Judgment :- R. Banumathi, J. Aggrieved over the conviction under S.302 I.P.C. by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karaikal, Pondicherry in S.C.No.39 of 2000 (dated 22.12.2000), the Appellant / Accused has preferred this appeal. For the conviction under S.302 I.P.C., the Appellant / Accused was sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment. 2. Case of prosecution could briefly be stated thus:- P.W.1 - Kathayi @ Mary has five sons and three daughters. Deceased Selvaraj and accused Rasakkanu are her sons. Prior to the occurrence, deceased Selvaraj, his wife, his sister - Sarasu and her children were living along with P.W.1 in Lingathadi Locality. There were frequent quarrel between the deceased and accused in respect of the house site, due to which there was enmity between them. 3. On the date of occurrence - 22.10.1999 - 6.15 p.m., deceased Selvaraj was engaged in removing the unwanted leaves from his fishing net in a place nearby Bamboo bush which is quite near to the house of P.W.1. At that time, the accused Rasakkannu came with M.O.4 - Casurina Stick and hit on the head of Selvaraj and Selvaraj swooned with bleeding injuries on his head. The accused went away. P.W.8 - Ravi has also witnessed the occurrence. 4. P.W.7 - Manimegalai is the daughter of Deceased Selvaraj. On 22.10.1999 - 5.30 p.m., she went to the Shop of one Anbarasu, (son of P.W.1) at Mariamman Koil Street. When she was in the Shop, the said Anbarasu told her that her father was beaten by her elder Paternal Uncle. She went to her house and saw P.W.1 with her father. All of them went to T.R.Pattinam Police Station. In the Police Station, Statement of Deceased Selvaraj (Ex.P.16) was recorded by P.W.16 - Head Constable. On the basis of Ex.P.16 - Complaint, case was registered in Crime No.104 of 1999 under S.324 I.P.C. under Ex.P.17 - First Information Report. 5. Deceased Selvaraj was sent to Primary Health Centre, T.R.Pattinam for treatment in the Company of Police Constable. P.W.3 - Dr.S.Durairaj, who was working in Primary Health Centre, T.R.Pattinam, examined the injured Selvaraj and noted Two cut injuries on the root of the head above Right Ear Lobe. His general Condition was good. There was profused Bleeding in his head. P.W.3 sutured the injured region. Since P.W.3 suspected the head injury, he referred Selvaraj to Government Hospital, Karaikal for further treatment. His general Condition was good. There was profused Bleeding in his head. P.W.3 sutured the injured region. Since P.W.3 suspected the head injury, he referred Selvaraj to Government Hospital, Karaikal for further treatment. Ex.P.2 is the Wound Certificate regarding injured Selvaraj. 6. On 23.10.1999 - 1.30 hours, P.W.4 - Dr.S.Mathivanan, working in Government Hospital, Karaikal examined Selvaraj. On examination, he found injuries on his head and the patient was unconscious. After examination, Selvaraj was admitted for treatment. 7. P.W.18 - Station House Officer had taken up initial investigation. He has examined the Witnesses and recorded their Statements. He went to the scene of occurrence and prepared a Sketch - Ex.P.1 containing Crime details in the presence of P.W.2 - Thambirassu and one Chandran. 8. On 23.10.1999, P.W.18 went to Government Hospital, Karaikal and seized M.O.3 - Blood Stained Dhoti from P.W.1 under Ex.P.15 - Seizure Mahazar in the presence of P.W.14 - Govindasamy and one Nagarajan. On the same day, he received information from the Government Hospital, Karaikal that the injured Selvaraj succumbed to injuries. On such information, P.W.18 altered the case to Section 302 I.P.C. and sent the same to Court and handed over the case to P.W.19 - Inspector of Police. 9. P.W.19 - I.O. had taken up the further investigation. At about 1.45 p.m., he went to scene of occurrence and arranged for taking photographs of the scene of occurrence (Ex.P.10 series) with the assistance of P.W.10 - Siva, Photographer. He conducted inquest on the body of Selvaraj examining witnesses in the presence of Panchayatdars. Ex.P.14 is the Inquest Report. Body of the deceased was sent to Autopsy through P.W.15 - Police Constable (P.c.No.957) with requisition. 10. On receipt of requisition from the Inspector of Police, P.W.5 - Dr.Narasimha Murthy conducted Post-mortem on the body of deceased Selvaraj. He has noted ... A neatly sutured lacerated injury on the right parietal region of scale. He has also noted abrasions and also communited fracture of skull seen on right parietal bone. Opining that the death was due to Coma as a result of head injuries sustained and that by attack with M.O.4 - Casurina Stick on one's head, the resultant injuries would be sufficient to cause the death of a person, P.W.5 issued Ex.P.3 - Post Mortem Certificate. 