Judgment :- The appellants who were ranked as A-1 and A-2, along with two others as A-3 and A-4 stood charged under Sec.302 read with 34 of I.P.C., and A-1 and A-2 who were found guilty under Sec.304 (ii) read with 34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I. have brought forth this appeal. 2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are thus: (a) P.W.1 Pavayee and P.W.2 Thammampattiyan @ Periasamy are wife and husband living at Anaipalayam Colony, Rasipuram Taluk, Salem District. The deceased Subramani was the second son of the said witnesses. The accused 1 to 4 were close relatives to each other and the family of the deceased also. One year prior to the occurrence, the first son of P.Ws.1 and 2 namely Rajendran fell in love with A-3, who was also staying in the same School where A-3 is studying. The parents of A-3 were aggrieved over the same. There was a clash between both the families, which resulted in registration of a criminal case and the same was pending. On 18.7.1994 at about 8.15 A.M., while the deceased was riding a cycle A-2 voluntarily dashed against him and indulged in a quarrel. On the same day at about 8.30 a.M., A-1 to A-4 in furtherance of their common intention armed with deadly weapon came near the water pipe line, which is situated near the house of the deceased. A-2 armed with M.O.1 kuthukkol stabbed on the stomach of the deceased, while A-1 attacked the deceased with M.O.2 aruval manai on the left hand. A-3 and A-4 attacked the deceased and P.Ws.1 and 2 with sticks. On seeing the crowd that gathered, A-1 to A-4 fled away from the site of occurrence. The deceased due to the injuries caused to him died instantaneously on the spot. (b) P.W.1 rushed to Rasipuram Police Station and gave a complaint under Ex.P16. P.W.10 Ponnusamy, Sub Inspector of Police on the strength of Ex.P16 complaint registered a case in Crime No.736/94 under Ss 302, 323 and 324 of I.P.C. against all the four accused. Ex.P17 printed F.I.R. was despatched to the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal, while the copies were sent to the higher officials. P.W.2 was taken to the Government Hospital, Rasipuram, where P.W.7 Dr.Dhanasekaran admitted him and gave treatment to him. Ex.P6 is the copy of the accident register in that regard. Ex.P17 printed F.I.R. was despatched to the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal, while the copies were sent to the higher officials. P.W.2 was taken to the Government Hospital, Rasipuram, where P.W.7 Dr.Dhanasekaran admitted him and gave treatment to him. Ex.P6 is the copy of the accident register in that regard. P.W.10 sent P.W.1 with a medical memo to the Government Hospital for treatment, where P.W.7 Doctor gave treatment to her and issued a copy of the accident register marked as Ex.P7. A-1 to A-4 who sustained injuries at the time of the said incident, proceeded to the Hospital on the same day, where P.W.7 Doctor treated all of them, and the copies of the accident register in that regard are marked as Exs.P8 to P11 respectively. On receipt of the copy of the F.I.R., P.W.11 Nedunchezhian, Inspector of Police took up the investigation, proceeded to the site of occurrence, made an inspection and prepared Ex.P1 observation mahazar in front of P.W.6 Kailasam and one Periasamy and also Ex.P21 rough sketch. He conducted the inquest on the dead body of Subramani in front of panchayatars and witnesses and prepared Ex.P20 inquest report. He examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and recorded their statements. He issued a requisition for autopsy to P.W.7 under Ex.P4 through P.W.8 Rajan, Head Constable. On receipt of the same P.W.7 Doctor conducted the autopsy on the dead body of Subramani and found the following injuries: External Injuries: 1) An elliptical stab injury on the epigastrium 3 cm x 2 cm. 2) A lacerated injury 5 x 1 cm skin deep placed on the inner side of the left hand. 3) An abrasion 2 x « cm just below left knee. 4) An abrasion 1 x 1 cm over the right shoulder. Internal Examination: On probing the injury 1) The probe entered abdominal cavity about 10 cm and was blood stained. Heart Chambers empty c/s pale. 2) Lungs: c/s pale 3) Hyoid bone: Intact. 4) Liver: An incised wound 3 x 2 x complete size of lower border, on left lobe of the liver with profuse blood clot. Peritoneal cavity present with about one litre of dark coloured blood. 5) Stomach: An elliptical shaped piercing injury on the anterior wall of the stomach. Posterior wall spared. Stomach contains about 200 ml of partially digested food. 6) Spleen: C/s pale. 7) Kidney: C/s pale. 8) Bladder: Empty. Peritoneal cavity present with about one litre of dark coloured blood. 5) Stomach: An elliptical shaped piercing injury on the anterior wall of the stomach. Posterior wall spared. Stomach contains about 200 ml of partially digested food. 6) Spleen: C/s pale. 7) Kidney: C/s pale. 8) Bladder: Empty. 