Judgment :- M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM,J. Appellants are A1 to A3. They were originally charged for various offences along with A4 Thanisyas. A4 was acquitted for the offences under Sections 120-B and 302 r/w 109 IPC. A1 has been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and also convicted under Section 341 IPC and sentenced to undergo one month R.I. A2 has been convicted for the offences under Sections 302 r/w 34, 341, 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and one month R.I. each for the offences under Sections 341 and 234 IPC. A3 has been convicted for the offences under Sections 302 r/w 34, 341, and 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 and one month R.I. each for the offences under Sections 341 and 324 (2 counts) IPC . All the accused were acquitted in respect of the offence under Section 120-B I.P.C. The trial Court directed the sentences imposed on A1 to A3 to run concurrently. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, A1 to A3 have filed this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- a) The deceased Thaveethu is the own brother of P.W.1 Abraham. P.W.2 Justus and P.W.3 Vincent, who are brothers, are the friends of the deceased. The first accused Johnkumar and the second accused Stephen are brothers and they are the sons of Thomas(A3). b) On 20.3.1998, there was a general body meeting of the Milk Co-operative Society. After the meeting was over, there was a quarrel between two groups of the members of the general body. The deceased Thaveethu was also present, while the quarrel was going on. When Thaveethu questioned the quarrel, A4, Thanisyas beat the deceased and caused injury on his chin. Due to this, there was an enmity between the deceased and A4. A1 to A3, are the members of the Co-operative Society . They belonged to the group of A4. On the instigation of A4, A1 to A3 hatched a conspiracy to commit murder of Thaveethu. c)The fateful occurrence took place on 23.3.1998 evening. The deceased was proceeding along the road towards his house. A1 to A3, are the members of the Co-operative Society . They belonged to the group of A4. On the instigation of A4, A1 to A3 hatched a conspiracy to commit murder of Thaveethu. c)The fateful occurrence took place on 23.3.1998 evening. The deceased was proceeding along the road towards his house. P.W.1 Abraham, his brother, after purchasing some grocery articles followed him. At that point of time, A1 to A3 appeared in the scene and restrained the deceased from moving further. Then, A1 took out M.O.1 knife and gave a stab on the left chest of the deceased. The deceased, on receipt of the injuries, fell down on the ground. d) In the meantime, P.W.1, on seeing this attack, rushed to rescue the deceased and held the body of the deceased in his hands. At that time, A2 Stephen with M.O.3 pen knife attacked P.W.1 and caused injury above his right buttocks. P.W.1 cried aloud On noticing this incident, P.W.2 Justus and P.W.3 vincent, who were standing at a distance of 20 feet near a shop, rushed to the scene to rescue the victims. A3 Thomas with M.O.2 pen knife attacked P.W.3 and caused injury on his head and shoulder. Similarly, A3 stabbed P.W.2 also on his left elbow. Other witnesses, viz., P.W.4 and others, saw the incident and raised alarm. The accused ran away from the scene with the weapons. e) Immediately, P.W.4 arranged for a taxi in which the deceased Thaveethu and 3 other injured persons, viz. P.Ws. 1 to 3 were taken to the Government Hospital. At about 9.15 p.m. they were admitted in the Kottar Government Hospital. P.W.5, Doctor on examining the deceased declared him dead and issued accident register Ex.P2. He also examined P.W.1, found injuries and issued accident register Ex.P5. Thereafter, he examined P.W.2 and issued accident register Ex.P4. He found injuries on P.W.3 also and issued accident register Ex.P3. He sent intimations Exs. P15 and 16 to the Kottor Police Station. f) On receipt of the intimations from Kottor Government Hospital regarding the admission of the victims and death of the deceased in the hospital through control room, P.W.18 Sub Inspector of Police, attached to Arumanai Police Station went to the hospital and obtained statement Ex.P1 from P.W.1 Abraham at about 12.40 mid night on 23/24.3.1998. The same was registered at about 2.30 a.m. on 24.3.1998. Ex. The same was registered at about 2.30 a.m. on 24.3.1998. Ex. P17 is the printed copy of the F.I.R. The case was registered under Sections 341, 324, and 302 I.P.C. against the accused 1 to3. g) On receipt of the message, P.W.20 Inspector of Police took up investigation and came to the hospital. