Judgment :- Accused 1 and 2 in S.C.23/93 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin are the appellants. Aggrieved over the conviction under Section 304(II) I.P.C by the judgment dated 31.3.97 the appellants have preferred this appeal. 2.Charge sheet was originally filed against the Appellants/A1 and A2 and A3-Malar, daughter of A1. A separate Charge Sheet was filed against the Juvenile accused Arul. Case against the Juvenile accused Arul in S.C.24/93 ended in acquittal. In this case the details of the charges framed and the findings of the trial court are as under: Charge Gist of offence Against which accused Finding 1 u/s 302 I.P.C committing murder of Kannadasan A1 & A2 Found not guilty under Section 302 I.P.C; A1 & A2 convicted u/s.304(II)I.P.C. Each sentenced to undergo R.I for 7 years 2 u/s 302 I.P.C r/w 34 I.P.C sharing the common intention with A1 & A2 for committing murder of Kannadasan A3 Found not guilty. A3 acquitted 3.Case of the prosecution could briefly be stated thus: Motive: On 21.10.90-6.15 p.m pigs reared by A1 entered the house of P.W.1 and damaged the earthern utensils. Deceased came home after work at about 7.15 p.m. P.W.1 told the deceased about the incident. The deceased started to abuse A2. A2 on hearing the same, dared A1 to come out of the house. The deceased went out of the house. P.W.1 followed him with a Hurricane Lamp. A3 abused the deceased and the deceased also abused A3 in retaliation. A3 beat the deceased with a stick on his shoulder and in retaliation deceased beat A3 with his hands. Since the deceased beat A3, the motive developed. 4.Overt Acts: Since deceased beat A3-Malar with hands, A1 and A2 and another Juvenile accused Arul went to their house and A1 with Palai Aruval (M.O.1) and A2 with Vettu Aruval (M.O.2) and Juvenile Accused with Murukku Thadi (M.O.3) came and picked up quarrel with deceased. The deceased ran inside his house. At that time, A1 with M.O.1-Palai Aruval cut him on the left neck and Juvenile Accused Arul with Murukku Thadi beat deceased on the left neck. Deceased fell down near the house of Essakki Ammal. A2 with Vettu Aruval cut the deceased on the legs and hands indiscriminately. A1 sustained injuries on the hand when A2 was cutting the deceased. Further A1 sustained injury on the head when A3 beat the deceased. Deceased fell down near the house of Essakki Ammal. A2 with Vettu Aruval cut the deceased on the legs and hands indiscriminately. A1 sustained injuries on the hand when A2 was cutting the deceased. Further A1 sustained injury on the head when A3 beat the deceased. On seeing P.Ws.2 and 3, the accused ran towards north with the weapons. 5.Report and Registration of case: P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to Kulasekarapattinam Police Station. P.W.1 gave statement to P.W.12-Sub-Inspector of Kulasekarapattinam Police Station at about 8.15 p.m on 21.10.90 regarding the occurrence. P.W.2 attested Ex.P1. Pursuant to Ex.P1, P.W.12 registered a case in Crime No.354/90 under Section 302 I.P.C and prepared Ex.P16 Printed F.I.R. P.W.12 sent Ex.P1 and P16 to the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur through P.W.10. P.W.12 informed the Inspector P.W.13 about this case over V.H.F. P.W.10 brought the cover containing Exs.P1 and P16 to the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur and having come to know that Srivaikundam Judicial Magistrate was incharge of Tiruchendur Magistrate Court, on the night he went to Srivaikundam and handed over the same to Srivaikundam Judicial Magistrate at 3.10 a.m on 22.10.90. 6.Investigation: P.W.13-Inspector of Police, on receipt of Ex.P16 on 21.10.90-9.15 p.m took up investigation and reached the scene of occurrence at about 10.00 p.m and prepared Ex.P6-Observation Mahazar and also drew Rough Sketch Ex.P17 in the presence of P.W.6 and another. 7.Inquest: P.W.13 conducted Inquest over the body of the deceased from 0.15 to 4.15 hours on 22.10.90 in the presence of Panchayatars. Inquest Report is Ex.P18. P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined during Inquest. On completion of Inquest, he prepared Ex.P2-Requisition for Postmortem and sent the body for Postmortem along with Ex.P2 through P.W.11. 8.Postmortem: P.W.4-Dr.Nallathambi Gnanadevakaran, on receipt of Ex.P2, conducted Autopsy on the body of the deceased. He noted 13 cut injuries on the body of the deceased and opined that deceased died of shock and haemorrhage. The Doctor has opined that injuries 6 and 10 may cause death of a person in the ordinary course of nature. Ex.P3 is the Postmortem Certificate. 