Judgment :- The appelant who stood charged and tried under Ss 302 and 323 of I.P.C. along with three others and found guilty under Sec.304(Part II) of I.P.C. has brought forth this appeal. A-2 to A-4 were acquitted of the charge against them. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: (a) The first accused is the son of A-3. A-2 is the son-in-law of A-3, while A-4 is the daughter of A-3. The deceased Sabapathy and one Murugan were the sons of Duraisamy. P.W.1 Vasantha is the wife of the deceased. P.W.2 Gnanasounthari is the daughter of Murugan. There was a common well from which A-3 and the deceased Sabapathy were to take water in turn for the purposes of irrigation. Often there were disputes between them as to the drawing of water. On the date of occurrence, namely 13.1.1992 at 3.30 P.M., Duraisamy, his son Sabapathy and Sabapathy's wife P.W.1 went to irrigate their fields. At that time they found the accused were taking water for their lands, and the same was objected to by Sabapathy stating that it was their turn to take water that day. The accused refused to stop taking water. Sabapathy went to switch of the motor. Enraged over this, A-1 took M.O.1 kavaithadi which was laid in support of the pipe and beat the deceased Sabapathy on his right side head. Sabapathy fell down. On the alarm raised by P.W.1, A-2 to A-4 came there and beat Duraisamy with hands. Duraisamy also fell down. At that time P.W.2, P.W.3 Ramamurthy, Appavu and Nandan came there. On seeing them, the accused sped away. A-1 ran away with M.O.1 kavaithadi. P.W.3 took Sabapathy in a cycle to Kallavi Hospital. P.W.1 and Duraisamy went to the same hospital at 4.00 P.M. On the said day at about 3.45 P.M., P.W.8 Dr.Kamalanathan, attached to Kallavi Primary Health Centre examined Sabapathy. He made an entry in Ex.P8 O.P. register, which is marked as Ex.P9. On the basis of Ex.P10 entry, the Doctor gave Ex.P11 O.P. Chit and sent him to Oothangarai Hospital for further treatment. P.Ws.1, 3 and Duraisamy took Sabapathy to Oothangarai Hospital. At 4.50 P.M. P.W.9 Dr.Subramaniam examined Sabapathy medically and found the following injuries: 1. Contusion 10 cm x 6 cm over right temporal region head. Skin swollen Depression over right Parietal region 6 x 1 cm present horizontally. P.Ws.1, 3 and Duraisamy took Sabapathy to Oothangarai Hospital. At 4.50 P.M. P.W.9 Dr.Subramaniam examined Sabapathy medically and found the following injuries: 1. Contusion 10 cm x 6 cm over right temporal region head. Skin swollen Depression over right Parietal region 6 x 1 cm present horizontally. A copy of the accident register is marked as Ex.P12. P.W.9 Doctor referred Sabapathy for taking X-rays and further treatment to Dharmapuri Chief Hospital. Ex.P13 was the O.P. chit. P.W.9 Doctor sent intimation to the Police Station under Ex.P14. (b) P.W.1 and Duraisamy took Sabapathy to Oothangarai Hospital at 7.00 P.M. P.W.10 Dr.Sundaramurthy examined Sabapathy and found the following injuries: Responds to pain by going for decerebrate posturing. Throat secretion more present. Respiration is irregular and shallow. Pupils both dilated and very sluggishly reacting pulse - 92/mt BP.120/80 mm hg CVS NAD abd soft R.S.Bilat. crep present. A copy of the accident register under Ex.P16 was issued by P.W.10. Sabapathy died on 14.1.1992 at 2.15 A.M. On 14.1.92 P.W.11 Jayagopal, Sub Inspector of Police, Kallavi Police Station received the wireless message at 3.00 A.M. He went to the Dharmapuri Government Hospital at 4.30 A.M. and recorded the statement of P.W.1. On the complaint under Ex.P1, he registered a case in Crime No.21/92 under Ss 302 and 323 of I.P.C. Ex.P18 F.I.R. was despatched to the concerned Judicial Magistrate's Court, while the copies were sent to the higher officials. (c) On 14.1.92 P.W.12 Rangasamy, Inspector of Police, on receipt of information went to Government Hospital, Dharmapuri, received the copy of the F.I.R. and took up the investigation. He conducted inquest over the dead body of Sabapathy and prepared Ex.P19 inquest report. He examined P.Ws.1 to 3, Duraisamy and Kothanan during inquest and recorded their statements. He made arrangements to conduct the postmortem. On requisition P.W.4 Dr.Paramanandhan conducted the autopsy and noticed the following injury: A contusion 2" x 2" over the right parietal area present. The hyoid bone is intact. Thorax No rib fractures. The right lung 300 gms. Left lung 250 gms. Paler. The