11. On 25.10.1999, P.W.19 - I.O., sent Inquest Report along with Statements of Witnesses to Court. 11. On 25.10.1999, P.W.19 - I.O., sent Inquest Report along with Statements of Witnesses to Court. On the same day at about 3.30 p.m., he arrested the accused near State Bank of India at Bharathiar Road, Karaikal. During interrogation, the accused has voluntarily given a Confession Statement and the same was recorded in the presence of P.W.17 - Natarajan and one Purushothaman, which led to the recovery of M.O.4 - Casurina Stick under Ex.P.19 - Seizure Mahazar. Blood Stained Clothes of the accused - M.O.5 Lungi and M.O.6 Shirt were seized under Ex.P.20. On 27.10.1999, he received the Blood Sample of the deceased - M.O.1 in a bottle and in filter paper - M.O.2 from P.W.5. Seized Material Objects were sent for Chemical Analysis. 12. Pursuant to the requisition (Ex.P.6) from the Inspector of Police, P.W.6 - Principal District Munsif-cum-Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate has recorded the 164 Crl.P.C. Statement of P.w.8 - Ravi. After completing other aspects of investigation, P.W.19 - I.O. filed Charge Sheet against the accused under S.302 I.P.C. on 31.03.2000. 13. To substantiate the charge against the accused, in the trial Court, P.Ws.1 to 19 were examined. Exs.P.1 to P.22 were marked and M.Os.1 to 6 were remanded to Court. The accused was questioned under S.313 Crl.P.C. about the incriminating evidence and circumstances. Denying all of them, the accused had stated that a false case has been foisted against him. 14. In consideration of the evidence, the trial Court accepted the evidence of Eye Witnesses, viz. P.Ws.1 and 8 as reliable and that the same is well corroborated by Medical Evidence. Pointing out the inconsistencies in the evidence the defence taken by the accused that a false case has been foisted against the accused was rejected by the trial Court. Finding that the accused is proved to be responsible for the Homicidal Death of deceased Selvaraj, the trial Court convicted the Appellant / Accused as aforesaid in Para (1). 15. Assailing the findings and the verdict of conviction, the learned counsel for the Appellant / Accused has pointed out the variation between Ex.P.2 - Accident Register and Ex.P.3 - Post-mortem Certificate regarding the number of injuries, which variation substantially affects the prosecution case. 15. Assailing the findings and the verdict of conviction, the learned counsel for the Appellant / Accused has pointed out the variation between Ex.P.2 - Accident Register and Ex.P.3 - Post-mortem Certificate regarding the number of injuries, which variation substantially affects the prosecution case. Drawing the attention of the Court that the deceased was addicted to Drinks and that even at the time of occurrence he was under the influence of Alcohol, learned counsel has submitted that the deceased himself was responsible for the occurrence by inviting the quarrel. Prosecution case is further attacked that the accused had only been questioning about the illegal intimacy of his Sister Saraswathi, which resulted in ill-will between the accused and the deceased and the motive projected by the prosecution does not reflect the real state of affairs. Evidence of Eye Witness - P.W.8 is attacked that he could not have possibly seen the occurrence since he was standing at a distance of 300 feet. In any event, the learned counsel for the Appellant / Accused contended that the act of the accused would only fall under S.304 Part (II) I.P.C. and not under under S.302 I.P.C., since the occurrence was in a sudden quarrel. 16. Reiterating the findings of the trial Court, Mr.V.M.R.Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has taken us through the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 8 and submitted that their evidence is well corroborated by the Medical Evidence. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further submitted that when the oral evidence is well corroborated by Medical Evidence, any inconsistencies or slight variations would not affect the prosecution case, which is otherwise cogent and convincing and prays for sustaining the conviction. 17. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides, evidence and materials on record and the Judgment of the Trial Court. 