9.Injuries to A1: 21.10.90 at 8.30 p.m A1 went to Kalankudiyiruppu Government Hospital for the injuries sustained by him. P.W.5-Dr.Lakshmanan noted 4 injuries on A1 and opined that the second injury is grievous one and the other injuries are simple in nature. Ex.P5 is the Intimation to the Police. Ex.P4 is the Wound Certificate. Ex.P3 is the Postmortem Certificate. 9.Injuries to A1: 21.10.90 at 8.30 p.m A1 went to Kalankudiyiruppu Government Hospital for the injuries sustained by him. P.W.5-Dr.Lakshmanan noted 4 injuries on A1 and opined that the second injury is grievous one and the other injuries are simple in nature. Ex.P5 is the Intimation to the Police. Ex.P4 is the Wound Certificate. 10.Counter Case: P.W.13-I.O received the F.I.R in Crime No.356/90 for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C (case registered in pursuance of the complaint given by A1) and investigated the case. P.W.13-I.O on 22.10.90-8.15 p.m went to the hospital to examine A1 in connection with Crime No.356/90 but the accused had discharged himself to avail better treatment elsewhere. 11.Arrest of A1: P.W.13 arrested A1 at 8.45 p.m on 22.10.90 on Udankudi-Kulasekarapattinam Main Road near Esakkiamman Temple in the presence of P.W.8 and another. A1 gave a Confession Statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P9. In pursuance of the confession statement, A1 took P.W.13 to the south of Santhana Mariah's Palmyrah garden and handed over M.O.1 which was seized under Ex.P10-Mahazar. A1 handed over blood-stained lungi worn by him and the same was recovered under Ex.P8-Mahazar. 12.Arrest of A2, A3 and Juvenile Accused: On 30.10.1990 A2, A3 and Juvenile Accused were arrested at 6.40 a.m in the presence of P.W.9 and another near Manapadu Bus Stop. A2 gave a confession, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P11. Pursuant to Ex.P11, M.O.2 Vettu Aruval was recovered under Ex.P13-Mahazar. Juvenile accused gave a confession statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P12. In pursuance of Ex.P12, M.O.3-Murukku Thadi was recovered under Ex.P14-Mahazar. The accused were sent to judicial custody. 13.P.W.13 gave Ex.P19-Requisition on 6.12.90 to the Judicial Magistrate's Court requesting the Judicial Magistrate to send the above said material objects for chemical examination. M.Os.1 to 10 were sent for chemical examination under Ex.P20. Ex.P21 is the Chemical Analysis Report and Ex.P22 is the Serologist Report. 14.P.W.13 referred the case in Crime No.456/90 as 'Mistake of Fact'. After completing investigation he filed the Final Report against the accused under Section 302 and 34 I.P.C on 31.4.91. 15.To substantiate the charges against the accused, in the trial court, P.Ws.1 to 13 were examined. Exs.P1 to P23 were marked. M.Os.1 to 10 were remanded to the court. The accused were questioned under Section 313 Crl.P.C about the incriminating circumstances and the evidence. 15.To substantiate the charges against the accused, in the trial court, P.Ws.1 to 13 were examined. Exs.P1 to P23 were marked. M.Os.1 to 10 were remanded to the court. The accused were questioned under Section 313 Crl.P.C about the incriminating circumstances and the evidence. In the statement filed in writing A1 has stated that the deceased scolded him in vulgar language and also insulted him. When questioned, the deceased had beaten A1 with iron rod on the head, right elbow and also beat A3-Malar. Further deceased is alleged to have beaten on the left index finger of A1. According to A1, to ward off any further attack and to protect his family members he has acted in self-defence. 