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased between 8.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. He also examined the victims, viz. P.Ws. 1 to 3 and P.W.4 and others. h) On the requisition sent by P.W.20, P.W.15 Doctor, conducted post mortem on 24.3.1998 at about 1.25 p.m. and noticed that the deceased sustained stab injury on the left chest. He issued post-mortem certificate, Ex.P14 giving an opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injuries sustained by him. i) In the meantime, P.W.20 went to the scene of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P6 and rough sketch Ex.P23. At 4.00 p.m. he recovered M.O.6 blood stained tar mortar bits and M.O.7 sample tar mortar bits. On 28.3.1998, he arrested the accused 1 to 3 and obtained their confession statements and in pursuance of the same, recovered M.O.3 from A2, M.O.2 from A3 and M.O.1 from A1. M.O.1 was found with blood stains. These articles were sent for chemical analysis . j) On 6.4.1998, P.W.20arrested the fourth accused and sent him for judicial remand. In the meantime, he made arrangements to request the Court to record his confession statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, his statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate. k) After examining all the other witnesses, P.W.20 filed the charge sheet against all the accused under Sections 341, 324, 120 B and 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. 3. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 20 were examined , Exs.P1 to P24 were filed and M.Os. 1 to 11 were marked. 4. While the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they simply denied their complicity in the crime. 5. The trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence available on record, though acquitted A1 to A3 in respect of the offence under Section 120 (B) I.P.C., and acquitted A4 in respect of all the charges, convicted A1 to A3 for the offences under Sections 324, 341, and 302 r/w 34 I.P.C and sentenced them as stated above. 5. The trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence available on record, though acquitted A1 to A3 in respect of the offence under Section 120 (B) I.P.C., and acquitted A4 in respect of all the charges, convicted A1 to A3 for the offences under Sections 324, 341, and 302 r/w 34 I.P.C and sentenced them as stated above. Hence, this appeal by A1 to A3. 6. Mr. Edmund, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/A1 to A3 would take us through the entire evidence and contend the following:- a) The existence of Ex.P1, the complaint at the relevant time cannot be relied upon as it was not admittedly written by P.W.18 Sub Inspector of Police. Though P.W.20 Inspector of Police stated that P.W.18 wrote Ex.P1, P.W.18 would admit in the cross-examination that the same was written by the Head Constable. The said Head Constable was not examined. b) Even though, Ex.P24 was sent by P.W.20 to the Judicial Magistrate, requesting to record statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. from A4 and the same was recorded, the prosecution has not chosen to mark the said document. No reason has been adduced for the failure to produce the said document. c) P.W.6 has been examined as one of the eye witnesses, but his name has not been mentioned in Ex.P1 as eye witness. Further, P.Ws. 1 to 4, the other witnesses did not make a reference about the presence of P.W.6, either in their statements before the police or in the deposition made before the Court. d) Though it is stated that P.W.8 Roby took the victims to the hospital, P.Ws. 1 to 3 did not state that P.W.8 accompanied. On the other hand, they stated that they were taken only by P.W.4. e) Though it is the case of the prosecution that A2 stabbed P.W.1 as per Ex.P1 and P.W.1's evidence, P.W.2 specifically stated that the A3 stabbed P.W.1 and as such, the prosecution case is not consistent. According to P.W.2, on receipt of Exs.P15 and P16, the intimation sent by P.W.5 Doctor, the Head Constable attached to Kottor Police Station came and recorded the statement from P.W.2 at about 12.00 p.m. P.W.18 would state that he came to the hospital and recorded the statement from P.W.1 at 12.40 mid night on 23/24.3.1998. According to P.W.2, on receipt of Exs.P15 and P16, the intimation sent by P.W.5 Doctor, the Head Constable attached to Kottor Police Station came and recorded the statement from P.W.2 at about 12.00 p.m. P.W.18 would state