Judgment :- M.Karpagavinayagam, J. Velusamy Konar, the appellant/accused was convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and rigorous imprisonment for one year respectively. The trial Court ordered the sentences to run concurrently. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, this appeal has been filed by the appellant/accused. 2. The facts leading to conviction of the accused, are as follows:- (a) The deceased Ayyathurai is the father of P.W.1 Palanisamy and P.W.2 Karuppasamy. P.W.3 Guruvammal is the wife of the deceased. P.W.5 Indirani is the daughter of P.W.3. She got married to one Seeni, the son of the accused one year back. It was promised that she would be given 12 sovereign of "seervarisai" jewels, but only 5 sovereign jewels were given. Therefore, the accused insisted the deceased, who is the uncle of Indirani, who gave an undertaking that he would give the jewels and despite demand, the deceased did not give the balance of 7 sovereign jewels to the accused. Therefore, there was misunderstanding between the accused and the deceased. (b) All these people are residing in the village Seevalarayanenthal. The deceased was doing coconut business in the Sankarankoil Market. The accused Velusamy Konar was doing rice business in the same Market. P.W.1 Palanisamy, the son of the deceased was assisting his father in coconut business. In the same Market, P.W.3, the wife of the deceased, was a flower vendor. (c) On 21-8-1996 at about 4.30 p.m., accused Velusamy Konar went to P.W.3 Guruvammal, the flower vendor and abused her in a filthy language in the presence of the deceased Ayyathurai. When it was informed to P.W.1 Palanisamy, he came and pacified the accused and sent him away. At that time, he challenged the deceased that he would see him in the Village on the same night. P.Ws.1 and 3, after finishing their business, came back to their house at the Village. After finishing their food, they took bed. (d) At about 10.30 p.m., the accused came to the house of the deceased and tapped the door and asked P.Ws.1 to 3 as to the whereabouts of the deceased. At that juncture, the deceased was coming towards his house. After finishing their food, they took bed. (d) At about 10.30 p.m., the accused came to the house of the deceased and tapped the door and asked P.Ws.1 to 3 as to the whereabouts of the deceased. At that juncture, the deceased was coming towards his house. On noticing the deceased coming, the accused caught hold of the neck of the deceased and took out a knife from his waist and stabbed him on the left side of the chest. P.W.1 tried to rescue his father. The accused stabbed P.W.1 also on his left chest. P.W.2 pushed the accused down. Despite that, the accused rose up and stabbed on P.W.1's left thigh. When P.W.1 warded off the stabbing, the accused sustained injury on the left ear. When all these witnesses made a hue and cry, the neighbours came to the scene of occurrence. The accused ran away from the place of occurrence. Immediately, the deceased and P.W.1 were taken to Sankarankoil Hospital. (e) P.W.14 Dr.Amsaveni gave treatment to both the deceased and P.W.1. Ex.P-13 is the accident register relating to the deceased. Ex.P-14 is the accident register relating to P.W.1. The accused also came to the same Hospital, accompanied by his wife, with injuries. P.W.14 Doctor examined him and issued Ex.P-15 accident register. P.W.1 was treated as an out-patient. (f) The deceased and the accused were forwarded to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital. On 22-8-1996 at about 2.40 a.m., the deceased was admitted in the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, but at 4 a.m., the deceased died. Ex.P-4 is the death intimation sent by the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital to the Out-post Police Station attached to the Hospital. (g) On 22-8-1996 at about 6 a.m., P.W.1 went to Sankarankoil Police Station and gave a complaint. P.W.10 Sub-Inspector of Police registered the same for the offences under Sections 302 and 324 I.P.C. Ex.P-1 is the complaint and Ex.P-7 is the F.I.R. relating to Crime No.752 of 1996. (h) P.W.15 Inspector of Police went to the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P-2 observation mahazar and Ex.P-16 rough plan. He recovered blood stained earth and sample earth from the house of the deceased. Thereafter, he went to the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital and conducted inquest over the body of the deceased between 12 noon and 2.30 p.m. on 22-8-1996. P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. Ex.P-17 is the inquest report. He recovered blood stained earth and sample earth from the house of the deceased. Thereafter, he went to the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital and conducted inquest over the body of the deceased between 12 noon and 2.30 