heart weighed 150 gms paler, Empty Intestines are dirended and gas. The stomach is empty. Liver weighed 1200 gms. Pales. Gall bladder is empty. Spleen 100 gms paler, Kidneys weighed 100 gms paler. Bladder is empty. Scalp on reflecting, Sub-cutaneous clots over 2"x2" area over right parietal and right temporal area. Left lung 250 gms. Paler. The heart weighed 150 gms paler, Empty Intestines are dirended and gas. The stomach is empty. Liver weighed 1200 gms. Pales. Gall bladder is empty. Spleen 100 gms paler, Kidneys weighed 100 gms paler. Bladder is empty. Scalp on reflecting, Sub-cutaneous clots over 2"x2" area over right parietal and right temporal area. Fracture of parietal bone for 4" from right side, in front of right ear, upwards, access towards the left side. On opening the skull, a haematoma 3"x2" in size, compressing the right earbral hemisphere present. Brain weighed 1200 gms paler. The Doctor has issued Ex.P3 postmortem certificate and has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haematoma compressing the exterbral hemisphere about 12.30 hours prior to autopsy. (d) P.W.12 Investigating Officer proceeded to the site of occurrence, made an inspection and prepared Ex.P4 observation mahazar attested by P.W.5 Theerthagiri, Village Administrative Officer and Rajamanickam. Ex.P20 is the rough sketch prepared by the Investigating Officer. P.W.7 Maadhu, a Constable, handed over M.O.2 lungi and M.O.3 waist card to P.W.12, who seized them under Form 95. On 14.1.92 at 5.00 P.M. on information in the presence of P.W.5 and Rajamanickam, the Investigating Officer arrested the accused and recorded their voluntary statements separately. Ex.P5 is the admissible portion of the statement given by A-1. A-1 took them to his house and produced M.O.1 which was seized under Ex.P6 mahazar. Both the confessional statement and the seizure mahazar were attested by P.W.5 and Rajamanickam. P.W.12 Investigating Officer again examined Duraisamy and sent him with Ex.P15 memo to Oothangarai Government Hospital for treatment. On the same day, P.W.6 Dr.Devaraj attached to Oothangarai Government Hospital examined Duraisamy, who informed him that he was assaulted by 3 known persons on 13.1.92 at 3.00 P.M. The Doctor issued Ex.P7 a copy of the accident register pertaining to the injuries found on Duraisamy. The Investigating Officer examined P.Ws.4, 6, 8 and 9 Doctors and recorded their statements. On completion of the investigation, he laid a charge sheet against the accused on 2.4.92 under Ss 302 and 323 of I.P.C. 3. In order to prove the accusation levelled against the appellant/A-1 and three others, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and marked 20 exhibits and 3 material objects. On completion of the investigation, he laid a charge sheet against the accused on 2.4.92 under Ss 302 and 323 of I.P.C. 3. In order to prove the accusation levelled against the appellant/A-1 and three others, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and marked 20 exhibits and 3 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false. No defence witness was examined. Neither any exhibit nor any material object was marked on the side of the defence. On consideration of the rival submissions made and scrutiny of the materials available, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant/A-1 guilty under Sec.304 (Part II) of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment as stated supra, while it acquitted all the accused including A-1 in respect of the charge under Sec.323 of I.P.C. Aggrieved over the conviction and sentence, A-1 has brought forth this appeal. 4. Advancing his arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned Counsel interalia made the following submissions: The trial Court without proper appreciation of evidence has found him guilty under Sec.304(ii) of I.P.C. having accepted the defence version and acquitted all the accused in respect of the other charges. The trial Court should have acquitted A-1 also in respect of the charge in question. There was an inordinate and huge delay in lodging the complaint, which remained unexplained. According to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place at 3.30 P.M., but the case was registered at 4.30 A.M. next morning, and thus, there was delay of 13 hours noticed. Even P.W.9 Doctor attached to Oothangarai Hospital has categorically spoken that an intimation was given to the