Judgment :- The appellant, who is the 1st accused in S.C. No. 195 of 1994 on the file of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Trichirapalli was tried along with another accused, for the offence under Section 302 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Raju, the deceased at 10.00 a.m. on 04.10.1993 in front of the house of the deceased. 2. Learned Sessions Judge found A1 not guilty of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC; but convicted him for an offence under Section 325 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years. A2 was acquitted of the charges framed against her. Hence, the appeal by A1. 3. A.1 is the grandson of A.2. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased Raju. Accused and the deceased were neighbours. They were washermen by profession; they were residing at B. Mettur. Two days prior to 04.10.1993, the date of occurrence, when P.W.1 and the deceased were talking in front of their house, their chicken had eaten A.2's paddy placed in front of A.2's house; for that A2 scolded the deceased and P.W.1 in filthy language, in turn the deceased also scolded A.2. On 4.10.1993 at about 10.00 a.m. A.1 came along with A.2 and picked up a quarrel with the deceased Raju referring the previous occurrence; A1 picked up a brick which was lying nearby and hit on the nape of the neck of the deceased Raju. The deceased fell down on his front; then A.2 kicked on the scrotum of Raju; he became unconscious. At that time P.W.2 Periasamy, Thangaraju and one Kandambalam who came there stopped the fight. PW.1 took the injured to Thuraiyur Hospital. The evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4. 4. P.W.5 working in Thuraiyur Government Hospital, treated deceased on 4.10.1993 at about 4.00 p.m. the injured told the doctor that he was assaulted by stone by known persons; P.W.5, found the following injuries under Ex.P.3. "1. Haematoma measuring 4"x3" over the back of the nape of neck (cervical region) Tenderness present. 2. ladder dysfunction present. 3. Unable to move both the lower limbs vertibral fracture (cervical) with cord compression". he referred the injured to Trichy Government Hospital for further treatment 5. "1. Haematoma measuring 4"x3" over the back of the nape of neck (cervical region) Tenderness present. 2. ladder dysfunction present. 3. Unable to move both the lower limbs vertibral fracture (cervical) with cord compression". he referred the injured to Trichy Government Hospital for further treatment 5. P.W.6, who was working as Radiologist took X-rays on 04.10.1993 over the neck portion of the deceased and he states that the C6 was found dislocated from C7; Ex.P.5 is the X-ray. 6. P.W.10, Head Constable of Uppiliapuram Police Station, on receipt of information from the Sub Inspector of Uppiliapuram, went to the Trichy Government Hospital on 04.10.1993 at about 8.00 p.m. and he found the deceased sleeping and hence, he recorded the statement Ex.P.1 from the deceased on 5.10.1993 morning and read over to him and received the thumb impression from him. Thereafter, he went to Uppiliapuram Police Station at 10.30 p.m. and registered the case under Crime No. 359 of 1993 under Sections 323 and 326 IPC and he sent the same to the Sub Inspector of police for further investigation. Ex.P.10 is the printed first information report. 7. P.W.11, now working as Sub Inspector of Police, Uppiliapuram Police Station, states that on receipt of the case in Crime NO. 359 of 1993, registered by P.W.10, on 05.10.1993, he went to the scene of occurrence, and prepared Ex.P.2 observation mahazar and examined P.Ws.2 to 4 and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he went to Trichy Government Hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased Raju. He arrested the accused at 9.30 a.m. on 21.10.1993 at Uppiliapuram Police Station and sent them for remand to Court at about 10.00 a.m. on the same day. 8. The injured was an inpatient till 23.3.1994; he died in the hospital while undergoing treatment. On receipt of Ex.P.12 death intimation, P.W.11 converted the charge into one under Section 302 IPC and prepared altered First Information Report Ex.P.13 and sent the same to the Court through police official and handed over the case to P.W.12 Inspector, for investigation and P.W.11 assisted P.W.12. 9. P.W.12, Inspector of Police, on 23.3.1994, on receipt of Ex.P.13 Modified Express First Information Report, took up the investigation and went to Thuraiyur Government Hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased Raju in the presence of the witnesses and prepared Ex.P.14 inquest report attested by the witnesses. 9. P.W.12, Inspector of Police, on 23.3.1994, on receipt of Ex.P.13 Modified Express First Information Report, took up the investigation and went to Thuraiyur Government Hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased Raju in the presence of the witnesses and prepared Ex.P.14 inquest report attested by the witnesses. He also recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 4. He sent the dead body for postmortem. 10. P.W.9, Dr. Kannabai, on receipt of requisition Ex.P.8 on 23.3.1994 at about 4.00 p.m., from Inspector of Police, Thuraiyur Police Station, he conducted autopsy on the dead body and issued Ex.P.9 postmortem report wherein he has stated as follows: "There is fracture of cervical spine at C6 level and fracture of Thoracic vertebra at T9 level and spinal column is damaged at C6 and T8 level." He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of septicemia and fracture of cervical and thoracic spines and injury to spinal cord at lit (n.c) levels. 11. The trial Court, after perusing the evidence on record, acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 302 IPC, but convicted A1 under Section 325 IPC. The trial Court acquitted A.2 of all the charges. A.1 was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years. Against the conviction and sentence, A1 has preferred the above appeal. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the evidence of P.W.1 is not believable and according to P.W.1, only one injury was caused to the deceased by A.1. But the doctor P.W.9 stated that the two injuries found on the back of the deceased, could not be caused by one attack. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be believed at all. 13. P.W.5, the doctor who gave treatment on 04.10.1993, has recorded the statement from the deceased who has stated that it was A.1 and A.2 who attacked him. In the wound certificate Ex P.3 issued by him, he has noted that the Vertebral fracture (cervical) with cord compression. Further, he has categorically stated that both the limbs below the waist are immobile and the deceased could not move both the lower limbs and therefore, it is proved beyond any doubt that only due to injury caused by A.1, the deceased could not move both his limbs. That is, immediately after the receipt of injuries on the nape of the neck, he could not move both the lower limbs. That is, immediately after the receipt of injuries on the nape of the neck, he could not move both the lower limbs. He never moved his limbs thereafter till his death. Thus, it is proved that only due to the assault by A.1 the deceased became immobile immediately; and ultimately, he succumbed to the injury. 14. The trial Court did not convict the accused under Section 302 IPC but convicted A1 under Section 325 IPC. This conviction under Section 325 IPC, in my opinion, is very lenient. Since A1 hit the deceased with a brick on the neck, and inasmuch as stone (brick) is a dangerous weapon, the trial Court could at least converted the offence under Section 326 IPC. The fact remains that vertebrae was injured at the cervical spine at C6 level and fracture of thoracic vertebra at T8 level and spinal column is damaged at C6 and T8 level. This is very serious injury; he never moved both his limbs. Since the trial Court has taken the view that it falls under Section 325 IPC in the absence of an appeal by the State, that finding cannot be altered, therefore, the conviction of the accused under Section 325 IPC is confirmed. 15. With regard to sentence the counsel submitted that the sentence is very high and it may be reduced. Considering the way in which the injury was caused, there is no justification for any reduction in sentence. The lower Court has not even imposed the maximum sentence imposable under Section 325 IPC. The lower Court has imposed only three years rigorous imprisonment. In the circumstances, there is no need to reduce the sentence any further. 16. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he was a college student and now he is 28 years old. Considering the nature of offence, the conviction and sentence are confirmed. 17. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed.