Judgment :- M.Karpagavinayagam, J. Vellaikannu, the accused was convicted for the offences under Sections 324 and 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Hence, the appeal. 2. The facts leading to conviction, are as follows:- (a) The deceased Ramasamy Pillai has got two sons and one daughter. P.W.1 Ganesan is the elder son and the accused-Vellaikannu is the younger son of the deceased. (b) The deceased Ramasamy Pillai partitioned his properties and allotted the shares to his sons. He kept 100 coconut trees and 50 mango trees for his personal use. He also gave 92 cents of land to his daughter Rajammal as "marriage sreedhana". The said Rajammal wanted some money for her son's marriage. Hence, she requested her father (the deceased) to sell the land and give money. (c) When arrangements were made by the deceased for sale of the land, the accused (younger son of the deceased), came to the house of P.W.1, the elder son of the deceased, where the deceased was residing and threatened him not to sell the land. (d) One week later, i.e. on 14-3-1998 at about 4 p.m., when the deceased Ramasamy Pillai was sitting in front of P.W.2 Nagatthal's house, which is situated next to the house of P.W.1, where P.W.1 Ganesan, P.W.2 Nagatthal, P.W.4 Pichaiammal, the wife of P.W.1 and others were also sitting and conversing with the deceased, the accused came and questioned as to how the deceased could sell the "savakattu" land without his consent. The deceased retaliated saying that the land is his self-acquired property and therefore, he has got every right to sell the same. On hearing those words, the accused got angry and took M.O.1 wooden log (fUnty';fl;il). which was found nearby and gave a forcible beating on the head of the deceased. (e) P.W.2 Nagatthal came to the rescue of the deceased and prevented the attack on the deceased. The first beating fell on the right hand of P.W.2. Thereafter, the accused attacked the deceased for the second time and inflicted injuries on the head of the deceased. The deceased fell down on the floor with bleeding injuries and died on the spot. The witnesses raised alarm. The accused then dropped the wooden log at the scene of occurrence itself and ran away. Thereafter, the accused attacked the deceased for the second time and inflicted injuries on the head of the deceased. The deceased fell down on the floor with bleeding injuries and died on the spot. The witnesses raised alarm. The accused then dropped the wooden log at the scene of occurrence itself and ran away. (f) On noticing that the deceased died, P.W.1 went to Natham Police Station and lodged Ex.P-1 complaint with P.W.7 Sub-Inspector of Police. P.W.7 registered the case under Sections 323 and 302 I.P.C. Ex.P-9 is the F.I.R. (g) P.W.8 Inspector of Police, on receipt of message, went to the scene of occurrence at 7 p.m. and prepared Ex.P-10 observation mahazar and Ex.P-11 rough sketch. He recovered the wooden log, blood stained earth and sample earth from the scene of occurrence. Thereupon, he conducted inquest over the body of the deceased. During the course of inquest, he examined eye-witnesses, namely P.Ws.1,2 and 4. Ex.P-13 is the inquest report. Then, he sent the body for post-mortem. (h) P.W.3 Dr.Nagammal conducted post-mortem on 15-3-1998 at about 9.30 a.m. On noticing the injuries on the head of the deceased, the Doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock due to haemorrhage and injury to the vital organ, the brain. Ex.P-4 is the post-mortem certificate. In the meantime, P.W.3 Dr.Nagammal gave treatment to P.W.2, who also sustained injuries on the hand, and issued Ex.P-5 accident register. According to her, the injuries sustained by P.W.2 are simple. (i) P.W.8 Inspector of Police arrested the accused on 15-3-1998 at about 6.30 a.m. and sent him for remand. Then, P.W.8 arranged for sending the material objects for chemical examination. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 324 and 302 I.P.C. (j) During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-17 were filed and M.Os.1 to 5 were marked. (k) The plea of the accused during the questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is one of total denial. (l) The trial Court, on an appraisal of the evidence available on record, convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 324 I.P.C. and sentenced him thereunder. This judgment of conviction and sentence is the subject matter of challenge before this Court in this appeal. 3. Mr. (l) The trial Court, on an appraisal of the evidence available on record, convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 324 I.P.C. and sentenced him thereunder. This judgment of conviction and sentence is the subject matter of challenge before this Court in this appeal. 3. Mr. K.V.Sridharan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would take us through the entire evidence available on record and contend as follows:- (i) The occurrence had taken place in the house of P.W.2. According to P.W.2, P.Ws.1 and 4 came to the scene of occurrence only after the deceased fell down due to the injuries sustained by him. Therefore, P.Ws.1 and 4 could not have been the eye-witnesses. Consequently, Ex.P-1 complaint given by P.W.1 cannot be the true document. (ii) Admittedly, there was a land dispute between the accused and P.W.1's family. Therefore, a false complaint had been lodged against the accused by P.W.1. P.W.4, one of the eye-witnesses, though would refer to the injuries sustained by the deceased, did not choose to mention about the attack made on P.W.2 by the accused. P.Ws.1,2 and 4, who are closely related to the deceased, are the interested witnesses and therefore, their evidence cannot be relied upon. (iii) There are vital contradictions with reference to the manner of occurrence and also the place of occurrence. Though M.O.1 was identified by P.Ws.1 and 2, P.W.4 would specifically state that M.O.1 was not the weapon used for committing the offence. (iv) In any event, since the occurrence took place out of a sudden quarrel and the act committed by the accused was without pre-meditation, the accused could be convicted only for the lesser offence, namely Section 304 (Part I ) I.P.C. and not under Section 302 I.P.C. 4. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor also on the above aspects. 