18. The Appellant / Accused was inimical towards his younger brother deceased Selvaraj. Deceased Selvaraj was residing with the family members viz., P.W.1 - mother, P.W.7 (Manimegalai) - Grand-daughter of P.W.1 and others. There was enmity between the accused and the deceased since the accused was asking the deceased to vacate the house which resulted in enmity between them. Few days prior to the occurrence, the accused attacked his mother (P.W.1) causing her injuries. The attack on the mother has further deepened the differences between the brothers. There was enmity between the accused and the deceased since the accused was asking the deceased to vacate the house which resulted in enmity between them. Few days prior to the occurrence, the accused attacked his mother (P.W.1) causing her injuries. The attack on the mother has further deepened the differences between the brothers. The enmity brought out by the evidence of P.Ws.1, 7 and 8 probablises the prosecution case. 19. On 22.10.1999 - 6.15 p.m., deceased Selvaraj was mending the Fishing Net by removing the unwanted leaves. At that time, the accused came. Picking up a wordy quarrel, the accused had beaten the deceased with M.O.4 - Casurina Stick on the head. Selvaraj with profuse bleeding in his head swooned. P.W.1 (Kathayi @ Mary) - mother has no reason to depose falsehood against her own son. 20. P.W.8 - Ravi is the resident of Lingathadi. His house is the third house from the house of the deceased separated by Karuvai Tree fence. It was elicited from P.W.8 that when Selvaraj was attacked, he was standing at a distance of about 300 feet and that he saw the accused beating the deceased on the head and also kicking him on the Chest. Pointing out that there is no light in the Street, the evidence of P.W.8 is attacked as unreliable that his identification of the accused is unsafe to be relied upon. Though P.W.8 has stated the distance as 300 feet, from Ex.P.1 - Crime Details Form, we find that house of P.W.8 (Serial No.3) is only with a short distance separated by Lingathadi Road. Further the occurrence was around 6.15 p.m., during which time it may not be completely dark and there may be even twilight to see the occurrence. Evidence of P.W.8 that he witnessed the occurrence cannot be disbelieved on the ground of paucity of light. 21. Evidence of P.Ws.1 and 8 is amply corroborated by the Medical Evidence. When injured Selvaraj was taken to P.W.3 - Dr.S.Durairaj, working in Primary Health Centre, T.R.Pattinam, he has noted Two cut injuries on the root of the head above Right Ear Lobe. There was profused Bleeding in his head. During Autopsy, P.W.5 - Dr.Narasimha Murthy has noted A neatly sutured lacerated injury on the right parietal region of scalp apart from number of abrasions. 22. The prosecution case is also well supported by prompt registration of First Information Report. There was profused Bleeding in his head. During Autopsy, P.W.5 - Dr.Narasimha Murthy has noted A neatly sutured lacerated injury on the right parietal region of scalp apart from number of abrasions. 22. The prosecution case is also well supported by prompt registration of First Information Report. After the occurrence, injured Selvaraj was taken to T.R.Pattinam Police Station. P.W.16 - Head Constable has recorded the Statement of Selvaraj (Ex.P.16); on the basis of which case was promptly registered in Crime No.104 of 1999 under S.324 I.P.C. The Statement recorded from the deceased has its sanctity with higher Evidentiary Value, the genuineness of which cannot be doubted. 23. P.W.3 - Dr.S.Durairaj has noted only Two cut injuries on the root of the head above Right Ear Lobe, whereas during Autopsy, P.W.5 - Dr.Narasimha Murthy has noted Abrasions :- 1. On the right lower chest in mid clavicular line 2. On outer aspect of right shoulder. 