16.Upon consideration of the evidence and the defence set forth by the accused, the learned Sessions Judge analysed the evidence of solitary witness P.W.1 with care and caution and accepted her evidence as inspiring the confidence of the court. Learned Sessions Judge further found that the arrest of the accused 1 to 3 and recovery of the weapons is yet another incriminating circumstance militating against the accused. Trial Court disbelieved the defence version that deceased cut A1 and also attacked A3-Malar (with iron rod). Trial Court further found that only the indiscriminate attack by A2 on the deceased accidentally fell on the head of A1 and that the right of private defence is not available to the accused. Trial Court also rejected the contention of the defence that non-production of the documents in Crime No.356/90 would not in any way affect the case. 17.Assailing the findings and the conclusion of the trial court, the learned counsel for the Appellants/A1 and A2 submitted that the conviction under Section 304(II) I.P.C is unsustainable. The learned counsel interalia raised the following contentions: (i)The prosecution has suppressed all vital documents in counter case in Crime No.356/90 and the prosecution has not chosen to produce the Accident Register of A1 and the Referred Charge Sheet which seriously undermines the prosecution case. (ii)By non-explaining the injuries on the person of A1, the prosecution has not come forward with the true version and has suppressed the origin and genesis of the occurrence. (iii)Ex.P16 registered at 8.15 p.m on 21.10.90 was belatedly received by the Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikundam (incharge of Thiruchendur) at 3.10 a.m on 22.10.90 and no reasonable explanation is forthcoming. (ii)By non-explaining the injuries on the person of A1, the prosecution has not come forward with the true version and has suppressed the origin and genesis of the occurrence. (iii)Ex.P16 registered at 8.15 p.m on 21.10.90 was belatedly received by the Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikundam (incharge of Thiruchendur) at 3.10 a.m on 22.10.90 and no reasonable explanation is forthcoming. On the above contentions the learned counsel prays for the reversal of the finding of guilt and setting aside the conviction. 18.Countering the arguments, the learned Government Advocate supported the findings of the trial court and contended that the trial court has rightly placed reliance upon P.W.1's solitary testimony. It is further contended that she, being the natural witness, her solitary testimony can well form the basis of conviction and that the hostility of P.Ws.2 and 2 would not in any way affect the veracity of P.W.1. The learned Government Advocate has taken me through the evidence of P.W.4 and Ex.P3-Postmortem Certificate in support of the contention that extensive number of injuries were caused to the deceased indicating violent attack on the deceased and that no private defence is available to the accused which was rightly rejected by the trial court. It is further urged that the evidence of P.W.1 is strengthened by the medical evidence, arrest of the accused and recovery of weapons, it is submitted that there is no reason warranting interference in the verdict of conviction. 19.Upon careful re-assessment of the evidence, materials on record and the impugned judgment the following points arise for consideration in this appeal:- (i)Whether the guilt of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt? (ii)Whether the conviction of the Appellants/A1 and A2 under Section 304(II) I.P.C warrants interference in this appeal? 20.Petty quarrel between the neighbours resulted in the violent attack on the deceased. Accused and deceased are residents of Manapad Cruz Malai Street. House of A1 is situated on the western side (Serial No.1 in Ex.P17). House of deceased is situated on the Eastern side (Serial No.2 in Ex.P17). Occurrence is near the house Esakki Ammal. House of Esakki Ammal is situated on the North-Eastern side. Being neighbours, deceased and accused party were entangled in frequent quarrel. Though there was no deep enmity between them as neighbours, they seemed to be having differences, as spoken by P.W.8. 21.Petty Quarrel on the evening of 21.10.90-Sunday led to the occurrence. Occurrence is near the house Esakki Ammal. House of Esakki Ammal is situated on the North-Eastern side. Being neighbours, deceased and accused party were entangled in frequent quarrel. Though there was no deep enmity between them as neighbours, they seemed to be having differences, as spoken by P.W.8. 