Judgment :- First accused in S.C.31/1994 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge / Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri is the Appellant. By the Judgment dated 06.03.1997, the Appellant / A1 was convicted for the offence under Section 304(II) IPC and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years. The other accused 2 to 4 were acquitted of the charge / convicted of few charge. 2. The accused are related to each other as under: Govindan (A2) = Chinnammal (A3) | | ----------------------------------------- | | Ramasamy Palani @ Palaniammal A1 A4 P.W.2 Lakshmi is the daughter of deceased Mottaiya Gounder. Motive: Case of Prosecution is that deceased Mottaiya Gounder owns about 10 cents of land in Bairanaickanpatty, Harur Taluk. The land of the deceased is on the northern side, while the lands of the accused are on the southern side. The land of the deceased is situated in a lower level. Frequently the cattle of the accused would enter into the fields of the deceased causing damage to the crops, which resulted in frequent quarrel between the accused and the deceased. P.W.6 and other villagers have interfered and compromised the mater. Occurrence - 02.11.1992 - 8.00 AM: On 02.11.1992 - 8.00 AM P.W.2 and her father - deceased Mottaiya Gounder came to the field and found the cattle of the accused grazing in their field causing damage to the crops which resulted in wordy altercation. The deceased proceeded to inform the same to the villagers. While he was so proceeding, deceased had uttered words which enraged the accused. A1 beat the deceased with hands on his cheek. A1 hit the deceased with M.O.2 big stone on his left cheek and the deceased had fallen down. A2 Govindan had beaten the deceased on the cheek with M.O.1 - bamboo stock. When P.W.2 came to the rescue of her father, she was also beaten by the accused. A2 had beaten her on the hand with stone. A4 Palaniammal had beaten P.W.2 on the right thigh below the knee with stout stick. Upon hearing the noise of P.W.1, P.W.3 - Theerthagiri and Panjalai, Karunanidhi and others came to the scene and witnessed the occurrence. On seeing them, all four accused ran towards north with weapons. Reporting and Registration of the case: P.W.1 went to the Village Administrative Officer (P.W.4) Bairanaickenpatti. Her statement - Ex.P.1 was recorded by P.W.4 at 12.00 Noon. Upon hearing the noise of P.W.1, P.W.3 - Theerthagiri and Panjalai, Karunanidhi and others came to the scene and witnessed the occurrence. On seeing them, all four accused ran towards north with weapons. Reporting and Registration of the case: P.W.1 went to the Village Administrative Officer (P.W.4) Bairanaickenpatti. Her statement - Ex.P.1 was recorded by P.W.4 at 12.00 Noon. Thereafter, P.W.4 - Village Administrative Offence went to the spot and inspected. He came back to the office and made his endorsement in Ex.P.1 and sent the same to Harur Police Station through P.W.5 Panneer Selvam, Village Menial. One Narayanasamy, Sub Inspector of Police, who was then on duty received Ex.P-1. On the basis of Ex.P-1, he registered Ex.P.25 - First Information Report in Crime No.1452/92 under Section 302 IPC. under Ex.P-25. Investigation: On receipt of the First Information Report, P.W.15 - Inspector of Police had taken up the investigation. He went to the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.2 - Lakshmi. Her blood stained clothes - M.Os.5 and 6 were seized under Ex.P.4 - Seizure Mahazar. Scene of Occurrence was inspected in the presence of P.W.4 - Village Administrative Officer and Shanmugam. Ex.P.2 - Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.26 - Rough Plan were prepared on the scene of occurrence. On the direction of the Investigating Officer (P.W.15), P.w.9 - Photographer had taken Ex.P.12 series - Photographs. M.O.7 - blood stained mud and M.O.8 - sample mud were seized under Ex.P.3 - Seizure Mahazar. Inquest: On 03.11.1992 from 6.00 AM to 9.00 AM, witnesses were examined in the presence of panchayatdars and inquest was held on the body of deceased Mottaiya Gounder. Ex.P-27 is the Inquest Report. After the inquest, the body was sent to autopsy (with Ex.P.15 requisition) through P.W.14 - Constable. Post Mortem: P.W.11 Dr.Meena had conducted autopsy and noted the following injuuries. External injuries: Bleeding from