p.m. on 22-8-1996. P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. Ex.P-17 is the inquest report. Then, the body was sent for post-mortem. (i) In the meantime, on receipt of intimation from the Hospital, the Head Constable attached to Sankarankoil Police Station went to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital and obtained a complaint Ex.D-1 from the accused and the same was registered in Crime No.753 of 1996 against the deceased and P.W.1 for the offences under Sections 324 and 323 I.P.C. (j) On 22-8-1996 at 3.15 p.m., P.W.8 Doctor conducted post-mortem and found two injuries on the chest of the deceased. He gave an opinion in Ex.P-6 post-mortem certificate that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to stab injury in the region of the heart. (k) On 22-8-1996 at about 4 p.m., P.W.15 Sub-Inspector of Police arrested the accused while he was in hospital and sent him to judicial custody. Then, he conducted investigation in Crime Nos.752 and 753 of 1996. On 28-9-1996, P.W.16, another Inspector of Police, took up investigation and examined other witnesses. He arranged to send the material objects for chemical examination. After finishing the investigation, P.W.16 referred the case in Crime No.753 of 1996 pertaining to the complaint Ex.D-1 given by the accused as "mistake of fact" and filed the charge sheet in Crime No.752 of 1996 against the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 324 I.P.C. (l) During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 16, filed Exs.P-1 to P-17 and marked M.Os.1 to 4. (m) When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied his complicity in the crime. Exs.D-1 and D-2 were marked on the side of defence. (n) The trial Court, ultimately accepted the case of the prosecution and convicted the accused for the offences referred to above. Hence, the appeal. 3. Assailing the judgment of conviction, Mr. G.R. Edumund, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would submit as follows:- (a) The motive in this case has not been established. According to prosecution, the accused abused P.W.3 in a filthy language at about 4 p.m. in the Market. Therefore, the deceased only was the aggrieved person. Hence, the appeal. 3. Assailing the judgment of conviction, Mr. G.R. Edumund, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would submit as follows:- (a) The motive in this case has not been established. According to prosecution, the accused abused P.W.3 in a filthy language at about 4 p.m. in the Market. Therefore, the deceased only was the aggrieved person. In such an event, there was no necessity for the accused to go to the house of the deceased to attack him. (b) P.Ws.1 to 3 are interested witnesses and their evidence cannot be accepted in toto. (c) It is admitted by the witnesses that the neighbours also were present during the course of occurrence and those persons have not been examined. (d) The injuries on the accused have not been properly explained. (e) There is contradiction between Ex.P-1 and the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 with reference to the explanation for the injuries sustained by the accused. (f) P.W.15, even though registered the case on the complaint Ex.D-1 given by the accused, did not investigate the said complaint, as admitted by P.Ws.1 to 3, as they were not examined by the Police in respect of Crime No.753 of 1996. (g) The documents, i.e. the death intimation sent by P.W.14 to the Police Station, after admission of the deceased and admission of P.W.1 and the accused in the hospital have not been marked. Dr.Murugesan who sent the death intimation Ex.P-4, has not been examined. (h) Even though P.Ws.15 and 16 would state that the final report in respect of the Crime No.753 of 1996 has been filed, Ex.D-2 would show that such a final report has never been filed by the Police. 4. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above aspects. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and in the light of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, we are unable to accept any one of the contentions urged by learned counsel for the appellant. 6. The main contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the injuries on the accused have not been properly explained by the prosecution, and that there is contradiction with reference to the same. 6. The main contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the injuries on the accused have not been properly explained by the prosecution, and that there is contradiction with reference to the same. Though this submission looks attractive, especially when there is no consistency with reference to the explanation for the injuries on the accused in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, on that score alone, we are unable to hold that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is not reliable in relation to the main occurrence in which the deceased and P.W.1 were attacked. Even assuming that the explanation for the injuries on the accused cannot be accepted to be true, it cannot be contended that the ocular evidence in relation to the occurrence would suffer from any infirmity. 