9) Brain: Membranes intact, c/s pale. P.W.7 Doctor has issued Ex.P5 postmortem certificate and has opined that the deceased would appear to have died 8-10 hours prior to autopsy due to injury to vital organs and shock and haemorrhage. (c) P.W.11 Investigating Officer seized M.O.8 a pair of cheppals, M.O.9 bloodstained earth, and M.O.10 sample earth under Ex.P2 mahazar in front of the witnesses. He recovered M.O.1 kuthukkol and M.O.2 aruval manai under Ex.P3 mahazar in front of the witnesses from the place of occurrence. On 19.7.1994, the Investigating Officer arrested A-1 and A-2 at the Government Hospital, Salem and A-3 and A-4 at the Government Hospital, Rasipuram and remanded them to judicial custody. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He also received M.Os.3 to 7 dresses worn by the deceased through P.W.8 Head Constable. All the material objects were sent to the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal. P.W.11 made a request to the concerned Court to send all the material objects for chemical analysis. A request was made to the concerned Judicial Magistrate for recording the statement of P.Ws.1 to 3 under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. P.W.11 conducted the investigation in Crime No.737/94 which was registered on the strength of the complaint lodged by A-3, and on investigation he referred the same as mistake of fact, and the referred charge sheet notice under Ex.P23 was served on A-3 and filed a final report under Ex.P22 before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Namakkal. On completion of the evidence, a charge sheet was laid against A-1 to A-4 under Ss 302, 323, 302 read with 34 and 302 read with 114 of I.P.C. 3. In order to prove the charges levelled against the appellants and other two accused, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and marked 23 exhibits and 10 material objects. On completion of the evidence 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. On completion of the evidence 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. On the side of the defence, D.W.1 was examined, and neither any exhibit nor any material object was marked. On consideration of the rival submissions and scrutiny of the materials available, the trial Court found A-1 and A-2 guilty under Sec.304 (Part II) read with 34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo the imprisonment, as stated supra. Hence, this appeal. 4. Arguing for the appellants, the learned Counsel Mr.Babu Muthu Meeran made the following submissions for consideration by this Court: The trial Court has not believed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses with regard to A-3 and A-4 and has acquitted them of all the charges, and hence, the lower Court should not have believed the same evidence for recording a conviction for A-1 and A-2. A case came to be registered on the complaint given by A-3 to P.W.10 Sub Inspector of Police at the very time in Crime No.737/94. But, the case was not properly investigated. All A-1 to A-4 sustained number of injuries, and they were all treated medically by the same P.W.7 Doctor. A perusal of the accident registers with regard to their treatment and injuries found on A-1 to A-4 marked as Exs.P8 to P11 would clearly indicate that they sustained grievous injuries, but the prosecution witnesses have not spoken anything about those injuries. It is highly doubtful whether Ex.P17 F.I.R. contained the first information, since P.W.1 at the time of cross examination has categorically admitted that she was doubtful whether Ex.P1 was the complaint given by her, and the thumb impression found therein was affixed by her, and thus, the prosecution has not brought forth to the attention of the Court the genesis of the crime and has not placed all the materials before the trial Court, and in view of the doubts cast in the prosecution case, the lower Court should have acquitted both the appellants in respect of the charges levelled against them, and hence, the appeal has got to be allowed acquitting the accused of the charges in which they were found guilty by the lower Court, and therefore, the judgment of the lower Court has to be set aside. 5. 5. Opposing strongly the contentions put forth by the appellants' side, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) Mr.V.Jaya Prakash Narayanan would submit that P.Ws.1 and 2 have categorically narrated the entire incident; that P.Ws.1 and 2 both were injured in the incident; that the medical evidence has clearly corroborated the ocular testimony; that it is true a case came to be registered at the instance of A-3 in Crime No.737/94; that the prosecution has placed all the materials available including the referred notice under Ex.P23; that the Investigating Officer has clearly spoken to the fact that he made a full investigation of the case in Crime No.737/94 and found that it was one mistake of fact, and hence, it could not be commented by the appellants' side that the prosecution has suppressed anything in respect of Crime No.737/94; that only on the strength of the complaint given by P.W.1, who rushed to the Police Station immediately after the occurrence, a case came to be registered in Crime No.736/94 by P.W.10; that P.Ws.1 and 10 have categorically spoken to that effect, and thus, no doubt is cast on the first information which led to the registration of the case in question; that the prosecution has explained the injuries found on A-1 to A-4; that except only one grievous injury found on A-4, all other injuries found on A-1 to A-4 were simple and also explained by the prosecution witnesses, and hence, it cannot be stated that the prosecution has not explained the injuries found on the accused; that in view of the above, the lower Court was perfectly correct in finding the appellants/A-1 and A-2 guilty under Sec.304(ii) read with 34 of I.P.C., and hence, the judgment of the lower Court has got to be confirmed. 