the nostrils & both ears. (1) A lacerated wound over the left frontal and left eye brow region. (2) Lacerated wound below the left eye. Internal injuries: Injury No.2 Fracture over the right and left frontal bones, left parietal and fracture of temporal bones present and fracture over the Basal bone of anterior middle cranial fossae both the scales. Opining that the deceased died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries, P.W.11 issued Ex.P.16 - Post Mortem Certificate. Internal injuries: Injury No.2 Fracture over the right and left frontal bones, left parietal and fracture of temporal bones present and fracture over the Basal bone of anterior middle cranial fossae both the scales. Opining that the deceased died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries, P.W.11 issued Ex.P.16 - Post Mortem Certificate. After the Post Mortem, P.W.11 collected blood stained clothes of the deceased (M.Os.10 to 12) and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer under Ex.P.24 - Special Report. Arrest of the accused: On 05.11.1992 - 7.00 AM in Theerthamalai - Harur Main Road near Travellers' Bunglow, A1 to A4 were arrested. Their confession statement led to the recovery of material objects. P.W.15 - Inspector of Police had given the requisition for recording statement of the witnesses P.W.1 Jamuna, P.W.2 Lakshmi and P.W.3 Theerthagiri under Section 164 Crl.P.C. P.W.10 Judicial Magistrate has recorded statement under Section 164 Crl.P.C. of the above said witnesses. Material Objects were sent for chemical analysis. Upon completion of the investigation, P.W.15 filed the charge sheet against the accused for various offences on 28.11.1992. 3. To substantiate the charges against the accused, in the trial court, P.Ws.1 to 15 were examined. Exs.P-1 to P-28 were marked. M.Os.1 to 12 were remanded to the Court. Case of the defence is total denial and that a false case is foisted against them. On the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 6, the learned Sessions Judge found that the enmity between the accused and the deceased is proved. Finding that A1 to A3 are proved to have wrongfully restrained the deceased, they were convicted for the offence under Sec.341 IPC. On charge No.2, the learned Sessions Judge found that A1 caused the fatal injury - skull bone fracture. Further finding that there is no corresponding injury to the overt act attributed to A2, he was acquitted. The gist of the charges framed against accused 1 to 4 and the finding of the trial court is as under:- Charge Gist of the offence Against which accused Finding of Trial Court 1 U/s.341 IPC - Wrongful restraint of Mottiya Gounder A1 to A3 A1 to A3 convicted u/s.341 IPC. RI for one week. 2 U/s. 302 r/w 34 IPC Committing the murder of Mottaiya Gounder A1 and A2 A1 and A2 acquitted u/s.302 r/w.34 IPC. A1 convicted u/s.304(II)IPC. RI for five years. 3 U/s. 302 r/w.109 IPC. RI for one week. 2 U/s. 302 r/w 34 IPC Committing the murder of Mottaiya Gounder A1 and A2 A1 and A2 acquitted u/s.302 r/w.34 IPC. A1 convicted u/s.304(II)IPC. RI for five years. 3 U/s. 302 r/w.109 IPC. Instigating the Commission of murder of Mottaiya Gounder. A3 A3 - acquitted U/s.302 r/w.109 IPC. 4 U/s.323 IPC for causing simple injury to P.W.2 - Lakshmi A1 to A4 A1 and A3 acquitted u/s.323 IPC. A2 and A4 convicted u/s.323 IPC. RI for one month for A2 and A4. 4. Aggrieved over the conviction, A1 has preferred this Appeal. Seriously assailing the reasonings of the trial court and that the Prosecution has not come out with true version, the learned counsel for the Appellant interalia raised the following submissions:- (i) inconsistency in the overt act of A1 in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and that the same cannot be correlated to fracture of the skull; (ii) non-examination of independent witnesses undermines the Prosecution version; (iii) Ex.P.1 - Complaint should not be believed since the same is brought out by deliberation and the earlier report by P.W.2 is suppressed by the Prosecution; (iv) in the light of the answers forthcoming from P.W.2, A1 to A4 could not have been arrested on 05.11.1992 as alleged. Raising the above contentions, the learned counsel contended that the Prosecution suffers from serious infirmities and the trial court erred in basing the conviction upon the interested testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3. 