21.Petty Quarrel on the evening of 21.10.90-Sunday led to the occurrence. At about 6.15 p.m pigs reared by A1 entered into the house of the deceased/P.W.1 and damaged the mud utensils. When the deceased came home after the work at about 7.15 p.m, P.W.1 informed the deceased about the damage caused to the mud utensils. The deceased started to abuse A2 which resulted in wordy quarrel between A1 and A2. The deceased went out of the house, followed by P.W.1. When the deceased went out, A3 abused the deceased and vice versa. In retaliation,A3 beat the deceased with stick on his shoulder and in turn deceased also beat her with his hands. Enraged over the attack on A3 by the deceased, Appellants/A1 and A2 and the Juvenile Accused came out of the house-A1 armed with M.O.1-Palai Aruval; A2 with Vettu Aruval (M.O.2) and the Juvenile Accused Arul with M.O.3-Murukku Thadi and picked up quarrel with the deceased. When the deceased ran inside his house, A1 inflicted cut injury on his left neck. When the deceased had fallen down near the house of Esakki Ammal, A2 inflicted several cut injuries on the legs and hands of the deceased indiscriminately. P.W.1-the sole eye-witness has narrated about the occurrence and the overt act of the appellants. 22.P.W.2-Selvakumar is the resident of Manapad Cruz Malai Street. P.W.1 is the daughter of P.W.2's paternal uncle. As per the prosecution case, on hearing the noise, P.W.2 went to the scene-near Esakki Ammal's House and witnessed the attack on the deceased. While in the witness box P.W.2 has not supported the prosecution case. He has confined his version to the limited extent that he was informed about the murder of deceased Kannadasan. In Ex.P1-Complaint P.W.2 has attested as witness. P.W.2 has also denied his signature in Ex.P1. Because of his unwillingness to support the prosecution case, P.W.2 was treated hostile. 23.Likewise P.W.3-Udhayakumar is a resident of Manapad Cruz Malai Road who is said to have seen A1 with M.O.1-Palai Aruval and A2 with M.O.2-Vettu Aruval and A3 with Murukku Thadi (M.O.3) proceeding in the street. P.W.2 has also denied his signature in Ex.P1. Because of his unwillingness to support the prosecution case, P.W.2 was treated hostile. 23.Likewise P.W.3-Udhayakumar is a resident of Manapad Cruz Malai Road who is said to have seen A1 with M.O.1-Palai Aruval and A2 with M.O.2-Vettu Aruval and A3 with Murukku Thadi (M.O.3) proceeding in the street. P.W.3 has also not supported the case of the prosecution. He has confined his evidence to the limited extent that he saw deceased Kannadasan with bleeding injuries and murdered and that at the request of P.Ws.1 and 2 he kept watch over the body. Thus, P.Ws.2 and 3 who were examined to strengthen the version of P.W.1 had exhibited their unwillingness to support the prosecution case and were treated hostile. It is not strange for the villagers like P.Ws.2 and 3 to turn hostile. An average rustic villager does not want to get himself involved in rival factions when there is dispute between the two neighbours. In such cases, the court is to adopt a reasonable approach in the assessment of evidence. Prosecution case is not shaken by the hostility of P.Ws.2 and 3. 24.With the hostility of P.Ws.2 and 3, we are left with the solitary testimony of P.W.1, wife of the deceased. Even if the prosecution case rests on the evidence of single eye-witness, it may be enough to sustain the conviction if the witness is a competent, honest and truthful witness. However, prudence requires that corroboration should be sought from other prosecution evidence in support of the solitary witness, particularly where such witness happens to be closely related to the deceased. Thus the evidence of P.W.1 is to be tested for its credibility and reliability. The learned Sessions Judge who had the opportunity of observing the demeanour of P.W.1 accepted her evidence as a truthful witness. 25.In the light of the contention urged by the appellants, it is to be seen whether the trial court was right in basing the conviction on the solitary testimony of P.W.1. Narration of the occurrence and overt act of the accused and credibility of P.W.1 is assailed on the following grounds: (i)Variation between her evidence and Ex.P1-Complaint; (ii)Part of her evidence was disbelieved regarding A3; (iii)P.W.1 has not explained the injury on the person of A1. Narration of the occurrence and overt act of the accused and credibility of P.W.1 is assailed on the following grounds: (i)Variation between her evidence and Ex.P1-Complaint; (ii)Part of her evidence was disbelieved regarding A3; (iii)P.W.1 has not explained the injury on the person of A1. 