6. This Court paid its full attention on the rival submissions made and made a close scrutiny of the available materials. 7. Admittedly, P.Ws.1 and 2 and A-1 to A-4 who were relatives, had previous enmity due to the love affair between the son of P.Ws.1 and 2 and A-3, which culminated in a clash between the two families and a pending criminal case. P.Ws.1 and 2 have categorically spoken that on the date of occurrence namely 18.7.1994 A-1 and A-2 along with others attacked the deceased and the witnesses also. P.Ws.1 and 2 have categorically spoken that on the date of occurrence namely 18.7.1994 A-1 and A-2 along with others attacked the deceased and the witnesses also. Both the witnesses have clearly spoken to the fact that A-1 attacked the deceased with M.O.2 aruval manai, and A-2 attacked with M.O.1 kuthukkol. Both these weapons have been recovered from the place of occurrence by the Investigating Officer in the presence of the witnesses at the time of investigation. It is true that both P.Ws.1 and 2 are close relatives of the deceased Subramani. But, on that ground their testimonies cannot be rejected unless and until the Court is able to see a strong circumstance or reason to disbelieve their evidence. A careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 would clearly inspire the confidence of the Court. The ocular testimony adduced by the prosecution through P.Ws.1 and 2 was fully supported by the medical evidence. The deceased met the instantaneous death at the spot. On a request made by the Investigating Officer after conducting the inquest, the dead body was subjected to autopsy by P.W.7 Doctor, who has given Ex.P5 postmortem certificate, wherein the injuries are narrated so. P.W.7 Medical Officer has opined that the injury on the stomach could have been caused by M.O.2 kuthukol; that the injury on the left hand could have been caused by M.O.1 aruval manai, and dut to those injuries on the vital organs, the deceased Subramani would have died. P.Ws.1 and 2 have categorically spoken to the fact that the said injury with a kuthukkol was caused on the stomach by A-2. There is evidence available to show that the other simple injury was caused by A-1 by attacking the deceased with aruval manai on his left hand. 8. It is not in dispute that there was a quarrel and clash between the parties at the time of occurrence, and A-1 to A-4 also sustained injuries, and they also underwent treatment, which would be evident from Exs.P8 to P11. The contention of the appellants' side that the injuries found on the accused were remained unexplained cannot be accepted for the simple reason that except one injury found on A-4, all other injuries on A-1 to A-4 were simple. The prosecution witnesses have explained that specific injury on A-4 stating that in order to protect themselves, they attacked them with sticks. The prosecution witnesses have explained that specific injury on A-4 stating that in order to protect themselves, they attacked them with sticks. The Court is unable to notice any doubt as put forth by the appellants' side, in the first information, in view of the clear evidence of P.W.1 the complainant and P.W.10 Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the case. There is evidence to show that there was a wordy quarrel, followed by a clash between the parties. The lower Court has found A-3 and A-4 not guilty, but has found A-1 and A-2 guilty of culpable homicide. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is unable to see that the appellants/A-1 and A-2 have acted in furtherance of the common intention to cause death of the deceased, but, they have acted suddenly. The prosecution has proved that it was the act of A-2 attacking the deceased with M.O.1 kuthukkol on the stomach, which caused death. Hence, the act of A-2 in causing death in such a way would fall under Sec.304(Part II) of I.P.C., while the act of A-1 by attacking with aruval manai thereby causing simple injury on the left hand of the deceased would fall under Sec.324 of I.P.C. Therefore, the first appellant/A-1 is found guilty under Sec.324 of I.P.C. and not under Sec.304(ii) read with 34 of I.P.C., and the second appellant/A-2 is found guilty under Sec.304(Part II) of I.P.C. and not under Sec.304(ii) read with 34 of I.P.C. A-1 has got to be sentenced to undergo 1 year R.I. and A-2 to undergo 4 years R.I. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence passed by the lower Court has got to be modified. 9. In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower Court are modified. However, A-1 is convicted under Sec.324 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year, and A-2 is convicted under Sec.304(Part II) of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years. The Sessions Judge shall take steps to commit the appellants/A-1 and A-2 to prison, if they are on bail, to undergo the remaining period of sentence. With the above observation, this criminal appeal is dismissed.