5. Reiterating the findings of the trial court, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the trial court has rightly found that the overt act of A1 is responsible for causing the fracture of frontal bone of the deceased. It is further submitted that the conviction is rightly based upon the cogent version of P.Ws.1 to 3 and that there is no reason warranting interference. 6. Upon careful reassessment of the evidence, judgment under Appeal and other materials on record, the following points arise for determination in this Appeal: (1) Whether conviction of A1 under Sec.304(II) IPC is justified under the facts and circumstances of the case ? (2) Whether the conviction of A1 and the sentence of imprisonment warrants any interference ? 7. Deceased Mottaiya Gounder owns about 10-20 cents of land in Survey No.189 of Bairanaickenpatti. His land is situated on the northern side at a lower level. (2) Whether the conviction of A1 and the sentence of imprisonment warrants any interference ? 7. Deceased Mottaiya Gounder owns about 10-20 cents of land in Survey No.189 of Bairanaickenpatti. His land is situated on the northern side at a lower level. The lands of the accused in S.No.199/1A, 199/1C are on the southern side at a higher level. Since the land of the deceased is situated at a lower level, there was frequent quarrel between the accused and the deceased alleging that the family of the deceased are slowly cutting the land of the accused and annexing the same. On account of Varappu dispute for about 7-8 years, both families were frequently quarrelling with each other and not in talking terms. Persistent enmity between the accused and family of Mottaiya Gounder is spoken to by P.W.6, who has effected Panchayat between the parties. Enmity is thus clear from the evidence of P.W.6. Enmity heightens the probability of the occurrence. 8. On 02.11.1992 - 8.00 AM P.W.2 - Lakshmi and her father Mottaiya Gounder came to the field and found the cattle of the accused grazing in their field, which resulted in wordy altercation between P.W.2 and A3. That there was wordy altercation between P.W.2 and A3 is brought out from the evidence of P.W.1. This wordy altercation between P.W.2 and A3 provided immediate motive for the occurrence. Prosecution has thus adduced clear proof for the motive. Longstanding enmity coupled with provocative words uttered by Mottaiya Gounder probabilises the Prosecution case lending assurance to the Prosecution case. 9. Occurrence: Upon seeing the cattle grazing in his field, deceased Mottaiya Gounder proceeded to the village through ONI to inform the villagers. At that time, he was restrained by A1 to A3. A1 had beaten Mottaiya Gounder on his left cheek. He had also hit the deceased with M.O.2 - Stone on the left cheek. A2 Govindan had beaten the deceased on the cheek with Thadi. When P.W.2 tried to intervene, the accused chased P.W.2 and she was also beaten by A2 and A4. A2 had beaten P.W.2 with stone on her hand; A4 Palaniammal had beaten P.W.2 with Thadi on the right thigh below knee. P.Ws.1 to 3 have clearly narrated the occurrence. A2 Govindan had beaten the deceased on the cheek with Thadi. When P.W.2 tried to intervene, the accused chased P.W.2 and she was also beaten by A2 and A4. A2 had beaten P.W.2 with stone on her hand; A4 Palaniammal had beaten P.W.2 with Thadi on the right thigh below knee. P.Ws.1 to 3 have clearly narrated the occurrence. Before adverting to the arguments advanced on 'Suppression of earliest Report' and the inconsistency in the overt act of A1, the points urged assailing reliability of P.Ws.1 to 3 could be considered. 10. P.W.2 Lakshmi is the married daughter of Mottaiya Gounder. She, having been separated from her husband, is living with her father - deceased Mottaiya Gounder. On the date of occurrence - 02.11.1992, she came to the field along with the deceased Mottaiya Gounder. Thus P.W.2 has clearly explained her presence in the field at the time of occurrence. Presence of P.W.2 cannot be doubted since she is an injured witness. As noted earlier, P.W.2 was also attacked by A2 and A4. 