Judgment :- Appellants are the Accused 1 to 3 on the file of Additional District Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore. By the Judgment dated 21.04.1998, learned Additional District Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore convicted the Appellants / Accused 1 to 3 under Sec.304(II) and 342 I.P.C and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Five Years for the Conviction under Sec.304(II) I.P.C. For the offence under Sec.342 I.P.C, no separate sentence was imposed. 2. A-1-Perumal is the Son of A-2-Kannian and A-3- Pachaiyammal. P.W.1-Manjula is the Daughter of the Deceased; P.W.2-Periyapaiyan @ Perumal is the Father of Deceased-Seenu and P.W.7-Chakravarthy is his Elder Brother. The Accused and Prosecution Witnesses are related to each other and are Residents of Kunnathur. 3. On the early morning of 28.01.1996 – 05.00 a.m, P.W.1 heard noise from near the house of her Grandfather-P.W.2. P.W.1 went to the place and found A-1 and A-2 dragging the Deceased from the house of A-2 and leaving him at the outside. P.W.2 questioned his Son as to the happenings. The Deceased-Seenu told him that he had innocently entered into the house of the Second Accused. Thereafter, A-1 and A-2 tided the Deceased in the Lamp Post with M.O.1-Coir Rope. A-2 held the Deceased and pushed his Head against the Lamp Post. A-1 and A-3 fisted him with hands on his Chest. When P.W.1 questioned, the Accused 1 and 2 told P.W.1 that the Deceased had misbehaved with the Wife of A-1 by putting his hands on her Neck. P.W.4-Selladurai and other villagers gathered there. P.W.2 removed the Rope and released the Deceased. Regarding the occurrence, a Panchayat was convened in the village and both the parties were suitably advised. To that effect, Ex.P.2-Resolution was prepared and signed by Deceased-Seenu and others. The Deceased was taken to his house. P.W.1 was working as Staff Nurse attended to her work and returned back in the evening to the house. She found the Deceased in discomfort. The Deceased complained to her about the pain in the Chest and feeling giddiness. 4. P.W.1 had taken her Father to Government Hospital, Thiruppathur on 29.01.1996 – 11.00 a.m. P.W.11-Dr.Parimala examined the Deceased-Seenu at 11.40 a.m. and found two injuries – One Abrasion on the Left Fore Arm and another on his Chest. Ex.P.6 is the Wound Certificate. The Deceased complained to her about the pain in the Chest and feeling giddiness. 4. P.W.1 had taken her Father to Government Hospital, Thiruppathur on 29.01.1996 – 11.00 a.m. P.W.11-Dr.Parimala examined the Deceased-Seenu at 11.40 a.m. and found two injuries – One Abrasion on the Left Fore Arm and another on his Chest. Ex.P.6 is the Wound Certificate. About the admission of Seenu in the Hospital, Ex.P.7-Intimation was sent to the Police Station. 5. On receipt of the Intimation – Ex.P.7, P.W.9-Head Constable went to the Thiruppathur Government Hosiptal on 29.01.1996. He found that the Deceased was not in a position to speak. Ex.P.1 Statement was recorded from P.W.1 by Grade I P.C.1380-Ashok Kumar. The said Ashok Kumar reported the matter to Jolarpet Police Station along with Ex.P.1. On the basis of the statement recorded from Ashok Kumar and Ex.P.1-Statement of P.W.1, case was registered in Crime No.71/96 under Sec.342 and 323 I.P.C. (Ex.P.5). P.W.10 examined P.W.1 in the Hospital and recorded her Statement. 6. P.W.10 had taken up the Initial Investigation. He has inspected the scene of occurrence in the village of Kunnathur Village and prepared Ex.P.3-Observation Mahazar and Rough Plan. In the presence of P.W.6-Samudi, M.O.1-Rope was seized under Ex.P.4-Mahazar. 7. Injured-Seenu succumbed to the injuries. On receipt of death intimation (Ex.P.8), P.W.15-Sub Inspector of Police altered the case into Sec.342 and 302 I.P.C. under Ex.P.12 – F.I.R. 8. P.W.17-Inspector of Police, Jolarpet Police Station had taken up the Investigation between 10.30 am and 12.30 p.m. in Government Hospital, Tiruppatthur. Witnesses – P.Ws.1,2,4,7 and 8 were examined in the presence of Panchayatars and Inquest was held. Ex.P.13 is the Inquest Report. After the Inquest, the body was sent to Autopsy. 9. P.W.13-Dr.Lenin of Government Hospital, Tiruppathur conducted the Post Mortem on the body of Deceased-Seenu. He has noted Abrasions over the Left Fore Arm, in the Right Side of Chest and Contusions over the Left Side Temporal Region, Right Side of occipital Region; Scalp is found to be congested over the temporil region on the Left Side and occipital region of the Right Side. No evidence of Fracture Skull. P.W.13 has opined that the Deceased died of Head Injury and issued Ex.P.10-Post Mortem Certificate. 10. To substantiate the charge against the Accused, in the Trial Court, P.Ws.1 to 17 were examined and Exs.P.1 to 13 were marked. M.Os.1 to 4 were produced. No evidence of Fracture Skull. P.W.13 has opined that the Deceased died of Head Injury and issued Ex.P.10-Post Mortem Certificate. 