police. P.W.3 has deposed that while the deceased and the other injured were in Oothangarai Hospital, the police came over there and recorded their statements, and thus, both would indicate that the prosecution has suppressed the first information, and now what is available before the Court was only the information that was given subsequently. P.W.3 has deposed that while the deceased and the other injured were in Oothangarai Hospital, the police came over there and recorded their statements, and thus, both would indicate that the prosecution has suppressed the first information, and now what is available before the Court was only the information that was given subsequently. Even assuming that the prosecution has proved its case in respect of the alleged attack made by A-1, P.W.4 Postmortem Doctor has categorically spoken to the effect that M.O.1 would be suffice to cause such an injury on the skull, and this would indicate that A-1 had not the knowledge that the said injury would cause the death. In the ordinary course of things, it would be sufficient to cause death, and hence, under such circumstances, the case would not fall under Sec.304(ii) of I.P.C., but would fall under Sec.324 of I.P.C. Therefore, the judgment of the lower Court has got to be set aside. 5. In the ordinary course of things, it would be sufficient to cause death, and hence, under such circumstances, the case would not fall under Sec.304(ii) of I.P.C., but would fall under Sec.324 of I.P.C. Therefore, the judgment of the lower Court has got to be set aside. 5. Opposing strongly the above contentions put forth by the appellant's side, the learned Government Advocate would submit that in the instant case, there was no delay at all; that when the deceased sustained injuries, he was taken to Kallavi Hospital and attended by P.W.8 Doctor who referred him to Oothangarai Hospital, where he was attended by P.W.9 Doctor, and then, he was again referred to Dharmapuri Government Hospital, and he was given treatment, and thus, P.W.1, the wife would be more interested in saving her husband rather than going to the Police Station and giving a complaint; that the delay was caused only by natural events; that apart from that, the witnesses have clearly deposed and given a cogent evidence regarding the occurrence; that the medical evidence has also supported the ocular testimony; that there is no question of any information that was recorded by the Police at Oothangarai Government Hospital; that P.W.3 was not a competent witness to speak about the fact; that the case came to be registered at the instance of P.W.1, and not even one question was put to P.W.1 in respect of any statement alleged to have been recorded by the Police at Oothangarai Hospital; that P.W.1 has categorically spoken to the fact that Ex.P1 was the report given by her, on the strength of which a case was registered, and hence, taking into consideration the manner of attack made by A-1 with kavaithadi marked as M.O.1 on the skull and the opinion of both the Doctors that the injury in the skull could have been caused by M.O.1 kavaithadi, and it caused the fracture and death of Sabapathy, the lower Court was perfectly correct in finding that the case would fall under Sec.304(ii) of I.P.C., and in view of the above, the judgment of the lower Court has to be sustained. 6. After careful consideration of the rival submissions and close scrutiny of the materials available, the Court is unable to appreciate the case of the appellant/A-1 as recorded above. 7. 6. After careful consideration of the rival submissions and close scrutiny of the materials available, the Court is unable to appreciate the case of the appellant/A-1 as recorded above. 7. According to the prosecution case, following a quarrel between the deceased and A-1 and others as to the taking of water from the common well, A-1 has attacked the deceased on his head with M.O.1 Kavaithadi. This fact has been clearly spoken to by P.W.1 who has clearly given a graphic narration of the incident. M.O.1, which according to the prosecution was the weapon used by the accused, was recovered, pursuant to a confessional statement made by A-1 voluntarily on his arrest. The medical evidence adduced through P.W.8 Doctor attached to Kallavi Primary Health Centre, P.W.9 Doctor attached to Oothangari Hospital, P.W.10 Doctor attached to Dharmapuri Government Hospital and P.W.4 Postmortem Doctor, who found the