26.We may firstly refer to the contention advanced on the variation on the evidence of P.W.1 and that of her version in Ex.P1. Upon careful analysis of evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P1, the overt act of A1 and A2 could be stated thus: After deceased had fallen down By a careful consideration of the above, the variation cannot be said to be a contradiction at all. In Ex.P1, P.W.1 has stated about another overt act of A2 on the right neck. It is to be pointed out that Ex.P1 and the version of P.W.1 in the court brings out the general attack by A1 and A2 inflicting several cut injuries on the deceased. The overt act attributed to A1 and A2 generally agrees with each other and there is no material variation. Even if they are considered to be varied, they are not so major contradictions to affect the reliability of P.W.1. 27.P.W.1-wife of the deceased is a simple rustic woman. She, being the natural witness, witnessed the attack on her husband in the early night hours. Her husband was violently attacked, surrounded by at least four persons. Placed in that situation, P.W.1 cannot be expected to be precise and accurate on the overt act of each of the accused. That apart P.W.1 was deposing in the court nearly six years after the occurrence. She cannot be expected to give the exact version of overt act of each of the accused. Due allowance is to be given to the intelligence and retention power of the individual. The trial court rightly found that such variation pointed out in the evidence of P.W.1 would not in any way militate against the veracity of P.W.1. 28.A3-Arul alleged to have beaten the deceased with Murukku Thadi. In her evidence P.W.1 has stated that A3 has beaten the deceased on the right upper arm, while in the box she had shown left upper arm. There was no consistency on the overt act of A3. Further the learned Sessions Judge found that the overt attack attributed to A3 is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. In her evidence P.W.1 has stated that A3 has beaten the deceased on the right upper arm, while in the box she had shown left upper arm. There was no consistency on the overt act of A3. Further the learned Sessions Judge found that the overt attack attributed to A3 is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thus only giving benefit of doubt, A3 was acquitted. Acquittal of A3 would not in any way suggest that P.W.1 is a witness with improved version. 29.In the course of the same transaction A1 sustained injuries. For treatment of his injuries, A1 went to Kalan Kudiyiruppu Government Hospital on the same day-21.10.90-8.30 p.m. P.W.5 Dr.Lakshmanan noted the following injuries on the person of A1: Lacerated Injury ... Skull Cut injury } Left hand dorsum } ... Left Index Finger Contusion ... Right lower arm X-ray disclosed fracture of left hand radius lower end. Fracture of left hand radius lower end was found to be grievous. 30. It is contended that P.W.1 and the prosecution has not explained the grievous injuries sustained by A1 which throws serious doubts on the prosecution case. During the cross-examination, when being questioned, P.W.1 stated But she later changed her version stating Therefore it cannot be said that P.W.1 has not explained the injuries on A1. During early night hours deceased Kannadasan was surrounded by four persons and violently attacked. The possibility of such blows-injuries falling on the deceased cannot be ruled out. Version of P.W.1 that the injury by A2 fell on her husband-A1 cannot be rejected in toto. 31. At this juncture, we may set at rest the point urged by the appellants that the prosecution has not explained the injuries on the person of A1 and that the details of the Referred Charge Sheet is not forthcoming. As said earlier, for the treatment of his injuries A1 went to Kalan Kudiyiruppu Government Hospital on 21.10.90-8.30 p.m. A1 was admitted in the hospital. P.W.5-Dr.Lakshmanan has sent Ex.P5-Intimation to the police on the admission of A1 in the hospital. Statement of A1 was recorded and on the basis of his statement a case was registered in Crime No.356/90 under Section 324 I.P.C. P.W.13 had taken up the investigation along with this case in Crime No.354/90. After investigation, P.W.5 has referred the case in Crime No.356/90 as "Mistake of Fact". Ex.P23 is the Intimation of 'RCS' to court. 32. Statement of A1 was recorded and on the basis of his statement a case was registered in Crime No.356/90 under Section 324 I.P.C. P.W.13 had taken up the investigation along with this case in Crime No.354/90. After investigation, P.W.5 has referred the case in Crime No.356/90 as "Mistake of Fact". Ex.P23 is the Intimation of 'RCS' to court. 