M. Thanikachalam, J.: The accused, who have been convicted under Sec. 302 read with 34, I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment, are the appellants. 2. The facts necessary for decision, in brief: (a) Thiru Siddan (P.W. 1) is the father of Muniyandi, who is the deceased. P.W. 1 is related to P.W. 2 by name Muthumadan as maternal uncle. Ramar (P.W. 3) is the son-in-law of P.W. 1. They are all residing at Senthatyapuram. (b) The house of first accused/first appellant is adjacent to the house of P.W. 1. The first accused was living with his sister Vazhavandal alias Vasantha. Because of the nearness or otherwise, the son of P.W. 1 by name Muniyandi, had some connection with the sister of the first accused Vasantha, which was questioned. The first accused, aggrieved by the conduct of P.W. 1’s son, appears to have assaulted P.W. 1 on 11.5.1992, for which a complaint was preferred under Ex.P-2. Thereafter, Vasantha, by consuming poison, herself terminated her life. Because of the death of Vasantha, the first accused and his relative-the second accused, had the grievance, which developed animosity, under the belief that P.W. 1 and his son are the cause for the death of Vasantha and therefore, they have entertained an idea to murder Muniyandi. (c) On 31.8.1992, at about 11.30 a.m., when P.W. 1, his son Muniyandi and P.W. 2 were proceeding to Morambur, to purchase manure, it was noticed by the accused, who were armed with deadly weapons (M.Os. 1 and 2). On seeing the accused, Muniyandi attempted to escape, taking heels, but he was chased by the accused. Muniyandi fell down near the house of one Gurusamy and taking advantage of the same, the first accused inflicted as many as three cut injuries using M.O. 1, and the second accused inflicted upon Muniyandi as many as three injuries, fatal in nature, using M.O. 2, which was witnessed by P.W. 1, since he followed his son apprehending danger in the hands of the accused. This incident was further noticed by P.W. 2 who accompanied P.W. 1. Because of the severe cut injuries inflicted by the accused, Muniyandi succumbed to the same. (d) The accused, after attacking Muniyandi, ran away from the scene of crime, with the bloodstained Aruvals (M.Os. 1 and 2), which was witnessed by P.W. 3, who came through that way. (e) P.Ws. Because of the severe cut injuries inflicted by the accused, Muniyandi succumbed to the same. (d) The accused, after attacking Muniyandi, ran away from the scene of crime, with the bloodstained Aruvals (M.Os. 1 and 2), which was witnessed by P.W. 3, who came through that way. (e) P.Ws. 1 and 2, after the incident, went to Thalavaipuram police station, narrated the incident, which was reduced into writing (Ex.P-1) by P.W. 14 Thiru. Mohanraj, the Sub-Inspector of Police on the same day at about 12.30 p.m. The printed F.I.R. Ex.P-15 was also submitted to the Court concerned. (f) P.W. 16 Thiru Annathurai, Inspector of Police, upon information, rushed to the scene of crime, inspected the scene of occurrence, in the presence of the witnesses, prepared observation, mahazar Ex.P-4 as well as the sketch Ex.P-22. In order to ascertain, prima facie, the cause of the death of the deceased Muniyandi, he conducted inquest in the presence of the panchayatdars, and the same was reduced into writing under Ex.P-23. In order to ascertain further the real cause of death of Muniyandi, scientifically, the body was sent to the doctor with a requisition Ex.P-13, for autopsy which was promptly attended to by Dr. Shanmugavelu P.W. 11. (g) Dr. Shanmugavelu, (P.W. 11), after the identification of the body, by the constable incharge, conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased Muniyandi which revealed the following injuries: (1) 2“x 1” bone deep cut injury in front of Rt. ear exposing tempero mondibular joint, with clot; (2) 2“x 1/2” x 1/2“cut injury over back of left side neck; (3) 1/2 1/2” cut injury below and back of left ear; (4) 2 1/2“1 1/2” x muscle deep cut injury over Rt. side neck exposing muscle cut ends of vessels; (5) 5“x 2” x bone deep cut injury exposing 3/4th cut portion of C2 C3 spine over back of neck; (6) 3“x 2” x bone deep cut injury exposing 3/4th cut portion of C4, 5 spine on back of neck multiple abrasion over Bone Knee Joint. (h) The above injuries and other attending circumstances revealed, that the deceased would have died due to shock and haemorrhage, because of the effect created by the injuries, which cut the vein also. P.W. 11 certified the injuries as well, as the cause of death, under Ex.P-14 postmortem certificate. (h) The above injuries and other attending circumstances revealed, that the deceased would have died due to shock and haemorrhage, because of the effect created by the injuries, which cut the vein also. P.W. 11 certified the injuries as well, as the cause of death, under Ex.P-14 postmortem certificate. (i) The Investigating Officer P.W. 16, in continuation of the investigation, had recovered bloodstained earth, sample earth M.Os. 3 and 4 under Ex.P-5 and examined witnesses then and there, recorded their statements as mandated under the Criminal Procedure Code. (j) On 17.9.1992, on information, P.W. 16 arrested the second accused, at about 5 p.m. in the presence of witnesses and upon further enquiry, the