who is a nursing assistant, was also present at the time of occurrence. As a matter of fact, Ex.P-2, wound certificate issued by P.W. 7 Doctor, would show that the victim was brought to the hospital only by Saraswathi, P.W. 5. Therefore, her evidence assumes much importance. Admittedly, P.W. 5 is an independent witness. She belongs to some other area. She came to Kalingarajapuram for visiting her sister’s house. The evidence of P.W. 5 would show that first appellant along with others attacked the deceased with weapon at the scene of occurrence. However, she was not able to. give the details of the identity of other accused. But, she has made it clear that the occurrence had taken place in front of the shop of P.W. 1 and from there, the victim was taken to hospital as stated by P.W. 1 and other witnesses. Though P.Ws. 2 and 3 did not support fully the prosecution case, they would state that the deceased was taken only from the place of occurrence to Thiruvanandapuram Hospital. 13. It is the case of the prosecution through P.W. 1 that all the six persons participated in the occurrence and attacked the deceased. The evidence of P.W. 1 is in consonance with Ex.P-5, the statement given by the deceased, It is stated therein, that accused 1 and 2 came with Vettukathi and caused injuries on the abdomen. 3rd accused with iron rod caused injury on the back of the deceased and accused 4 to 6 came with thadi and inflicted injuries on the back of the deceased. Thus, the names of all the accused have been mentioned in Ex.P-5 with particulars of overt acts attributed to each of them. 14. 3rd accused with iron rod caused injury on the back of the deceased and accused 4 to 6 came with thadi and inflicted injuries on the back of the deceased. Thus, the names of all the accused have been mentioned in Ex.P-5 with particulars of overt acts attributed to each of them. 14. Though we are satisfied with the involvement of accused 1 to 3, who armed with vettukathi and iron rod, caused injuries on the deceased, we are not impressed upon the evidence relating to accused 4 to 6. It is true that the fact that accused 4 to 6 were present with thadi and they attacked on the back of the deceased, has been mentioned in Ex.P-5 as well as in the deposition of P.W. 1. But, if we look at the evidence of P.W. 5, it is clear that she approximately stated that only 5 or 6 persons came there. She did not specifically state that six persons came and attacked the deceased. Under those circumstances, we are not able to say that all the six accused persons came to the scene and attacked the deceased. 15. Furthermore, the evidence relating to the part played by accused by means of thadi has not been corroborated by the medical evidence of post-mortem Doctor, P.W. 9. There are only 5 injuries including surgical wounds. From the evidence of P.W. 9 and as per post-mortem certificate Ex.P-4, it is clear that these injuries could have been caused only by vettukathi and iron rod and not by thadi. As a matter of fact, there is no injury on the back of the deceased. Moreover, it is stated by P.W. 1 that accused 4 to 6 beat on the back of the deceased with thadi indiscriminately. But, there is no corresponding injury on the back of the deceased. Even though 5 or 6 persons had participated in the occurrence as stated by P.W. 5, we are not able to conclude that accused 4 to 6 came with thadi, attacked the deceased and inflicted injuries. Under these circumstances, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused 4 to 6 and accordingly, they are entitled to be acquitted. 16. Under these circumstances, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused 4 to 6 and accordingly, they are entitled to be acquitted. 16. In fine, the conviction and sentence imposed on accused 1 to 3/appellants 1 to 3 are confirmed and the Criminal Appeal in so far as they are concerned is dismissed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused 4 to 6/appellants 4 to 6 are set aside and as such, this Criminal Appeal is allowed in respect of the accused 4 to 6 and they are acquitted. Fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded to the appellants 4 to 6/accused 4 to 6. The bail bonds executed by accused 4 to 6 shall stand cancelled. The trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the custody of the appellants 2 and 3/accused 2 and 3 alone to undergo the remaining portion of sentence as first accused is already in jail.