32. Referred Charge Sheet was not produced by the prosecution. Only Ex.P23 'RCS' Intimation sent to the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruchendur is produced. Ex.P23 only states that the 'above case was referred as Mistake of Fact on 21.10.90. The F.I.R and the property pending in the court concerned the above case may be closed. I submit that the further action may kindly be dropped in the above case.' No doubt the prosecution would have done well had it produced the Accident Register to A1, Referred Charge Sheet and the statement of witnesses. Reasonings for referring the case would be found only in the Referred Charge Sheet. But non-filing of Referred Charge Sheet does not affect the prosecution case. Mere non-production of 'RCS' would not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the prosecution case is not a truthful version. This contention was raised before the trial court. The trial court has elaborately considered the same with reference to the various authorities cited by the accused. The learned Sessions Judge was right in finding that the non-production of the Accident Register of A1 and 'RCS' would not go against the prosecution. 33. Of course A1 has sustained fracture injuries on his left hand radius. P.W.1 has explained the injuries that the blow by A2 itself fell on A1 and A1 sustained the fracture injuries. As discussed earlier, this explanation by P.W.1 cannot be doubted. Even if this version is not taken to be correct, assuming for the argument sake that the prosecution has not explained the injuries, it cannot be characterised as not representing the true version. There may be cases where the evidence of the prosecution is so strong, clear and cogent, inspiring confidence of the court that the non-explanation of the injuries on the person of the accused would not affect the prosecution case. The prosecution case cannot be thrown over board simple because P.W.1 did not properly explain the injuries on the person of A1. 34. The prosecution case cannot be thrown over board simple because P.W.1 did not properly explain the injuries on the person of A1. 34. We may presently refer to the various strong piece of evidence forthcoming from the materials, corroborating the version of P.W.1. Firstly evidence of P.W.1 that A1 and A2 had inflicted several cut injuries on deceased Kannadasan on the neck, upper limb and lower limb is well supported by the prosecution. From Ex.P3-Postmortem Certificate, it is seen that the deceased sustained at least 13 incised wounds as noted below: "(1)A curved incised wound over anterior aspect of left shoulder. (2)A diffuse contusion on the middle of left upper arm. (3)A horizontally placed incised wound on the post aspect of left elbow joint. (4)A horizontally placed incised wound above wound No.3. (5)An obliquely placed incised wound over the outer aspect of left upper arm near shoulder. (6)A horizontally placed incised wound on the lateral aspect of root of neck left side. (7)An obliquely placed incised wound just lateral to left eye brow. (8)An obliquely placed incised wound starting from lower aspect of left ear upto middle of left cheek. (9)An obliquely placed incised wound starting from root of nose upto upper lip left side. (10)An obliquely placed incised wound staring from mandible right upto mid line of neck. (11)A horizontally placed incised wound on the upper part of front of left leg. (12)A horizontally placed incised wound on the middle of left scapular region. (13)Four obliquely placed incised wounds one below othern infrascapular region." The injuries found on the body of deceased Kannadasan are clearly attributable to the overt act of A1 and A2 and thus corroborating the oral evidence of P.W.1. In his evidence P.W.4 has also asserted the possibility of the injuries being caused by M.Os.1 to 3. 