second accused had confessed the concealment of the weapon (M.O. 2), which was used for murdering Muniyandi, which was recovered under the cover of mahazar Ex.P-9. The second accused was examined with the help of translator, since he is deaf and dumb. (k) The first accused, apprehending ill treatment in the hands of the police if arrested, appears to have surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Dindigul, which fact came to the knowledge of P.W. 16 and thereafter, filing an application, he took the first accused into his custody on 25.9.1992. (l) The first accused, when he was examined by P.W. 16, in the presence of P.W. 7 and another witness, had confessed to the concealment of the weapon used by him to cut Muniyandi, under Ex.P-6. In pursuance of Ex.P-6, M.O. 1 was recovered at about 10 a.m. on 26.9.1992, in the presence of P.W. 7 and another. P.W. 1 had informed the Investigating Officer that the first accused also sustained injury in the hands of the second accused, while both were attacking Muniyandi. The Investigating Officer also noticed some healed injuries, on the first accused and therefore, the first accused was sent for medical examination. (m) P.W. 10 doctor, on examination of the first accused had noticed two scars over the middle of the right hand and below the wrist of the left hand of the first accused, which he certified under Ex.P-12. The Investigating Officer also noticed some healed injuries, on the first accused and therefore, the first accused was sent for medical examination. (m) P.W. 10 doctor, on examination of the first accused had noticed two scars over the middle of the right hand and below the wrist of the left hand of the first accused, which he certified under Ex.P-12. The recording of statements by the examination of the witnesses, collection of material objects and the other attending circumstances, including the previous enmity between the parties, revealed the fact to the Inspector of Police, that both the accused alone should have committed the murder of Muniyandi, and hence he brought them before the trial Court to face the offences under Sec. 302 read with 34, I.P.C., in addition to the offences under Secs. 341 and 506(2), I.P.C. (n) Upon consideration, the learned Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur, after framing the charges, questioned the accused, for which it seems, both the accused denied, not only their alleged involvement, but also refused to plead guilty. (o) The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges framed against the accused and to prove the same beyond all reasonable doubt, had marched 16 witnesses armed with 24 documents and 9 material objects. The scanning of the above materials, undoubtedly and undeniably brought to surface, according to the assessment of the learned trial Judge, that the offence under Sec. 302 read with 34, I.P.C. alone were made out against both the accused, whereas the other offences reported against them are not proved. (p) The learned trial Judge had come to the conclusion, that there was unquestionable or proved motive for the commission of the offence, that the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 are undoubtedly safe and acceptable, ignoring the minor contradiction, that, the non-examination of other witnesses those who were said to have witnessed the incident, would not invalidate the truth established by reliable witnesses that M.Os. 1 and 2 ought to have been recovered only on the basis of the confession statements made by both the accused and that minor contradictions or omissions, as the case may be, are bound to be there, which would not ordinarily eschew the acceptable portion of the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses. 1 and 2 ought to have been recovered only on the basis of the confession statements made by both the accused and that minor contradictions or omissions, as the case may be, are bound to be there, which would not ordinarily eschew the acceptable portion of the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses. In this view, the learned trial Judge slapped the conviction upon the accused under Sec. 302 read with 34, I.P.C. ordering them to undergo life imprisonment, which is challenged before us. 3. We have heard the impressive arguments of the learned senior counsel Mr.V. Gopinath, for the accused/appellants as well as the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.V.M.R. Rajendran, who took the pain of taking us through the oral as well as the documentary evidence in support of their rival contentions. 