Judgment :- M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. Ponnappan and Arumugam, appellants herein were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for Life. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed. 2) The case of the prosecution is as follows: a) The deceased Mupudathi and his elder brother Sivasubramanian-P.W.1 are the residents of Cheranmadevi. The 1st accused Ponnappan and the 2nd accused Arumugam are brothers residing at Kodanganallur. b) Chellammal - sister of P.W.1 and the deceased, got married to Esakkimuthu, the elder brother of 1st and 2nd accused. Chellammal had a daughter, by name Anthonipappa, who was married to P.W.2 - Raju. After marriage, P.W.2 Raju, who originally belonged to Sirukkankurichi, came and settled at Kodanganallur along with his wife with her parents. Esakkimuthu was mentally sick. Therefore, P.W.1 - Sivasubramanian and his brother the deceased Mupudathi used to come to the village Kodanganallur and take him to the hospital for giving treatment. This was not liked by Esakkimuthu's brothers, the 1st and 2nd accused. c) On 11.1.95, at about 7.00 a.m., the accused came to the house of Chellammal and told her that they would make arrangements for giving treatment to Esakkimuthu-her husband and demanded money from her. She refused to give the same. Therefore, both of them attacked Chellammal and caused injuries. This was informed to the deceased and P.W.1 residing at Cheranmadevi. d) On hearing this news, Mupudathi-the deceased came to Kodanganallur village and took Chellammal to the police Station accompanied by P.W.2 - Raju and lodged a complaint and thereafter admitted her in the Government Hospital, Cheranmadevi. A case was registered under Sections 341 and 323 I.P.C on the complaint of Chellammal. Ex.P.19 is the First Information Report. e) Thereupon, the deceased Mupudathi along with P.W.2 - Raju went to the house of the accused at Kodanganallur at about 1.00 p.m in order to question the accused for having caused injuries on her sister Chellammal. The accused were not available there at that time and only Esakkiammal, the mother of the accused was there. The deceased picked up a wordy quarrel with her. Ultimately, the deceased attacked Esakkiammal with aruval and inflicted injuries on her legs. f) In the meantime, P.W.1 came to Kodanganallur village from Cheranmadevi in order to enquire about the attack made on Chellammal and went to the field of Esakkimuthu. P.W.2 and the deceased came there. The deceased picked up a wordy quarrel with her. Ultimately, the deceased attacked Esakkiammal with aruval and inflicted injuries on her legs. f) In the meantime, P.W.1 came to Kodanganallur village from Cheranmadevi in order to enquire about the attack made on Chellammal and went to the field of Esakkimuthu. P.W.2 and the deceased came there. They told P.W.1 that Esakkiammal, the mother of the accused was attacked by them. Then, P.W.1 advised both the deceased and P.W.2 to leave the village immediately so as to avoid further incident. g) On 11.1.95 at 2.15 p.m, P.W.1 Sivasubramanian, P.W.2 Raju and the deceased Mupudathi were proceeding from Kodanganallur to Cheranmadevi. When they were passing through Durgaiamman Temple, both the accused suddenly appeared at the scene. The 1st accused was armed with Kathikambu and the 2nd accused was armed with aruval. Having surrounded the deceased. the 1st accused stabbed the deceased on the left chest and the 2nd accused cut the deceased on his head, leg, face etc., indiscriminately. The deceased died on the spot. When P.W. 1 and P.W.2 raised alarm, the accused threatened them and ran away from the scene with the weapons. h) On 11.1.95 at 6.00 p.m., P.W.1 and Mariappan went to Suthamalli Police Station and gave a complaint to P.W.8 Sub Inspector of Police. Ex.P.1 is the complaint. He registered a case in Cr.No.3/95 for the offence punishable under Sec.302 I.P.C. Ex.P.15 is the printed First Information Report. i) Mr.Narayanan , Inspector of Police, who received the message, took up the case for investigation and went to the spot along with P.W.8 at about 9.00 p.m. He prepared Ex.P.2 - observation mahazar; drew Ex.P.16 rough sketch and conducted inquest over the body of the deceased between 9.30 p.m, and 11.30 p.m. Ex.P.17 is the inquest report. He examined P.W.1 Sivasubramanian and Mariappan. Then, the body was sent for post mortem. j) At 11.30 p.m, Mr.Narayanan, Inspector of Police recovered M.O.9 blood stained earth, M.O.10, sample earth and one pair of slippers under Ex.P.3 from the scene of occurrence. In the meantime, on 11.1.95, P.W.8 Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.24/95 for offences under Sections 425 and 307 I.P.C against the deceased Mupudathi and P.W.2 Raju on the complaint given by one Balammal with reference to the attack made on Esakkiammal. Ex.P.20 is the printed first information report. In the meantime, on 11.1.95, P.W.8 Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.24/95 for offences