injuries on the skull of the deceased and a fracture thereon and the opinion of the Doctors namely P.Ws.4, 9 and 10 that the injury found on the deceased in the skull would have been caused by a weapon like M.O.1 and that the said injury would have caused the death of Sabapathy are very clear, and thus, the medical evidence has supported the ocular testimony. Hence, the prosecution has clearly proved by the above said evidence the act committed by A-1 by attacking the deceased with M.O.1 weapon on the skull which led to his death. The lower Court only on appreciation of the evidence has not believed the case of the prosecution in respect of the other charge levelled against A-1 and three others. 8. The contention of the appellant's side that there was delay in lodging the complaint cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that P.W.1, who was present at the time of occurrence, immediately has taken the deceased Sabapathy to Kallavi Hospital, where he was given continuous treatment, and he was referred to Oothangari Hospital, where also treatment was given to him, and again he was referred to Dharmapuri Government Hospital, where further treatment was given to him, and he succumbed to injuries. It is pertinent to point out that though the intimation was originally given, there is no evidence that it was acted upon. It is pertinent to point out that though the intimation was originally given, there is no evidence that it was acted upon. Even a perusal of the intimation cannot lead to any inference that no serious injury was caused, and it would indicate the lethargic attitude of the police to take action immediately. Hence, the Court is unable to agree with the contention of the appellant's side that the delay remained unexplained. The Court is of the view that the delay was caused due to the natural course of events. 9. So far as the second contention of the appellant's side that the earliest first information has been suppressed by the prosecution cannot also be accepted. According to the appellant's side, P.W.3 has deposed that the police people came over to Oothangarai Hospital and recorded a statement. But, this part of the evidence has no factual foundation, since no question was put either to P.W.1, the informant to the police or to P.W.11 or P.W.12, who according to the defence, recorded the statement at Oothangarai Hospital, in respect of any earlier statement alleged to have been given by P.W.1. Hence, what is now available before the trial Court cannot be taken as a subsequent information. The lower Court only on proper appreciation of the evidence has come to the conclusion that A-1 has committed an act, thereby causing homicidal death. The lower Court has found the appellant/A-1 guilty under Sec.304 (Part II) of I.P.C. The contention of the appellant's side that he could not have got the knowledge so as to make the case to come under Sec.304 of I.P.C. cannot be accepted, because at the time of attack, A-1 has used M.O.1 kavaithadi, and the blow was made on the head causing such fracture. Hence, it should have been well within his knowledge that by causing such injury, there is possibility of result of death to the person, who received the blow at the time of occurrence. There is nothing to interfere in the conviction passed by the Court below. 10. Hence, it should have been well within his knowledge that by causing such injury, there is possibility of result of death to the person, who received the blow at the time of occurrence. There is nothing to interfere in the conviction passed by the Court below. 10. Coming to the question of punishment, the lower Court has sentenced the appellant/A-1 to undergo R.I. for five years under Sec.304(Part II) of I.P.C. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that the reduction of the substantive sentence from five years R.I. to four years R.I. would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the sentence has got to be modified. 11. In the result, the sentence of five years R.I. awarded by the lower Court to the appellant/A-1 under Sec.304(Part II) of I.P.C. is modified, and the appellant/ A-1 shall undergo four years R.I. In other respects, the judgment of the lower Court is confirmed. With the above modification, this criminal appeal is dismissed. The Sessions Judge shall take steps to commit the appellant/A-1 to prison, if he is on bail, to undergo the remaining period of sentence.