11. That P.W.2 was injured in the occurrence is proved by medical evidence also. After the occurrence, P.W.2 went to Harur Government Hospital, where she was treated by P.W.12 Dr.Jayaraman. From Ex.P-17 - Accident Register, it is seen that P.W.2 sustained the following injuries:- (1) lacerated injury over right forehead, bleeding present; (2) lacerated injury over left posterior part of forearm near elbow joint, bleeding present; (3) reddish contusion over right leg; (4) reddish contusion over right gluteal region; For causing injury to P.W.2, A2 and A4 are convicted under Sec.323 IPC (Charge No.4), which we may refer shortly. Though P.W.2 is the daughter and related to Mottaiya Gounder, the fact remains that P.W.2 is the injured witness. Being the injured witness, her evidence stands on higher footing and entitled to great weight. Her evidence has its relevance and efficacy, apart from lending assurance to her presence in the scene of occurrence. Cogent and convincing reasons are essential for disbelieving her version. No such convincing reasons are forthcoming to discard her testimony. 12. Land of father of P.W.1 is situated on the southern side. On the date of occurrence - 02.11.1992 - 8.30 AM, P.W.1 went to the field for harvesting Samai crops. Upon hearing the noise of the wordy altercation between P.W.2 and A3, she came to the spot and witnessed the occurrence. 12. Land of father of P.W.1 is situated on the southern side. On the date of occurrence - 02.11.1992 - 8.30 AM, P.W.1 went to the field for harvesting Samai crops. Upon hearing the noise of the wordy altercation between P.W.2 and A3, she came to the spot and witnessed the occurrence. Evidence of P.W.1 is comprehensive narrating the occurrence from the beginning - that Mottaiya Gounder proceeding through ONI, his restraint by A1 to A3, attack on deceased and P.W.2. P.W.1 has thus clearly explained her presence. 13. Neither presence of P.W.1 nor her testimony could be doubted on the ground that she is related to the deceased. There is no presumption that a distant related witness is an unreliable witness. It is not merely sufficient to attack the evidence on the ground of interestedness when the presence of P.W.1 is well proved. 14. Prosecution has examined yet another eye witness - Theerthagiri (P.W.3) who owns land on the southern side. His lands are situated at a distance of about 1-1/4 furlong from the scene of occurrence. According to him, he heard the noise and came to the scene and saw the occurrence from about 50-60 feet. Though the lands of P.W.3 are little far away, his version that on hearing the noise, he came to the spot and witnessing the occurrence cannot be doubted. P.W.3 has also clearly narrated the occurrence and the overt act of A1. 15. Inspite of long cross examination, nothing worth is elicited undermining their version. Evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 when tested for its creditworthiness is trustworthy. There is no erroneous approach by the trial court in assessing the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. 16. Let us consider the contentious points of "intentional infirmity" on the overt act of A1 and whether it undermines the Prosecution case. For better appreciation of the contentious points, at the risk of repetition, we may refer to the overt act of A1 in hitting the deceased. Witness Overt act of A1 P.W.1 .... 17. P.W.2 has only stated This is very much relied upon by the accused / Appellant in attacking the reliability of P.W.2 and the entire version of the Prosecution case. The version of P.W.2 does not merely mean beating with hands. It refers to the general attack by A1 on the left cheek. Witness Overt act of A1 P.W.1 .... 17. P.W.2 has only stated This is very much relied upon by the accused / Appellant in attacking the reliability of P.W.2 and the entire version of the Prosecution case. The version of P.W.2 does not merely mean beating with hands. It refers to the general attack by A1 on the left cheek. Non-mention of hit by the stone by P.W.2 would not in any way undermine the Prosecution version. When the overt act of A1 that hit the deceased with M.O.2 - big stone on the left cheek is clearly brought out by the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3. 