10. To substantiate the charge against the Accused, in the Trial Court, P.Ws.1 to 17 were examined and Exs.P.1 to 13 were marked. M.Os.1 to 4 were produced. The Appellants / Accused were questioned under Sec.313 Crl.P.C about the incriminating evidence and circumstances. The Accused denying all of them had stated that a false case has been foisted against them. Overt act of the Accused in tying the Deceased in the Lamp Post was found to be well proved on the evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 7. Learned Sessions Judge was of the view that their evidence cannot be doubted merely because of their relatedness to Deceased-Seenu. The defence set forth that the Accused acted in self-defence was not acceptable by the Trial Court. Finding that the overt act of the Accused 1 to 3 is well proved by the Medical Evidence, Accused 1 to 3 were found guilty for wrongful restraint and for causing the death of Seenu and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as aforesaid in para (1). 11. Assailing the verdict of conviction and the reasoning’s, on behalf of the Appellants / Accused, it is inter-alia contended that the Deceased had only trespassed into the house of A-2 and misbehaved with Wife of A-1 and that the Accused were justified in acting self-defence. Drawing the attention of the Court to the F.I.R, it is contended that the non omission to mention the hitting of the Deceased against the Lamp Post seriously undermines the Prosecution case. The main contention urged by the Appellant / Accused is that Ex.P.12-F.I.R. is manipulated after due deliberation particularly after the receipt of the Post Mortem Report. It is contended that it would be unsafe to base the Conviction on the evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 7. 12. Countering the arguments onbehalf of the Appellants / Accused, learned Government Advocate(Criminal Side) Mr. V.Jayaprakash Narayanan has submitted that the delay in registering the matter has been reasonably explained. It is further submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is consistent on the attack of the Deceased-Seenu, which clearly establishes the guilt of A-1 to A-3. Submitting that in consideration of the evidence, learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the plea of self-defence, learned Government Advocate prayed for sustaining the Conviction. 13. It is further submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is consistent on the attack of the Deceased-Seenu, which clearly establishes the guilt of A-1 to A-3. Submitting that in consideration of the evidence, learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the plea of self-defence, learned Government Advocate prayed for sustaining the Conviction. 13. In consideration of the evidence, Judgment of the Trial Court, submissions of both sides, the following points arise for consideration in this Appeal: - (i)Whether the contention of the Accused that they have acted in self-defence is supported by the evidence on record? (ii)Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of the Accused 1 to 3? And (iii) Whether the Conviction of the Appellants / Accused is in conformity with the evidence on record? 14. The Deceased-Seenu is the Son of P.W.2-Periyapaiyan. The Accused and the Prosecution Witnesses are the Residents of Kunnathur Village. In the said Village, house of the First Accused-Perumal is on the Eastern Side of the Street. House of P.W.2 is on the Southern Side of the house of A-1. On the early hours on 28.01.1996 – 05.00 a.m, P.W.2 heard the notice outside the house of the Accused. He saw the Accused dragging away Seenu. P.W.1-Daughter of the Deceased has also heard the noise and she came near to the house of the Accused. When P.W.2 enquired his Son-Seenu as to what happened, he has told him that he has innocently entered into the house of the Accused and they had mistaken the same. Stating that Seenu had misbehaved with Wife of A-1, the Accused-1 and 2 tied Seenu to nearby Electric Post and attacked him. 15. P.W.1-Daughter of the Deceased, P.W.2-Father of the Deceased, P.W.7-Brother of the Deceased and P.W.6 are the Eye Witnesses. All of them have consistently spoken about the attack on Seenu and A-2 hitting the Deceased against the electric post and A-1 and A-3 fisting on the Chest of the Deceased. That the Deceased had been tied to the electric post and attacked is well proved by the consistent oral evidence of P.Ws.1,2,6 and 7. It is also probablised by the evidence of P.W.4 and the Panchayatars, to whom the parties have referred the matter for settling. 16. That the Deceased had been tied to the electric post and attacked is well proved by the consistent oral evidence of P.Ws.1,2,6 and 7. It is also probablised by the evidence of P.W.4 and the Panchayatars, to whom the parties have referred the matter for settling. 