under Sections 425 and 307 I.P.C against the deceased Mupudathi and P.W.2 Raju on the complaint given by one Balammal with reference to the attack made on Esakkiammal. Ex.P.20 is the printed first information report. k) On 12.1.95, P.W.9 Dr.Edwin Joe, the Doctor received the requisition Ex.P.18 from the Inspector of Police, and commenced post mortem at about 10.05 a.m and found 18 cut injuries all over the body of the deceased. The Doctor opined in the Post Mortem Certificate Ex.P.23 that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries sustained by him. l) P.W.10 Thangarose, regular Inspector of Police took charge on 15.1.95 and continued further investigation. He came to know that on 12.1.95, the 1st accused surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikundam and on 13.1.95, the 2nd accused surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirunelveli. m) On 21.1.95, P.W.10 Inspector of police obtained police custody of the accused and in pursuance of their confession viz., Exs.P.4 and P.5, P.W.10 recovered M.O.6 - Kathikambu from A.1 under Ex.P.6 and recovered M.O.7 aruval from A.2 under Ex.P.7. Then, the accused were sent for judicial custody. He arranged for sending the material objects for chemical analysis. After completing the investigation, he filed final report against the 1st and 2nd accused under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. 3. The charges were framed under Sections 302 and 506 (ii) I.P.C. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined; Exs.P.1 to P.21 were filed and M.Os.1 to 10 were marked. 4. When the accused were questioned under Sec.313 Cr.P.C, both the accused denied their complicity in crime. They stated that on 11.1.95, they had gone out of the village for business and returned only in the evening. On behalf of the defence, Ex.D.1 was marked. 5. On considering the materials available on record, the trial Court, though acquitted both the accused under Section 506(ii) I.P.C, convicted them for the offence punishable under Sec.302 I.P.C. Hence this appeal. 6. On behalf of the defence, Ex.D.1 was marked. 5. On considering the materials available on record, the trial Court, though acquitted both the accused under Section 506(ii) I.P.C, convicted them for the offence punishable under Sec.302 I.P.C. Hence this appeal. 6. Mr .G.R. Edmund, learned counsel for the appellants, would take us through the entire evidence and contend that the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 - the eye witnesses is not reliable, as it would contain several infirmities, which would go to the root of the matter and that therefore, the accused are entitled to be acquitted. He would also contend that Ex.P.1 must have been prepared belatedly, since the deposition of P.W.1 would indicate that the dead body was brought to the station for noticing the injujries and a complaint must have been prepared, only thereafter and as such, false documents have been created by the prosecution to prove its case and in the light of the said fact situation, the defence as suggested to the prosecution witnesses that in retaliation to the attack made on the mother of the accused, the villagers came there and attacked the deceased, is quit probable. 7. On the above aspects, we have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 8. Having regard to the materials available on record and on considering the submissions made on either side, we are of the view that the contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant does not deserve acceptance. 9. There are two eye witnesses. According to the prosecution, Chellammal- the sister of P.W.1 and the deceased was attacked by the 1st and 2nd accused at about 7.00 a.m at Kodanganallur village; on receipt of the message, Mupudathi - the deceased went to Kodanganallur from Cheranmadevi and took Chellammal to Police Station and gave a complaint. The fact that the complaint given by Chellammal with reference to the attack made on her by both the accused has been proved by Ex.P.19 -first information report. After registering the First Information Report, Chellammal was taken to Hospital and admitted. Thereafter, in order to question the accused, both the deceased and P.W.2 went to the house of the accused and at that time, the accused were not available. When the mother of the accused was questioned, she abused them in filthy language. After registering the First Information Report, Chellammal was taken to Hospital and admitted. Thereafter, in order to question the accused, both the deceased and P.W.2 went to the house of the accused and at that time, the accused were not available. When the mother of the accused was questioned, she abused them in filthy language. Therefore, both the deceased and P.W.2 attacked Esakkiammal-the mother of the accused and caused injuries on her legs. With reference to this incident, a complaint was given by Balammal, the daughter of Esakkiammal and the same was registered by the police against the deceased and P.W.2 - Raju. Ex.P.20 is the copy of First Information Report. In retaliation to the above attack, the accused, who came to the village, went to the scene of occurrence with kathikambu and aruval and when the deceased, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were proceeding to Cheranmadevi, they waylaid them and attacked the deceased brutally. The 1st accused attacked with Kathikamu and inflicted injuries on chest and the 2nd accused attcked with aruval and inflicted injuries all over the body indiscriminately, as a result of which, the deceased fell down and died on the spot. This was witnessed by P.Ws.1 and 2. 