18. Whether the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 - hitting on the left cheek by A1 is corroborated by medical evidence is nextly to be considered. During autopsy P.W.11 - Dr.Meena has noted:- Bleeding from the nostrils & both ears. (1) A lacerated wound over the left frontal and left eye brow region. (2) Lacerated wound below the left eye. The lacerated wound on the left eye and the left eye-brow well correspond to the overt act attributed to A1, thereby strengthening the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. External injury No.2 has caused skull bone fracture. Injury No.2 Fracture over the right and left frontal bones, left parietal and fracture of temporal bones present and fracture over the Basal bone of anterior middle cranial fossae both the scales. The brain was found to be crushed. In vernacular, P.W.11 has translated the injury to the brain as: 19. On the nature of internal injuries, much arguments are advanced that by a mere hit by a stone, such extensive internal injury would not have been caused and that the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is bristling with contradictions. Further arguments are advanced on the expression used by the witnesses Seriously assailing the Prosecution case and the improbability of such deep fracture injury, the learned counsel contended that the Prosecution as projected is not a truthful version. This contention lacks in substance. The expressions @moj;jhh;. Fj;jpdhh;@ are only the modes of describing an attack in an occurrence. The witnesses cannot be expected to exactly use the same expression while narrating an incident. That apart while narrating the occurrence, by and large people only generally recall the general attack. This contention lacks in substance. The expressions @moj;jhh;. Fj;jpdhh;@ are only the modes of describing an attack in an occurrence. The witnesses cannot be expected to exactly use the same expression while narrating an incident. That apart while narrating the occurrence, by and large people only generally recall the general attack. When they are deposing in the court sometime after the occurrence, they cannot be expected to give photographic version of the occurrence. This is all the more so, when the witnesses before the Court are the rural witnesses. When the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is tested under reasonable norms of conduct, in my view, the trial court has rightly accepted their version. 20. Other aspects of Corroboration: Evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is further corroborated by the objective findings during investigation as detailed under: (i) scene of occurrence was inspected at 6.45 PM on 02.11.1992; body of Mottaiya Gounder was found in pool of blood - (ii) detection of human blood in M.O.7 - blood stained mud seized from the scene of occurrence. This circumstance is evidence of formidable character strengthening the Prosecution version. 21. Yet another militating circumstance against the accused could be pointed out. A1 to A4 were arrested on 05.11.1992 7.00 AM in Theerthamalai - Harur Main Road near Travellers' Bunglow. P.W.15 - Inspector of Police and P.W.8 have consistently spoken about the arrest and recovery. The arrest of the accused and the relevant recovery is as under: Admissible portion of Accused confession Recovery Statement (1) (2) (3) ------- ----------- --------- A1 Ex.P-5 Heavy Blunt M.O.2 Stone under Ex.P.10-Mahazar (1) (2) (3) A2 Ex.P-7 M.O.1 Bamboo Stick under Ex.P.10-Mahazar A3 Ex.P-8 M.Os.3 & 4 - Stones from Thorny Bush in Ottupallam under Ex.P.11-Mahazar A4 Ex.P-9 M.O.4 - Stone under Ex.P.11 - Mahazar P.Ws.1 and 2 have identified M.Os.1 to 4 as the weapons wielded by the accused. Recovery of weapons - M.Os.1 to 4 at the instance of the accused is a strong militating circumstance particularly against A1. At the instance of A1, M.O.2 - big stone was seized which is described in Ex.P.10 - M.O.2 - big stone was shown to P.W.11, who has agreed the possibility of skull bone fracture with corresponding crushing of brain with M.O.2 - big stone being caused. Recovery of M.O.2 at the instance of A1 inevitably strong militating circumstance against A1 which he has not explained. 22. Recovery of M.O.2 at the instance of A1 inevitably strong militating circumstance against A1 which he has not explained. 