16. Complaining about the act of the Deceased, entering into the house and misbehaved with the Wife of A-1, the Accused had stated that they wanted to go to the Police. P.W.3 and P.W.4 are alleged to have interfered with the matter and pacified them. Ex.P.2-Muchalika was written to the effect that the Deceased-Seenu would not cause any harm in the future to the family of the Accused. Ex.P.2 is signed by P.W.2. Ex.P.2 was later seized under Cover of Mahazar after case was registered in Crime No.71/96 of Jolarpet Police Station from P.W.3. The tenor of Ex.P.2 appears to be only to warn the Deceased-Seenu from any further interference with the family of the Accused. But, this Court is of the view that the tenor of Ex.P.2 cannot in any way water down the consistent version of P.Ws.1,2 and 7 on the attack of Seenu. 17. The occurrence was on the early morning of 28.01.1996. F.I.R was registered only at 10.30 a.m on 31.01.1996. Case of Prosecution is mainly attacked on the ground of delay. Learned counsel for the Appellants / Accused has submitted that the Investigating Agency has been gaining time only for deliberation and introducing exaggerated version after the conduct of the Post Mortem. The evidence and materials on record would clearly show that the delay is clearly explained. As noted earlier, after the occurrence, there was Panchayat in the Village on 28.01.1996, in which both the Accused party and the Deceased party participated – Ex.P.2-Panchayat Muchalika was also written. P.Ws.3 and 4 - Panchayatars have also stated about their intervention and compromising the issue. Since the Accused and the Prosecution Witnesses parties are already related and to abide by the decision of the Panchayatars, perhaps the occurrence was not reported immediately. On the evening of 28.01.1996, when P.W.1 came back to the house, she found the condition of her father serious and developing complications. He being unwell, on the next day 29.01.1996, he was taken to Tiruppatthur Government Hospital. On the evening of 28.01.1996, when P.W.1 came back to the house, she found the condition of her father serious and developing complications. He being unwell, on the next day 29.01.1996, he was taken to Tiruppatthur Government Hospital. In Tiruppatthur Government Hospital, the Deceased-Seenu was admitted at 11.40 a.m. On receipt of the intimation from the Hospital, P.W.9-Head Constable went to Tiruppatthur Government Hospital and recorded the Statement of P.W.1 at 12.50 p.m. The same was forwarded to Jolarpet Police Station through Grade I P.C.1380-Ashok Kumar. On the basis of Ex.P.1, case was registered in Crime No.71/96 under Sec.342 and 323 I.P.C. Thus, the delay in registration of F.I.R. is properly explained. Any delay in registration of F.I.R is only on account of recording the Statement of P.W.1 and transmitting the same from Tiruppathur Town Police Station to Jolarpet Police Station. 18. Evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 7 is strongly attacked on the ground that they have not earlier stated A-2 hitting the Deceased against the Lamp Post and that P.Ws.1 and 2 only exaggerated the attack. Post Mortem was held on 31.01.1996. At the time of Post Mortem, Contusion of occipital region was noted. Hence, it is contended only after knowing that the death was due to head injuries, there was much deliberation on the part of the Investigating Agency in attributing the overt act to the Accused – hitting against the Lamp Post and other attack. This contention has no merits. P.W.13-Dr.Lenin has conducted the Post Mortem on 31.01.1996 – 04.00 p.m. But, Ex.P.5-F.I.R. was received in the Court even at 12.25 p.m by 31.01.1996. The altered Report – Ex.P.12-altering the case into one under Sec.302 I.P.C was also received in the Court on the Afternoon at 12.25 p.m. Even in Ex.P.1, the attack on the Deceased by the Accused is clearly stated as Thus, the attack on the Deceased-Seenu by A-1 and A-2 is clearly stated in the early statement of P.W.1. There is no substance in the contention that the F.I.R. was result of deliberation after conclusion of the Post Mortem. 19. Both A-1 and A-3 are alleged to have fisted on the Chest of Deceased-Seenu while he was being tied. From Ex.P.10-Post Mortem Certificate, it is seen that Seenu had sustained "Abrasion in the Right Side of Chest", "Fracture found in the third costal cartilage of the third Rib Right Side". 19. Both A-1 and A-3 are alleged to have fisted on the Chest of Deceased-Seenu while he was being tied. From Ex.P.10-Post Mortem Certificate, it is seen that Seenu had sustained "Abrasion in the Right Side of Chest", "Fracture found in the third costal cartilage of the third Rib Right Side". Thus, there is only one injury on the Chest. Therefore, it is contended that when only one injury is caused on the Chest, serious doubts arise as to whom it could be attributed and benefit of doubt is to be given to A-1 and A-3. Contending that A-1 and A-3 had not at all attacked the Deceased, onbehalf of the Appellants / Accused, the following answer elicited from P.W.7-Chakravarthy is relied upon: No doubt, P.W.7 has not spoken anything about the overt act of A-1 and A-3. But, on that score the consistent case of Prosecution on the attack of the Deceased by the Accused 1 and 2 cannot be doubted. 