that he came to the hospital and recorded the statement from P.W.1 at 12.40 mid night on 23/24.3.1998. Thus, it is clear that even before the receipt of Ex.P1, a complaint had been received by the Head Constable of Kottor Police Station from P.W.2 and the same has not been placed before the Court. P.W.20 also would admit that P.Ws. 1 to 4 did not state during the course of investigation that the deceased was restrained by all the accused persons. f) In any event, A2 and A3, who have caused injuries only on P.Ws. 1,2, and 3 and not on the deceased, are liable to be convicted only for the individual acts and as such, they cannot be made liable for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 I.P.C., as there is no material to show that they came to the scene with a common intention to commit the murder of the deceased. 7. In reply to the above submissions, Mr. E. Raja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would point out various portions of evidence and contend that the evidence of injured witnesses, viz. P.Ws. 1 to 3 have not only been corroborated by an independent witness, P.W.4, who took the victims to the hospital and also by another witness P.W.6 and the same has been strengthened by the medical evidence adduced by P.W.5 Doctor, who treated P.Ws. 1 to 3 and P.W.15, the Doctor, who conducted post mortem and as such, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused 1 to 3 are perfectly legal, since all the three accused, who are the sons and father, came to the scene with an intention to attack the deceased and when the deceased was attacked, the other witnesses, who intervened were also attacked by all the other accused and as such, it could be inferred that all the accused came to the scene with the common intention to cause the death of the deceased and hence, the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC against the accused 1 to 3 are liable to be confirmed. 8. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and considered their submissions and also gone through the records. 9. The motive projected by the prosecution is that on 21.3.1998, there was a quarrel between the two groups after the general body meeting of the Milk Co-operative Society was over. In that quarrel, A4 beat the deceased Thaveethu, as a result of which, he sustained injury on the chin. It is stated that the main occurrence which took place on 23.3.1998 where the deceased was done to death, was consequent to the incident which took place on 21.3.1998 . This has been mentioned in Ex.P1 and also referred to in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. This aspect of the evidence regarding the motive of the accused cannot be accepted for two reasons. Firstly, in the incident that took place on 21.3.1998, the deceased was attacked by A4. Therefore, there is no reason for these people to attack Thaveethu again and cause his death. Secondly, relating to the incident that took place on 21.3.1998 evening, no witness has been examined to show that they were present and saw the incident. In fact, P.Ws. 1 and 2 would specifically admit that they were not present while the said quarrel was going on. Therefore, this aspect of the evidence relating to the incident on 21.3.1998 cannot be considered to be the reason for the occurrence. 10. Yet another motive has been projected by the prosecution as per the evidence of P.Ws. 7 and 8. According to P.W.7, on 23.3.1998 at about 7.30 a.m., he saw A1 to A3 standing in front of A3's house and conversing with each other. They talked among themselves stating that that A2 was attacked by Thaveethu, the deceased and one Rajan in the early morning at 6.00 a.m. and therefore, they should teach a lesson to Thaveethu by attacking him. This was over heard by P.W.7. P.W.8 Roby would state that on 23.3.1998 at about 6.00 a.m., he saw that A2 Stephen was being beaten by Thaveethu and one Rajan, and P.W.8 intervened and separated them. 11. This was over heard by P.W.7. P.W.8 Roby would state that on 23.3.1998 at about 6.00 a.m., he saw that A2 Stephen was being beaten by Thaveethu and one Rajan, and P.W.8 intervened and separated them. 11. As noted above, the main occurrence had taken place on the same day at about 7.30 p.m. Though this quarrel between the deceased and the second accused Stephen in which A2/Stephen was attacked, has been spoken to by P.W.8, it is clear that the prosecution has projected two incidents as motive. 12. Even though the motive is not consistent, from these incidents, it is clear that there was enmity between the deceased and the accused. 