35.Oral evidence of P.W.1 does not stand in isolation; It is corroborated by the objective and scientific findings as could be detailed below: (i)Scene of occurrence-near the house of Esakki Ammal was inspected on the night of 21.10.90. The body was found in a pool of blood. Blood was found to be splattered on the cocoanut leaves; (ii)Human Blood-'B' Group was detected in M.O.10 Banian of the deceased. In M.O.4 Mud human blood was detected. The body was found in a pool of blood. Blood was found to be splattered on the cocoanut leaves; (ii)Human Blood-'B' Group was detected in M.O.10 Banian of the deceased. In M.O.4 Mud human blood was detected. Detection of same 'B' Group human blood in M.O.6-Cocoanut Leaves confirming the evidence of P.W.1 as to the scene of occurrence; (iii)Arrest of the accused 1 and 2 and recovery of M.O.1-Palai Aruval and M.O.2-Vettu Aruval. Presence of human blood in M.O.1-Palai Aruval. This scientific evidence of strong character with high probative value, strengthens the version of the prosecution case. 36.Yet another incriminating circumstance against the accused could be pointed out viz:-arrest of the appellants and other acquitted accused and recovery of weapons. As seen from the evidence of P.W.13, P.Ws.8 and 9 the arrest and recovery is as under: Accused Date & time of arrest Place of arrest Recovery A1 22.10.90 -------- 8.45 p.m Udankudi-Kulasekaranpattinam Main Road, near Esakkiamman Temple, in the presence of P.W.8 M.O.1-Aruval ------- seized under Ex.P10 M.O.7-Lungi from A1 -------- seized under Ex.P8 A2 & other acquitted accused 30.10.90 -------- 6.40 a.m Near Manapad Bus Stop in the presence of P.W.9 M.O.2-aruval ------- seized under Ex.P13 Human Blood was detected in M.O.1-Palai Aruval. Recovery of the weapon of assault and detection of human blood in M.O.1 is the strong militating circumstance against the accused. No reasonable explanation is forthcoming from the accused. 37.Evidence of P.W.1 is well strengthened by various aspects. While so, credibility of the prosecution case is assailed on the ground of delay in registration of the F.I.R. On the basis of Ex.P1, P.W.12-Sub-Inspector of Police registered the case in Crime No.354/90 under Section 302 I.P.C under Ex.P16-F.I.R at 8.15 p.m on 22.10.90. Cover containing Ex.P16-F.I.R was handed over to P.W.10-Constable who took the same to the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur. Having come to know that Srivaikundam Judicial Magistrate was incharge of Tiruchendur Magistrate Court, P.W.10 went to Srivaikundam and handed over the cover to the Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikundam at 3.10 a.m on the next day-22.10.90. In his evidence P.W.10 has clearly explained the reason for the delay in handing over of Ex.P16-F.I.R to the Judicial Magistrate. Absolutely there is no reason to disbelieve his explanation. In cases of Express F.I.Rs, normally every endeavour is made to hand over the F.I.R to the court without delay. In his evidence P.W.10 has clearly explained the reason for the delay in handing over of Ex.P16-F.I.R to the Judicial Magistrate. Absolutely there is no reason to disbelieve his explanation. In cases of Express F.I.Rs, normally every endeavour is made to hand over the F.I.R to the court without delay. Version of P.W.10 that he first approached Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur is strengthened by the Court Seal (Tiruchendur Judicial Magistrate Court) in Ex.P16-F.I.R. The contention urged regarding the explanation by P.W.10 in handing over the F.I.R has no force. 38.The learned Sessions Judge has meticulously analysed the entire evidence and accepted the evidence of P.W.1 which is well in conformity with the facts and circumstances of the case. Prosecution has proved that the appellants are responsible in causing the bodily injuries to the deceased Kannadasan. 39.Nextly we are to consider the main point urged by the appellants that A1 acted in 'self-defence'. During questioning under Section 313 Crl.P.C in his written statement A1 has stated that Kannadasan was scolding the accused persons in insulting words and thereafter deceased Kannadasan attacked A1 and A3-Malar with iron rod and thereafter Kannadasan attacked A1 with aruval and therefore with a view to safeguard his life and the lives of his family members, A1 defending himself acted in self-defence. This contention that A1 acted in self-defence was raised before the lower court and rejected as an after thought on the following grounds: (i)that A3-Malar was not taken to the hospital for treatment; (ii)That A1 sustained injuries at the hands of deceased Kannadasan was not suggested to P.W.1, while she was in the witness box. Such a defence set forth only during questioning under Section 313 Crl.P.C is clearly an after thought. 