20. Much contentions have been advanced on the overt act attributed to A-1 and A-3. Without going in much detail of those factual aspects, we could only point out the material contradiction on the overt act of A-3, which throws serious doubts on her involvement. Ex.P.1-Complaint is the earlier version by P.W.1. In Ex.P.1, on the overt act of A-3 P.W.1 has stated as : Only in the evidence, P.W.1 has stated that A-1 and A-3 have fisted on the Chest. Material contradiction undermines the case against A-3. Serious doubt arise on the involvement of A-3-Pachaiyammal and her act of attacking the Deceased-Seenu. Benefit of doubt is to be given to A-3 and A-3-Pachaiyammal is found not guilty and acquitted of the Charge under Sec.304(II) and 342 I.P.C. 21. A-1 and A-2 attacked the Deceased is well brought out by the evidence. After tying Seenu to Electric Post, A-1 hit his Head against the Post, causing Contusion on the Left Side Temporal Region, Right side of Occipital Region and this has caused the Internal Injuries. The Scalp is found to be congested over the Temporal Region on the Left Side and Occipital region of the right side. No evidence of Fracture Skull.... On opening the Skull, the Duramater is found congested over the above mentioned areas. A-2 fisted Seenu on his Chest, causing Fracture in the third costal cartilage of the third Rib Right Side. The Scalp is found to be congested over the Temporal Region on the Left Side and Occipital region of the right side. No evidence of Fracture Skull.... On opening the Skull, the Duramater is found congested over the above mentioned areas. A-2 fisted Seenu on his Chest, causing Fracture in the third costal cartilage of the third Rib Right Side. The overt Act attributed to A-1 and A-2 is well corroborated by the Medical Evidence also. 22. Onbehalf of the Appellants / Accused, defence was taken that they had acted in self-defence. The plea taken that they had taken self-defence on the night of 28.01.1996 when the Deceased-Seenu entered into the house of Accused and misbehaved with the Wife of A-1 was elaborately considered by the learned Sessions Judge and arrived on factual findings that the Accused has not established the act of self-defence. Even if the said Seenu has entered into the house of the Accused, it is to be noted he was aged about 50 years and he was unarmed. The right of private defence commences only when reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises. There is nothing in evidence to show that he had posed danger either by holding out a threat or threatening the family members of the Accused. Even if Seenu is alleged to have entered into the house, that act cannot go to the extent of tying him in the Electric Post and attacking him causing his Murder. 23. Inconsistency adopted by the Accused is also to be pointed out. At one stretch, the Appellants / Accused had adopted the plea of self-defence; at another stretch, they have adopted the defence that the public themselves had hit Seenu. This alternative plea that the public themselves had hit the Deceased is unsupported by any material on record. Both the plea set forth by the Accused – Private defence or attack on Seenu by Public were rightly rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. 24. The attack on Seenu was gruesome one. In an inhuman nature, he was tied to the electric post and hit against the post. Anger of the Accused is manifested in their inhuman act of tying Seenu to the electric post and violently beating him. 24. The attack on Seenu was gruesome one. In an inhuman nature, he was tied to the electric post and hit against the post. Anger of the Accused is manifested in their inhuman act of tying Seenu to the electric post and violently beating him. Further, the Trial Court found that there was no pre-meditation or pre-plan for the attack and the Appellants have acted only in reaction to the entry of Seenu into their house. On those findings, the Appellants / Accused were found guilty under Sec.304(II) and 342 I.P.C. For the Conviction under Sec.304(II) I.P.C the Appellants/Accused are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of Five years, which is neither harsh nor unreasonable. For the Conviction under Sec.342 I.P.C, no separate sentence was imposed. With regard to Appellants 1 and 2 /Accused 1 and 2, this Appeal has no merits and the same is bound to fail. 25. C.A.No.359 of 1998:- Therefore, with regard to Appellants 1 and 2 / Accused 1 and 2, the Judgment dated 21.04.1998 of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore in S.C.No.89 of 1997 convicting them under Sec.304(II) and 342 I.P.C and sentencing them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of Five Years is confirmed and this Appeal is dismissed. With regard to Appellant-3 / Accused-3, it is held that she is not guilty under Sec.304(II) and 342 I.P.C and she is acquitted of the Charge under Sec.304(II) and 342 I.P.C. and the sentence is set aside and the Appeal is allowed to that extent only. 26. Since the Appellants 1 and 2/Accused 1 and 2 are on bail, the Trial Court is directed to secure the custody of the Appellants/Accused 1 and 2 and make them to undergo remaining period of sentence.