4. The learned senior counsel Mr.V. Gopinath has submitted that the prosecution has not proved or established the motive and therefore, the conviction based on the alleged motive should go. It is the further submission of the learned senior counsel, that as per the postmortem report, there would not have been any possibility, for the incident to have taken place at about 11.30 a.m. on 31.8.1992 and if at all, the deceased might have died even prior to the said time which was not properly considered by the trial Judge and on this ground, the conviction should be erased. He further points out, relying upon the contradictions and omissions available in the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, that they could not have been the eye witnesses, for the alleged incident and therefore, placing reliance upon their oral testimony, to sustain a conviction is unsafe. Not only that, it is the further submission of the learned senior counsel, that interested oral testimony fails to withstand the test of trustworthiness and on this account also, their evidence has to be side-lined and in that event, there is no evidence practically to sustain the conviction. Evidence which we will point out infra, would indicate that there were some other independent witnesses also at the scene of crime, but those witnesses have not been examined. Evidence which we will point out infra, would indicate that there were some other independent witnesses also at the scene of crime, but those witnesses have not been examined. For the non-examination of those independent witnesses, adverse inference should be drawn, is the submission of the learned senior counsel and on this basis also, he pleads for the acquittal of the accused, in addition to stressing the unexplained and un-reconciled contradictions and omissions. In short, according to the learned senior counsel, the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt as required and in fact, many doubts had arisen, spontaneously and its benefits ought to have flown to the accused under criminal jurisprudence, resulting in acquittal, but unfortunately, it was not given and on this score also, the accused are entitled to the benefits of doubt. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, per contra, would submit that though P.Ws. 1 to 3 are in a way related to the deceased, law does not mandate that their testimony should be discarded, only on the ground of interestedness and there is no reason to discard their oral testimony, since they are natural, convincing and acceptable and have passed the test of cross-examination also. In this view, he supported the findings of the trial Court. 6. Ex.P-1, the complaint given by P.W. 1, moved the wheels of investigation on the same day of the incident, followed by the registration of case under Ex.P-15. The incident had taken place, according to P.W. 1, on 31.8.1992 at 11.30 a.m. for which complaint was given on the same day at about 12.30 p.m. The printed F.I.R. prepared on the basis of Ex.P-1, reached the Court concerned on the same day at about 2.15 p.m., for which, we find the initial of the Magistrate also. Therefore, there is no delay, much less unexplained delay, while initiating criminal action for the offences said to have been committed by the accused. The position being so, the submission that the accused are deliberately included in the complaint should be ruled out and whatever stated in the complaint must be the real outcome of the incident and in this view, we are unable to doubt the genuineness of the complaint. The position being so, the submission that the accused are deliberately included in the complaint should be ruled out and whatever stated in the complaint must be the real outcome of the incident and in this view, we are unable to doubt the genuineness of the complaint. Therefore, raising any doubt on the basis of any delay, does not arise and it is not the case of the learned senior counsel for the appellant also, that there is any delay in preparing the complaint, warranting to entertain any doubt. If the allegations levelled in Ex.P-1 are strengthened by acceptable oral and other attending circumstantial evidence, then there is nothing wrong in concluding that the accused must be the culprits. From the scanning of Ex.P-1, as observed by the learned trial Judge, we do find substantial natural averments implicating the accused, exhibiting their role, except one omission regarding the injury sustained by the first accused in the hands of the second accused. Thus, concluding that there was no slackness on the part of the justice seekers, we proceed further. 7. The submission of the learned senior counsel for the accused/appellants, that to prove the motive part, no acceptable evidence available, is not acceptable to us, since we find substantial, unchallenged evidence to prove the motive. P.W. 1, the father of the deceased, has categorically deposed, before the trial Court, about the connection of his son, with the sister of the first accused by name Vasantha. The first accused was aggrieved by the conduct of the deceased Muniyandi, son of P.W. 1, resulting in, assault of P.W. 1 also. P.W. 1 would state, that the first accused, Pattalam and one Arumugam, questioning the conduct of Muniyandi, assaulted him, for which he preferred a complaint in Karivalamvanthanallur police station. This complaint is exhibited as Ex.P-2 and the person who recorded the same was examined as P.W. 4. We are not much worried about the genuineness of Ex.P-2. The fact remains that there was a dispute between the first accused and P.W. 1’s family due to the contact, between Muniyandi and Vasantha, the sister of the first accused, which is narrated in Ex.P-2. During the cross-examination of P.W. 1, the case spoken by him regarding the previous incident, including enmity and animosity is not at all challenged. It is also an admitted fact, that Vasantha consumed poison, thereby terminated her life. During the cross-examination