5. On a careful scrutiny of the materials available on record and on an analysis of the submissions made by learned counsel for parties, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. The reasons are the following. 6. There is no dispute in the fact that the accused is the younger son of the deceased. The fact that earlier, the properties were partitioned between P.W.1 and the accused, and the properties allotted to each of the parties, were enjoyed by them separately, is also not disputed. The reasons are the following. 6. There is no dispute in the fact that the accused is the younger son of the deceased. The fact that earlier, the properties were partitioned between P.W.1 and the accused, and the properties allotted to each of the parties, were enjoyed by them separately, is also not disputed. It is noticed from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the deceased, even after partition, preferred to stay at the house of P.W.1 and have food. According to prosecution, 92 cents of land was allotted to the daughter of the deceased, namely Rajammal as "marriage sreedhana" and the said Rajammal wanted her father (the deceased) to sell the property for want of money for conducting her son's marriage. In that context, the deceased arranged to sell the property. This was questioned by the accused, claiming that he has also got a share in that property. 7. The occurrence took place on 14-3-1998 at about 4 p.m. According to P.Ws.1,2 and 4, they were sitting in front of the house of P.W.2 and chatting with the deceased. At that juncture, the accused came and questioned his father (the deceased) as to how he could sell the property without his consent. The deceased retaliated saying that he has got every right to sell his self-acquired property and as such, he cannot question him. On hearing these words, the accused went to the backyard of P.W.2's house and brought a wooden log and beat on the head of the deceased. As a result of this attack, the deceased sustained serious injuries on the head and died on the spot. 8. P.W.1 immediately rushed to the Police Station and gave Ex.P-1 complaint and the same was registered by P.W.7 Sub-Inspector of Police at about 5.30 p.m. The records would reveal that Ex.P-1 and the F.I.R. were received by the Magistrate concerned at about 12.30 midnight on 14-3-1998. A reading of Ex.P-1 and the evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 4, would clearly reveal that the accused came to the deceased and quarrelled and beat him with the wooden log, resulting in the death of the deceased on the spot. 9. A reading of Ex.P-1 and the evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 4, would clearly reveal that the accused came to the deceased and quarrelled and beat him with the wooden log, resulting in the death of the deceased on the spot. 9. Though it is pointed out that there is contradiction between the evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 4, which, in our view, is only minor and trivial in nature, the evidence of these witnesses is amply corroborated by the medical testimony tendered by P.W.3 Doctor. The observation mahazar and the evidence of P.W.8 Inspector of Police, would also show that the occurrence had taken place in front of the house of P.W.2. Therefore, P.W.2 is the more competent witness to speak about the occurrence. Though it can be stated that P.Ws.1 and 4 are close relatives of the deceased, P.W.2 cannot be said to be the interested witness, as she is only the wife of the pangali of the deceased. 10. On a reading of the evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 4 as a whole, we are not able to come to the conclusion that there is vital contradiction which would affect the core of the prosecution case. There is no necessity for P.W.2 to speak falsehood against the accused. Ex.P-10 observation mahazar and Ex.P-11 rough sketch would clearly show that the house of P.Ws.1 and 4 is situated next to the house of P.W.2, where the occurrence had taken place. Under those circumstances, we are to conclude that the evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 4 is reliable and the same can be accepted as true. 11. In regard to the nature of offence, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the occurrence had taken place out of a sudden quarrel and the accused gave only single hit on the head of the deceased and therefore, he is liable to be convicted for the lesser offence, namely Section 304 (Part I) I.P.C. 12. The above submission of learned counsel for the appellant, in our view, is not tenable, because the accused, on hearing the words from the deceased that he had got every right to sell the property and the accused cannot question him, went to the backyard of P.W.2's house and brought the wooden log and gave a heavy blow on the head of the deceased. 13. In Ex.P-4 post-mortem certificate, it is stated as follows:- "1. 13. In Ex.P-4 post-mortem certificate, it is stated as follows:- "1. A lacerated wound of 5 cm x 3 cm over the scalp on the parietal region left exposing the bone with comminuted fracture with depression of one piece. 2. A lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm front of right bone joint. Internal examination: ......... ......... Skull bones - comminuted fracture of parietal (left) bone with depression of one piece injuring the membrane and brain. Membrane - torn under the side of fracture. Brain - lacerated with haematoma around that, weight 1000 gms. pale. There was fracture base of skull involving the middle and anterior fossae. ....... " Ex.P-12 mahazar would show that the weapon was 49 cms. in length and its circumference was 29 cms. 14. From the above materials, we could infer the intention of the accused to cause the death of the deceased. As noted above, the nature of weapon used, namely a weighty weapon, the part of the body attacked, namely head and the nature of injury, which is fatal, would clearly indicate that the act committed by the accused would attract the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and not any lesser offence. 15. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused by the trial Court are liable to be confirmed. Accordingly, the same are confirmed. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.