13. Bearing in mind the above factors, let us now evaluate the evidence of the eye witnesses, viz. P.Ws. 1 to 3. According to P.W.1, he purchased some grocery articles from the shop and was walking along the road proceeding towards his house and 10 feet ahead of him, the deceased was going. At that point of time, A1 to A3 came to the scene and A1 began to attack the deceased by inflicting injuries in the chest. When the deceased was about to fall on the ground, P.W.1 went near him and held his body in his hands. On noticing that P.W.1 came to the rescue of the deceased, A2 attacked P.W.1 by causing injury on the right buttocks. P.W.1 cried aloud. P.Ws. 2 and 3, who happened to be there near the scene of occurrence, on seeing the incident, rushed to the scene to rescue the victims. Unfortunately, A3, in order to prevent P.Ws. 2 and 3 from rescuing the victims, attacked both and caused injuries with the knife. P.W.4 and another, who are the other witnesses raised alarm. Due to the alarm raised, the crowd gathered there. A1 to A3, carrying the weapons with them sped away from the scene of occurrence. These things have been clearly mentioned in Ex.P1. Though there are materials to show that there was enmity between the deceased and the accused, there was no enmity whatsoever between P.Ws. 1 to 3 and the accused. In other words, there is no necessity for P.Ws. 1 to 3 to implicate A1 to A3 falsely, that too in a murder case. 14. Reading the evidence of P.Ws. Though there are materials to show that there was enmity between the deceased and the accused, there was no enmity whatsoever between P.Ws. 1 to 3 and the accused. In other words, there is no necessity for P.Ws. 1 to 3 to implicate A1 to A3 falsely, that too in a murder case. 14. Reading the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 as a whole, it would clearly indicate that all these persons came to the scene for the purpose of attacking the deceased and when P.Ws. 1 to 3 intervened to rescue the victims, they were also attacked. The injuries found on the body of P.Ws. 1 to 3 as well as the deceased have been clearly mentioned in the accident registers, Exs.P3 to P5 relating to the injured witnesses and Ex.P.14 post-mortem certificate issued by P.W.15 Doctor. 15. It is true that there is a contradiction between the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 with reference to the overt act attributed against A2. According to P.W.1, P.W.1 was attacked by A2 on the back, unfortunately, P.W. 2 would state in chief examination that P.W.1 was attacked by A3. However, P.W.2 would correctly state that himself and P.W.3 were attacked by A3. Though P.W.2 would not refer to the overt act of A2 in the chief examination, it has been elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.2 that A2, Stephen attacked P.W.1. Therefore, this cannot be construed as a contradiction, which would affect the veracity of the evidence of ocular witnesses. 16. The earliest documents which are available in this case are Exs.P2 to P5. P.W.5 Doctor has examined the injured witnesses, who were admitted in the hospital. He declared the deceased dead and gave accident register Ex.P2. He also issued accident registers Exs. P3 to P5 in respect of the injuries sustained by the injured witnesses, viz., P.Ws. 1 to 3 respectively. In all the accident registers, it has been specifically mentioned that these witnesses stated to him that they were attacked at about 7.30 p.m. on 23.3.1998 at Manali Arumanai by 3 persons with knives. Furthermore, observation mahazar Ex.P6 and rough sketch Ex.P23 would clearly indicate that the blood stained earth was taken from the scene. The Serologist's report Ex.P21 would also indicate that the blood stained earth taken from the scene was found to contain human blood. Furthermore, observation mahazar Ex.P6 and rough sketch Ex.P23 would clearly indicate that the blood stained earth was taken from the scene. The Serologist's report Ex.P21 would also indicate that the blood stained earth taken from the scene was found to contain human blood. This has been referred to in the evidence of P.W.20, the Inspector of Police. 17. P.W.5 Doctor, sent intimation to Kottor Police Station which is situated near the hospital, at about 10.45 p.m. On receipt of the said intimation through control room, P.W.18 Sub Inspector of Police, went to the hospital at 12.40 mid night. He obtained a statement from P.W.1 and finished his recording at 1.00 a.m. The same was registered at 2.30 a.m. and the documents viz., F.I.R. Ex. P17 and the complaint Ex.P1 were despatched to the Court and they were received by the Judicial Magistrate at about 5.00 a.m. on the very same day. Thus, it is clear that the involvement of all these accused in the incident which took place at Manali Arumanai at about 7.30 p.m. has been clearly established . 