of P.W. 1, the case spoken by him regarding the previous incident, including enmity and animosity is not at all challenged. It is also an admitted fact, that Vasantha consumed poison, thereby terminated her life. We find under the above circumstances, no substance in the submission made by the learned senior counsel, that the motive part is not proved. The learned trial Judge has elaborately discussed about the motive part in his judgment, in paragraphs 20, 21 and 22. The reasons assigned, for concluding that there was enmity between the deceased Muniyandi and the accused are well acceptable to us and we do not find any reason to differ, or erase that finding. The case of the prosecution that the accused might have committed the murder of Muniyandi, stands reason to believe. Then, we have to see whether the actual commission of the offence, is proved or not, by scanning the evidence on record. 8. Dr.S. Shanmugavelu, P.W. 11 who had conducted autopsy, upon the body of the deceased had observed that the stomach was empty, thereby showing that the deceased ought to have taken food, atleast four hours prior to the time of the death. P.W. 1 has given evidence, as if he along with the deceased have taken the meals or tiffin, as the case may be, at about 9 a.m. and went to the place, where the incident had taken place, at about 11 a.m. If it is correct, then, since two hours alone had lapsed from the time of taking food, and the incident was said to have taken place at 11.30, in the ordinary course, in the stomach of the deceased, there must be partially digested food. But as stated supra, the opinion of the doctor is that the stomach was empty. On this basis, the learned senior counsel would contend, that the time of the alleged incident, projected in the final report must be incorrect and the evidence given by P.W. 1 is also not worthy of acceptance. In this regard, we have to see the nature of witnesses and their background. After all, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 are rustic villagers, unable to read or write. It is not the case of the prosecution, that they were having the wrist watch in their hand, etc. In this regard, we have to see the nature of witnesses and their background. After all, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 are rustic villagers, unable to read or write. It is not the case of the prosecution, that they were having the wrist watch in their hand, etc. When it was put to the witnesses, during the cross-examination, insisting to give answer, regarding the time of taking food, then, they are compelled to say something approximately. In this way, in our opinion, P.W. 1 could have stated about the taking of the food, approximately 9 a.m. and the same could not be taken as precise time. It may be either 8’O clock and in that case, since more than three hours would have elapsed, at the time of the incident, there is nothing wrong, in saying, that the stomach of the deceased was empty. On this ground, we are unable to entertain any doubt, since the doubt had not arisen spontaneously, which should follow, the accused are not entitled to the benefit of the same. 9. It is the specific case of P.Ws. 1 and 2, that they went to Morambur to purchase manure. There is no evidence, indicating that they are owning any agricultural lands. The learned senior counsel for the appellants, submits that the case of the prosecution, that P.Ws. 1 and 2, accompanied with Muniyandi, had been to Morambur to purchase manure must be false, and the consequential result must be, P.Ws. 1 and 2 could not be the eye witnesses. 10. The trial Court has analysed this point very elaborately and has come to a just and correct conclusion, for which, we have to affix our seal of approval, since we find no infirmity of any kind. In a village, even a person who is not owning any land, would go for the purchase of manure, if he is working as coolie or if he is cultivating some other’s land under lease. The cultivation said to have been done by P.W. 1, if any though not spoken by him in detail, does not take us, to the irresistible conclusion that P.Ws. 1 and 2 would not have accompanied the deceased, at the relevant point of time. In this view, we are inclined to reject the contention of the learned senior counsel. The cultivation said to have been done by P.W. 1, if any though not spoken by him in detail, does not take us, to the irresistible conclusion that P.Ws. 1 and 2 would not have accompanied the deceased, at the relevant point of time. In this view, we are inclined to reject the contention of the learned senior counsel. On the basis of the submission made by the learned senior counsel for the appellants, since P.Ws. 1 and 2 are not owning any lands, they would not have gone to purchase manure and therefore they would not come within the meaning of eye witnesses, is unacceptable to us. 11. Admittedly, P.W. 1 is the father of the deceased and P.W. 2 is, in a way, related as maternal uncle. P.W. 3 is the son-in-law of P.W. 1. By the above said relation, true, they come within the meaning of interested witnesses. Therefore, a submission was made by the learned senior counsel for the appellants, that it is unsafe to rely on their interested oral testimony, in order to base the conviction. Law