7. According to prosecution, on 21-8-1996 at 4 O'clock (evening), in the Sankarankoil Market, there was quarrel between P.W.3 Guruvammal and the accused. The accused abused in a filthy language. When it was objected to by the deceased, the accused challenged that he would see him in the Village on the same night and on that night, the accused came to the house of the deceased and attacked him and while P.W.1 attempted to prevent him from making further attempt, P.W.1 was also attacked. Admittedly, P.W.1 sustained injuries on the hands and thigh. According to these witnesses, the accused gave a stab on the chest of the deceased which pierced the heart, due to which, he died at the hospital at 4 a.m. next day. This has been spoken to by P.W.8 Doctor who conducted post-mortem. 8. It is noticed that though P.W.1 mentioned about the injuries on the accused in Ex.P-1, he had not chosen to refer to the same while he adduced evidence before the Court. In fact, he would admit in the cross-examination that he never said anything to the Police with reference to the injuries caused on the accused. However, P.Ws.2 and 3 would give details as to how the accused sustained injuries. But, the same is not in consistence with the explanation given in Ex.P-1 by P.W.1. Therefore, we are unable to accept the said explanation. 9. However, P.Ws.2 and 3 would give details as to how the accused sustained injuries. But, the same is not in consistence with the explanation given in Ex.P-1 by P.W.1. Therefore, we are unable to accept the said explanation. 9. Despite this, we are to hold that failure to give acceptable explanation with regard to the injuries on the accused, would not affect the core of the prosecution case, inasmuch as Ex.D-1 complaint given by the accused itself would show that the injuries sustained by the accused were at his house. 10. A reading of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and also Ex.D-1 would clearly indicate that between 4 O'clock (evening) incident at the Market and 10.30 (night) incident at the house of the deceased, the accused must have been attacked at his house in yet another incident, due to which the accused sustained injuries. This may be the reason giving rise to immediate motive for the accused to come to the house of the deceased to attack both the deceased and P.W.1. There is no dispute in the fact that Ex.D-1 complaint given by the accused was registered in Crime No.753 of 1996 against both the deceased and P.W.1. The accused admitted that Ex.D-1 was given by him because he was attacked by P.W.1 and the deceased, during the course of his questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Thus, it is clear that the occurrence in which the accused was attacked at his house is entirely different from the occurrence, which took place in the house of the deceased in which the deceased and P.W.1 were attacked. Therefore, the cases that Crime Nos.752 of 1996 and 753 of 1996, cannot be considered to be a case and counter. 11. Under those circumstances, non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused, would not affect the prosecution case. 12. It is true that P.Ws.15 and 16 have not given clear details with reference to the investigation done by them in Crime No.753 of 1996. Ex.D-2 would indicate that no final report had been filed in Crime No.753 of 1996. But, as noted above, Crime No.753 of 1996 is not the counter case to Crime No.752 of 1996. 13. Under those circumstances, non-production of final report in Crime No.753 of 1996, would not in any way affect the credibility of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, who speak about the main occurrence. 14. But, as noted above, Crime No.753 of 1996 is not the counter case to Crime No.752 of 1996. 13. Under those circumstances, non-production of final report in Crime No.753 of 1996, would not in any way affect the credibility of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, who speak about the main occurrence. 14. It is contended that some of the documents have been suppressed. This, in our view, may not be a sound argument, especially when three documents have been marked as Exs.P-13, P-14 and P-15 by P.W.14 Doctor attached to Sankarankoil Medical College Hospital to the effect that P.W.1, accused and deceased were admitted in the Hospital and thereafter, the deceased and accused were forwarded to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital. 15. For the foregoing reasonings, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused by the trial Court.