3. On anterior aspect of right shoulder 4. In right upper and of lateral aspect of neck behind ear. He has also noted A neatly sutured lacerated injury on the right parietal region of scalp. Pointing out that there is material variation regarding the number of injuries in Ex.P.2 - Accident Register and Ex.P.3 - Post-mortem Certificate, the learned counsel for the Appellant / Accused has forcibly contended that the material variation has not been properly explained, which throws doubts on the manner of occurrence. This contention does not merit acceptance. In Primary Health Centre, T.R.Pattinam, when P.W.3 - Dr.S.Durairaj has examined the injured Selvaraj, his intention was Life Saving Measure. He might have hurriedly noted the prominent head injury and immediately referred to the injured to Government Hospital, Karaikal for better management and treatment. On the other hand, P.W.5 - Dr.Narasimha Murthy, who conducted Autopsy, was duty bound to comprehensively note all the injuries including the abrasions all over the body as noted above. The variation in the number of injuries in Ex.P.2 - Accident Register and Ex.P.3 - Post-mortem Certificate is not at all a variation much less to affect the prosecution case. 24. The accused was arrested on 25.10.1999 in the presence of P.W.17 - Natarajan and one Purushothaman, which led to the recovery of M.O.4 - Casurina Stick from a Channel near Lingathadi Road. 24. The accused was arrested on 25.10.1999 in the presence of P.W.17 - Natarajan and one Purushothaman, which led to the recovery of M.O.4 - Casurina Stick from a Channel near Lingathadi Road. Identification of M.O.4 as a weapon of assault by P.Ws.1 and 8 is a strong piece of evidence against the accused. 25. Case of prosecution is attacked on the ground that there is material variation in the motive set forth by the prosecution. Case of prosecution is that there was dispute between the accused and deceased Selvaraj since the accused was asking the deceased to vacate the house. From P.W.1, it was elicited about the intrigue relationship of Selvaraj with Saraswathi. In Cross-examination, P.W.1 has admitted that the real problem between the accused and deceased is the relationship of deceased with Saraswathi and that the accused was questioning the conduct of Saraswathi and Selvaraj. The relationship between the accused and deceased might have been strained due to such relationship of the deceased Selvaraj and Saraswathi. The relationship between the accused and deceased might have been strained for more than one reason. The immediate motive for the occurrence was the wordy quarrel when the accused had been insisting the deceased to vacate the house. Under such circumstances, the prosecution might have thought fit to project only one aspect of the motive. We find no suppression of material fact; nor does it throw doubts on the prosecution case. 26. Evidence of P.Ws.1 and 8 is amply corroborated by the Medical Evidence. The inconsistencies and contradictions pointed out by the defence do not affect the core of the prosecution case. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly found that the accused is proved to be responsible for causing the death of deceased Selvaraj. We are left with the only question as to whether the accused had necessary intention to cause murder of his brother Selvaraj. The deceased Selvaraj was addicted to Drinks. Even at the time of occurrence, he was in a drunken mood. From Ex.P.22 - Viscera Report, we find that the sample of Viscera contains D.02 gm% of alcohol, showing that the deceased had taken liquor at the time of occurrence. At the time of occurrence, accused and deceased exchanged abusive words; the accused insisted the deceased to vacate the house and there must have been heated exchange of words. From Ex.P.22 - Viscera Report, we find that the sample of Viscera contains D.02 gm% of alcohol, showing that the deceased had taken liquor at the time of occurrence. At the time of occurrence, accused and deceased exchanged abusive words; the accused insisted the deceased to vacate the house and there must have been heated exchange of words. Under such circumstances, the accused must have got enraged and struck the deceased on the head with M.O.4 - Casurina Stick. The accused has attacked the deceased in the heat of passion. In careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the act of the accused is the offence punishable only under S.304 Part (II) I.P.C. and not under S.302 I.P.C. Few days prior to the occurrence, the accused had also attacked his mother - P.W.1. In consideration of the nature and gravity of the offences and other circumstances, the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment of Seven years would meet the ends of justice. 27. Crl.A.No.1007 of 2002: This appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the Appellant / Accused by the Sessions Judge, Pondicherry in S.C.No.39 of 2000 (by the Judgment dated: 22.12.2000) under S.302 I.P.C. is altered into S.304 Part (II) I.P.C. under S.386 (b) (iii) Crl.P.C. For the conviction under S.304 Part (II) I.P.C., the Appellant / Accused is sentenced to undergo Seven Years of Rigorous Imprisonment.