does not say, that the interested oral testimony should be ignored in toto or, they are barred from giving evidence. After all, when we analyse and assess the interested oral testimony of the witnesses, much caution is required. If they are motivated evidence, coupled with unexplained contradictions, omissions cutting the root of the case, or coated with much unnaturality, then only the evidence given by the interested witnesses should be viewed doubtfully, not otherwise. Scanning the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, we are unable to see any material contradictions or much unnaturality to discard their testimony, as unworthy of credence. The trial Court also analysed the case from all probable angles and accepted their oral testimony, without committing any error, which requires affirmation. 12. The incident had taken place near a public place and according to P.W. 2, it was witnessed by more than 25 persons, as elicited in the cross-examination by the second accused. It is also the case of P.W. 1, that in and around the scene of crime, there are residential houses. It is the further case of P.W. 1, that when the accused chased Muniyandi, it was seen by the shop owners. It is also the case of P.W. 1, that in and around the scene of crime, there are residential houses. It is the further case of P.W. 1, that when the accused chased Muniyandi, it was seen by the shop owners. Therefore, it is the submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellants, that the non-examination of those independent witnesses, is fatal to the prosecution. Law does not mandate, all the witnesses, who were present at the time of the occurrence, should have been marched into the Court, to prove a particular fact. It is also not the mandate of the Evidence Act, that, to prove a certain fact, minimum number of witnesses are required. Hence, the non-examination of the other witnesses or more witnesses, would not nullify the effect of the evidence given by P.Ws. 1 to 3, if they are worthy of credence and acceptable. In our considered opinion, neither the non-examination of the other witnesses, nor the examination of the interested witnesses, would affect the case of the prosecution, if the case is otherwise proved. 13. The oral evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 are sought to be assailed, on the basis of certain contradictions. P.W. 2 would state, during the cross-examination by the first accused, that the police were brought to the scene of crime by Ramar (P.W. 3). But Ramar would state, even during the examination in chief, that P.Ws. 1 and 2 alone went to the police station, directing him to stay at the place of occurrence. Thus, as rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the appellants, it is a contradiction. In our view, this will not cut the root of the case, or would create any doubt, about the presence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 at the scene of crime. This inconsistency might have occurred due to the human memory failure or otherwise and therefore, we feel, the same should be ignored, when other acceptable materials are available, abundantly. 14. P.W. 1, while implicating the accused, would state that the first accused also sustained injuries, when the second accused assaulted Muniyandi. This part of the case spoken by P.W. 1 does not find place in Ex.P-1. But the above said evidence was not challenged at the time of cross-examination. 14. P.W. 1, while implicating the accused, would state that the first accused also sustained injuries, when the second accused assaulted Muniyandi. This part of the case spoken by P.W. 1 does not find place in Ex.P-1. But the above said evidence was not challenged at the time of cross-examination. After obtaining the permission, for further cross-examination alone, it was suggested to P.W. 1, that the first accused has not sustained injuries, while Raja Ganapathy, the second accused, cut Muniyandi. There also, it is not the case of P.W. 1, that the first accused has not sustained any injury. Though P.W. 1 has failed to say the injury sustained by the first accused in the hands of the second accused in Ex.P-1, he had given statement before the Investigating Officer, as elicited during the cross-examination, when the Investigating Officer (P.W. 16) was in the box. The injury sustained by the first accused, at the time of the incident, as spoken by P.W. 1, which is confirmed by the Investigating Officer, is not challenged. The first accused, very cleverly evaded the net of the police, for many days, probably to take time, for the healing of the injury. After his surrender before the Court, he was taken into police custody, by the Investigating Officer and subjected to medical examination, which revealed, two healed wounds, as spoken to by P.W. 10 doctor, and as seen from Ex.P-12. When the first accused was produced before the doctor on 26.9.2002, it is the case of the prosecution, that the first accused reported to the doctor, that he sustained the injury on 31.8.1992 at about 11.30 a.m. i.e., the day and time of the incident, in this case. While cross-examining P.W. 10, it is not even suggested to the doctor, that there was no injury upon the first accused, whereas, it is suggested, that he has not