10. On seeing the gruesome murder, P.W.2 ran away from the scene of occurrence, but P.W.1 along with one Mariappan went to the police station and gave a complaint to P.W.8. This has been registered for the offence punishable under Sec.302 I.P.C against both the accused. Ex.P.15 is the first information report. So, these documents and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 clearly indicate that this murder, which took place at 2.15 p.m, is in retaliation to the attack made by the deceased and Raju on Esakkiammal-the mother of the accused at 1.30 p.m. Therefore, the materials available on record would clearly indicate that there are chain of events which culminated into the murder the deceased. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants would point out various infirmities in order to establish that evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is unreliable. In our view, those infirmities are only minor which would not affect the credibility of the witnesses viz., P.Ws.1 and 2. As a matter of fact, we are very much impressed by the evidence of P.W.2, who stated that he is a local resident. In our view, those infirmities are only minor which would not affect the credibility of the witnesses viz., P.Ws.1 and 2. As a matter of fact, we are very much impressed by the evidence of P.W.2, who stated that he is a local resident. It is also an admitted fact that P.W.2 and the deceased were present in the village at the time when the 2nd incident took place, in which Esakkiammal was attacked. Furthermore, evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 has been sufficiently corroborated by medical evidence adduced by P.W.9 Doctor, who conducted post mortem. 12. Apart from that, as per the evidence of P.W.10, he recovered M.O.6 Kathikambu, which was blood stained with "A" group human blood and M.O.7 -aruval, which was found with "A" group blood, which tallied with the blood group of the deceased. 13. Lastly, it was contended that the occurrence had taken place out of grave sudden provocation and therefore, the accused could be convicted, only for lesser offence. Incidentally, one another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the 1st accused had caused only two injuries, whereas the 2nd accused had caused the other injuries and therefore, the 1st accused cannot be convicted for offence punishable under Sec.302 I.P.C. These submissions in our view, are not tenable. According to the prosecution, in retaliation to the attack made on their mother, both the accused came to the scene of occurrence with dangerous weapons and inflicted serious injuries on the body of the deceased. When both of them came with dangerous weapons and caused injuries, which resulted in death, it cannot be said that the 2nd accused alone is responsible for the death. In fact, the first attack was made by the 1st accused, who inflicted injuries on the vital part of the body i.e., chest. P.W.8 Doctor would also opine that the deceased died of shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries. 14. Further the materials available on record do not show that the occurrence had taken place out of sudden provocation. The 2nd occurrence in which the mother of the accused was attacked held at 1.30 p.m. Admittedly, the accused, were not available then. If they were available, naturally the deceased would have attacked the accused also. Admittedly, the murder had not taken place, while the deceased attacked Esakkiammal. The 2nd occurrence in which the mother of the accused was attacked held at 1.30 p.m. Admittedly, the accused, were not available then. If they were available, naturally the deceased would have attacked the accused also. Admittedly, the murder had not taken place, while the deceased attacked Esakkiammal. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the occurrence relating to murder took place at 2.15 p.m. The place of occurrence is situated in the next street to the house of Esakkiammal. Under those circumstances, it cannot be contended that both the occurrences had taken place at the same time and at the same place, during the same transaction, so as to enable the accused to invoke sudden provocation. 15. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal. Hence, the appeal stands dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/accused by the trial Court.