Judgment :- This Appeal is against conviction. 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:- The deceased Sudalaimadan and one woman, by name, Ammasikani were neighbours living in a Village called Pallakurichi in Sathankulam Taluk, Tuticorin District. On 18.04.1990 at 06.00 p.m., seeing Jaya, in the house of Ammasikani, the deceased told Ammasikani's husband Selvamani not to keep Jaya in the house as she was of a questionable character. This was objected to by Ammasikani and her husband Selvamani. A Small quarrel arose between them. Later on, they were dispersed. On the next day, on 19.04.1990, at about 09.00 a.m. when the accused Suyambulingam was passing by that side, the deceased criticised the conduct of Ammasikani, who was standing in front of her house. The deceased also spoke ill of her that she gave birth to a child through the accused. Immediately, the accused removed his chappal and beat the deceased on his cheek. The deceased told the accused not to beat him on cheek, but to beat him on the back. Saying so, he turned his back towards the accused. The accused beat him on the back and kicked him from behind. The deceased fell on a cot which was nearby. This was witnessed by P.W.1 and her son P.W.2, daughter Manjula, granddaughters Rani, Radha, Lalitha and her neighbours. Sometime after, the accused went away from the scene. Thereafter, P.W.1 and others lifted the deceased, who was lying down, and laid him on the cot. The deceased felt uneasy. After sometime, the deceased went to one Chandrabose's lands, where he was doing cooly work. While he was walking, he was not walking properly. Therefore, P.W.1 followed him; After sometime, the deceased fell down vomitting. Then P.W.1 went near him. She found the deceased dead. Thereafter, the matter was informed to her son working nearby place and thereafter, they went to the Village Administrative Officer and informed him about this fact. Then P.W.1 along with her son went to the Thattarmadam Police Station at around 02.00 p.m. and informed about the occurrence. 3. P.W.10, the Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case in crime No.40 of 1990 under Section 302 I.P.C., prepared express First Information Report and sent the same to his higher authorities as well as the concerned Court. P.W.11, the Inspector of Police, was informed of the occurrence. 3. P.W.10, the Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case in crime No.40 of 1990 under Section 302 I.P.C., prepared express First Information Report and sent the same to his higher authorities as well as the concerned Court. P.W.11, the Inspector of Police, was informed of the occurrence. Then, P.W.10 along with P.W.9, Constable, went to the scene of occurrence. When P.W.11, the Inspector of Police came, he handed over the First Information Report. 4. P.W.11, the Inspector of Police took up the investigation at 03.00 p.m. and went to the place where the body was found. P.W.6, the Village Administrative Officer and his assistant were there. Then, P.W.11 prepared Ex.P.2 observation mahazer and Ex.P.8 rough sketch and conducted inquest between 03.30 p.m. and 05.30 p.m. The inquest report is Ex.P.9. He examined the witnesses and sent the body for autopsy through P.W.9, the Constable along with Ex.P.5 requisition. 5. P.W.7, the Doctor, conducted autopsy on next day and found the following injuries:- @1. a contusion over left eyebrow 6 x 6 cm 2. a contusion over right eyebrow 6 x 6 cm 3. a contusion over left side of the head 8 cm x 8 cm 4. a lacerated wound over right side of the head 4 cm x 4 cm 5. a lacerated wound 4 cm x 4 cm over the left side of the neck. 6. a contusion 20 cm x 10 cm on the buttocks. 7. a contusion on the scrotum 4 cm x 4 cm, left side found swelling. In all the injuries, blood clots were found.@ He has stated that injury Nos.5 and 7 are independently sufficient to cause death. 6.When P.W.11 arrested the accused on 22.04.1990 at about 11.30 a.m., the accused gave a voluntary confession and on the basis of the confession, M.Os.1 and 2, chappals, were recovered. Thereafter, P.W.11 examined the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem and in respect of the postmortem report. After completing investigation, he filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 7. The Sessions Court framed charges under Section 302 I.P.C. P.W.1 who is the wife of the deceased and P.W.2 the son of the deceased have spoken about the occurrence which took place both on the previous day and in the morning of the date of occurrence. The Sessions Court framed charges under Section 302 I.P.C. P.W.1 who is the wife of the deceased and P.W.2 the son of the deceased have spoken about the occurrence which took place both on the previous day and in the morning of the date of occurrence. From their evidence, it is clear that there was no weapon used by the deceased, but only chappals were used to beat the deceased, and the deceased fell down due to the beating on his back by the accused. The medical evidence corroborates the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. The learned Sessions Judge, who tried the case, acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., but found him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 325 I.P.C. Against this, the present appeal has been filed. 8. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that excepting for the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who were closely related to the deceased, there is no other independent witness and that in the absence of any independent witness, the evidence of interested testimonials of P.Ws.1 and 2 are not sufficient to find the accused guilty of any offence. Further, the Counsel submitted that the First Information Report is said to have been registered at 02.00 p.m., but it reached the concerned Magistrate only at 09.00 p.m., i.e., there is a delay of seven hours in the First Information Report reaching the Court and also there is a delay of about 4-1/2 hours in filing the complaint, and that the delay in registering the case and also in the F.I.R. reaching the concerned Magistrate, is fatal to the prosecution case and therefore, it is possible that the case has been foisted against the appellant. 9. The argument of the Counsel appearing for the appellant is not acceptable on the facts and circumstances of the case. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is very natural and acceptable. Considering the manner in which the occurrence has taken place, it is not impossible for P.Ws.1 and 2 to be the witnesses. Merely because there were no independent witness, the evidentiary value of P.Ws.1 and 2 cannot be in any manner diminished. It is well known fact that normally, except the relatives, no witnesses would come to speak. Considering the manner in which the occurrence has taken place, it is not impossible for P.Ws.1 and 2 to be the witnesses. Merely because there were no independent witness, the evidentiary value of P.Ws.1 and 2 cannot be in any manner diminished. It is well known fact that normally, except the relatives, no witnesses would come to speak. Further, if P.Ws.1 and 2 really wanted to give false evidence, they would give much stronger evidence to bring the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 goes to long way to prove that their evidences are real and true. Therefore, these witnesses are reliable. Further, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the deceased turned his back to enable the accused to kick him on the back and while he turned his back, the accused kicked him from the back, is corroborated with the medical evidence as found in injury No.7 in the postmortem certificate. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is corroborated by medical evidence. 10. Taking into account the manner in which the occurrence has taken place, it is clear that the accused was forced to react because of the ill-words spoken by the deceased regarding a woman and the accused. Therefore, the reaction of the accused is natural and it cannot be said to be excessive also. Taking the totality of the evidence, the Trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and convicted him under Section 325 I.P.C. There is no illegality in the trial Court convicting the accused under Section 325 I.P.C. 11. The Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that having convicted for the offence under Section 325 I.P.C., the sentence of four years is excessive and under the circumstances, that may be reduced. 12. Considering the evidence on record, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to two years from four years. With this modification, this appeal is dismissed.