reported to the doctor about the assault on 31.8.1992. When the first accused was examined under Sec. 313, Crl.P.C., he has filed the statement informing that he sustained injuries by the fall of stones, for which he took treatment in the house itself, which was known to P.W. 1 and taking advantage of the same, by filing false case, P.W. 1 is giving false evidence. When the first accused was examined under Sec. 313, Crl.P.C., he has filed the statement informing that he sustained injuries by the fall of stones, for which he took treatment in the house itself, which was known to P.W. 1 and taking advantage of the same, by filing false case, P.W. 1 is giving false evidence. If this statement is to be accepted, then the first accused ought to have atleast suggested to P.W. 1, that he had sustained injury not as spoken by P.W. 1, but as narrated in the statement filed under Sec. 233(2), Crl.P.C. The absence of any such suggestion, whether it is relevant or not, and the belated case projected in the statement under Sec. 233(2), Crl.P.C., coupled with the absconding of the first accused to consume time, for the healing of the injury, would suggest, in our considered opinion, that the first accused should have participated in the incident as narrated by P.W. 1 and should have sustained injuries and only in order to suppress the injuries, he evaded the net of the police and after the healing of the injuries, surrendered before the Court. This circumstance, which surfaced automatically, from the evidence, suggests the involvement of the first accused, in the crime. 15. In our considered opinion, P.Ws. 1 to 3 come within the meaning of eye witnesses and their testimony are acceptable. P.W. 1 has picturised the incident vividly, how he along with his son accompanied with P.W. 2, proceeded from Senthatyapuram to Morambur, for the purchase of manure on the fateful day of 31.8.1992. He has further stated, that on the way, they have seen the accused armed with Aruval and on seeing them, Muniyandi, in order to escape, ran away, but the accused have chased him, cut him indiscriminately near the house of one Gurusamy. It is true, there is some inconsistency regarding the identification of the house of Gurusamy, and who informed, to whom. That alone will not be sufficient to discard the oral testimony of P.W. 1, which is otherwise acceptable. P.W. 1 has stated further that the first accused had cut his son over the neck, then another cut near the ear and also inflicted a third cut over the head. In the same manner, he has described the act of the second accused also, how, he had caused the other injuries on Muniyandi. P.W. 1 has stated further that the first accused had cut his son over the neck, then another cut near the ear and also inflicted a third cut over the head. In the same manner, he has described the act of the second accused also, how, he had caused the other injuries on Muniyandi. The evidence given by P.W. 1, regarding the injury sustained by his son, is corroborated by the medical evidence and the postmortem certificate. 16. P.W. 2 has given evidence in a natural way, how he has seen the assault by the accused from at a distance, causing injury to Muniyandi, fairly conceding that he had not gone nearby, apprehending danger. After the assault, both the accused, when attempted to escape, the same was noticed by P.W. 3, whose evidence is inspiring. Thus, when we read the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, coupled with probabilities and other attending circumstances, ignoring the minor discrepancies of no consequences, the irresistible conclusion that could be drawn, as drawn by the trial Court, is that both the accused alone had caused the fatal injuries to Muniyandi, as detailed in the postmortem certificate. 17. It is not in dispute, that Muniyandi died due to the injuries sustained by him, which caused shock and haemorrhage. The weapons were also identified by P.W. 1 and it is the medical opinion also, that the injuries noticed over the body of Muniyandi, might have been inflicted by using M.Os. 1 and 2. Considering the case from all possible and probable angles, as well taking into account, the facts and circumstances of the case also, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion, both the accused jointly, with common intention, committed the murder of Muniyandi, thereby attracting Sec. 302, I.P.C. The learned trial Judge, considering elaborately all the points, raised on behalf of the defence and accepting the case of the prosecution, has rendered an unquestionable finding, finding the accused guilty under Sec. 302 read with 34, I.P.C. which requires confirmation. We do not find any error, and much less valid reason to interfere with the said findings. No interference is called for and the appeal is devoid of merits, the same is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence of the trial Court. 18. We do not find any error, and much less valid reason to interfere with the said findings. No interference is called for and the appeal is devoid of merits, the same is liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence of the trial Court. 18. The learned Sessions Judge shall take steps to commit the accused to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.