40.Let us consider the plea that A1 had self-defence to protect himself and his family members can be sustained. Right of private defence of the body commences as soon as reasonable apprehension of danger to the body or threat to commit offence arises. Excepting the version of A1 during the questioning under Section 313 Crl.P.C there is nothing on evidence to show that the deceased posed any danger to the accused by holding out threat. P.W.1 herself has stated that deceased beat A3-Malar with hands. Since Malar has scolding deceased in filthy language, A3-Malar attacked him with wooden log. Trial court disbelieved the overt act of A3. P.W.1 herself has stated that deceased beat A3-Malar with hands. Since Malar has scolding deceased in filthy language, A3-Malar attacked him with wooden log. Trial court disbelieved the overt act of A3. That acquitted accused Malar scolded the deceased appears more probable. There is nothing to suggest that deceased posed any danger nor was he armed. In the wordy altercation, he beat A3-Malar with hands. Enraged over the same, the whole family of the accused surrounded the deceased and attacked him inflicting several incised injuries. Extensive injuries-incised wound inflicted on the upper limb and left shoulder clearly shows that the deceased was trying to ward off the attack. Despite his attempt to prevent the attack, he was violently attacked A2, causing injuries on the lower limb-lacerated injuries 6 and 10 also. (6)Incised wound .. lateral aspect of root of neck left side (10)Incised wound .. from mandible right upto mid line of neck The above deep cut injuries at the lateral aspect of root of the neck clearly manifest the single minded intention of the accused parties to commit murder. Injuries 7, 8 and 9-cut injuries on the face, left eye brow, left cheek, root of the neck is yet another indicator that deceased Kannadasan was brutally attacked. The nature and pattern of injuries clearly shows that he was subjected to violent attack. There was not one or two assailants. Deceased was surrounded by the whole family of the accused. The deceased had to run to the house of Esakki Ammal to save his life. Even after he had fallen on the cocoanut leaves of Esakki Ammal the attack persisted. From the nature of weapon, number of assailants, part of the body in which the injuries are caused, the force employed in wielding the weapons, I find no reason to hold that A1 acted in self-defence. Since the occurrence was in a sudden fight, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellants under Section 304(II) I.P.C. 41. Lastly we are left with only the question of sentence. As discussed earlier, deceased Kannadasan was subjected to violent attack. In as much as 13 injuries-incised wound were inflicted on the deceased by the deadly weapons like M.Os.1 and 2. What ought to be the proper sentence is always left to the discretion of the trial court; it is to be exercised on sound judicial principles. As discussed earlier, deceased Kannadasan was subjected to violent attack. In as much as 13 injuries-incised wound were inflicted on the deceased by the deadly weapons like M.Os.1 and 2. What ought to be the proper sentence is always left to the discretion of the trial court; it is to be exercised on sound judicial principles. In an appeal against conviction, the High Court can alter or modify or reduce the sentence only when the High Court is of the opinion that the sentence is heavy or unduly harsh or requires to be modified. Considering the dangerous weapon used and the force employed, number of injuries caused and other circumstances, sentence of imprisonment of seven years cannot be said to be harsh or disproportionate warranting interference. The age of the accused and that they are to take care of their family cannot be taken as an extenuating circumstances for reducing the sentence. 42. Trial court has meticulously analysed the evidence. The reasonings and findings of the trial court is well in conformity with the circumstances of the case. The finding of guilt and conviction is to be confirmed maintaining the sentence. 43. Therefore, the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin in S.C.23/93 (dated 31.3.97) convicting the Appellants/A1 and A2 under Section 304(II) I.P.C and the sentence of imprisonment is confirmed and this appeal is dismissed. The trial court is directed to take immediate steps by issuing warrant to secure the appellants to commit them to prison to serve the sentence.