18. It was contended that there is a discrepancy with reference to the fact as to who actually took the victims to the hospital. P.Ws. 1 to 3 would state that P.W.4 took them to the hospital. P.W.8 would state that he took the victims to the hospital. On going through the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 8, we do not find any material variations. As a matter of fact, P.W.4 asked the help of P.W.8 to secure a taxi. Accordingly, taxi driver P.W.13 was engaged and the victims were taken to the Kottor Government Hospital at Nagercoil. Exs. P2 and P3 would show that the victims were brought by P.W.8 Roby. The victims were taken to the hospital in a taxi driven by P.W13 and the same has been established through Ex. P12 trip sheet marked through P.W.13 taxi driver. 19. Apart from this evidence, there is recovery of M.Os. 1 to 3 knives from the accused on their confession after their arrest. P.W.20 would specifically state that all the three accused were arrested on 28.3.1998 and from A1, M.O.1 blood stained knife was recovered, and from A2, M.O.3 was recovered and from A3, M.O.2 was recovered. The Serologist's report would show that M.O.1 knife contained human blood. 1 to 3 knives from the accused on their confession after their arrest. P.W.20 would specifically state that all the three accused were arrested on 28.3.1998 and from A1, M.O.1 blood stained knife was recovered, and from A2, M.O.3 was recovered and from A3, M.O.2 was recovered. The Serologist's report would show that M.O.1 knife contained human blood. According to P.W.15, the Doctor, the injuries on the body of the deceased as well as injured witnesses would have been caused by these weapons, viz. M.Os. 1 to 3. 20. It was strenuously contended that P.W.2 admits that a statement had been obtained by the Head Constable of Kottor Police Station in the hospital at 12.00 mid night and the same has not been produced. A perusal of Ex.P1 and the evidence of P.W.18 Sub Inspector of Police would reveal that the complaint was received only from P.W.1 and no complaint was received from any other witness. As noted above, Ex.P1 was recorded by P.W.18 through his Head Constable, Manoharan at about 12.40 mid night on 23/24.3.1998. No witness would state that prior to the receipt of the said complaint, any other complaint was given to the police officials and the same was signed and registered. As a matter of fact, P.W.2 would admit that though a statement had been obtained by the Head Constable of Kottor Police Station at 12.00 mid night from P.W.2, no signature had been obtained from him and as such, it cannot be contended that any other complaint was received from P.W.2 and the same was registered. 21. Furthermore, recording of the statements from the witnesses was done by the police officer only in the mid night. The Judicial Magistrate received Ex.P1 at about 5.00 a.m. itself on the same day. Therefore, the contradictions pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants, in our view, are trivial which would not affect the case of the prosecution. 22. Lastly, it was contended that Section 34 of I.P.C. cannot be invoked against A1 to A3, who have caused injuries on P.Ws. 1 to 3. This contention also cannot be accepted for the reason that all the three came for attacking the deceased and when the deceased was attacked by A1, P.Ws. 1 to 3 rushed to the scene of occurrence to intervene and other accused, viz. A2 and A3 in order to prevent their intervention attacked P.Ws. 1 to 3. This contention also cannot be accepted for the reason that all the three came for attacking the deceased and when the deceased was attacked by A1, P.Ws. 1 to 3 rushed to the scene of occurrence to intervene and other accused, viz. A2 and A3 in order to prevent their intervention attacked P.Ws. 1 to 3 with knives. Therefore, it cannot be said that common intention cannot be inferred with reference to the attack on the deceased. 23. Consequently, it has to be held that the accused are liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court for the offences under Sections 341, 302 I.P.C. against A1, and under Sections 341, 302 r/w 34 and 324 against A2 and A3 are perfectly valid and the same cannot be interfered with. 24. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/A1 to A3.