22. Arrest and recovery of A1 to A4 on 05.11.1992 is very much attacked on the basis of answers elicited from P.W.2. In her cross examination, P.W.2 has stated that the Police came to the spot on 03.11.1992 - a day after the occurrence and that the Police had taken the accused and also seized the stones and sticks. Ofcourse, P.W.2 has stated that the police had taken away the accused on 03.11.1992 and the stones and sticks. Such answers elicited during the cross examination of P.W.2 would not in any way shatter the Prosecution version. P.W.2 is a simple rustic woman. Normally in cross examination, questions are put to the witnesses and they are compelled to say "Yes" or "No. Overawed by the Court circumstances, P.W.2 might have answered "yes" for the questions put to her at the fag end of her cross examination. The answers so elicited from P.W.2 cannot affect the consistent version of P.W.15 and P.W.4 regarding the arrest, confession and recovery. 23. Contention on Ex.P.1 - Complaint: After the occurrence, injured P.W.2 had gone to Harur Government Hospital for treatment. She was admitted in the Hospital at 1.40 PM on 02.11.1992. On the admission of P.W.2 in the Hospital, P.W.12 Dr.Jayaraman had sent Ex.P.18 - Intimation to the Police Station. Even while P.W.2 was in the hospital, P.W.2 gave her statement on the occurrence to P.W.4 - Village Administrative Officer at 12.00 Noon. After inspecting the spot, P.W.4 made endorsement in Ex.P-1 and sent the same to Harur Police Station at 4.00 PM. P.W.2 who was in hospital has also stated that she has given a complaint to the Police. On this aspect, much arguments is advanced contending that the statement of P.W.2 is suppressed; whereas Ex.P-1 is prepared after much consultation and deliberation with the assistance of Village Administrative Officer. As noted earlier, P.W.2 is a simple rustic woman. She might not have known the difference between the initial complaint or the statement recorded under Sec.161(3) Crl.P.C. from her by P.W.15 - Inspector of Police during investigation. Her version that she has given a statement before the Police does not mean that she had set the law in motion. 24. As noted earlier, P.W.2 sustained as many as four bleeding injuries. Her version that she has given a statement before the Police does not mean that she had set the law in motion. 24. As noted earlier, P.W.2 sustained as many as four bleeding injuries. To control the bleeding and to get immediate treatment P.W.2 might have hurried to the hospital. The other eye witness - P.W.1 has approached the Village Administrative Officer for complaining about the occurrence. There cannot be said to be any attempt to suppress the statement from P.W.2. Arguments advanced on the admission of P.W.2 in the hospital and the delay in registration of Ex.P.25 - First Information Report (at 4.00 PM) has no merits. This point was raised before the trial court and after considering the same, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the same. 25. Charge No.1 : U/s.341 against A1 to A3: This charge is framed against A1 to A3 for wrongfully restraining Mottaiya Gounder. After seeing the cattle grazing in the field, Mottaiya Gounder proceeded through ONI to inform the Village Panchayatdars. While he was proceeding in the ONI, A1 to A3 have restrained Mottaiya Gounder. They restrained Mottaiya Gounder and that he was prevented from further proceeding is well brought out by the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. Since wrongful restraint is well proved, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly found A1 to A3 guilty under Sec.341 IPC and the same is to be sustained. 26. Charge No.2 - A1 and A2 - U/s.302 read with 34 IPC. A1 is proved to have caused the injuries to the left cheek, left eye of Mottaiya Gounder with M.O.2 - stone. As noted earlier, in Ex.P.10 - Mahazar, M.O.2 is described as Extensive deep injury - skull bone fracture is caused by the overt act of A1. There is no pre-meditation for causing the injury. Injury was caused in a sudden fight on a small issue. Though there was enmity between the parties, only on cattle grazing and the resultant wordy altercation between P.W.2 and A3, there was fight between the parties. During the sudden fight, A1 struck the deceased with M.O.2 - stone. From Ex.P.12 series - Photographs, it is seen that in and around the scene of occurrence everywhere there are small and big stones. In the heat of passion, A1 might have taken a stone and hit the deceased. During the sudden fight, A1 struck the deceased with M.O.2 - stone. From Ex.P.12 series - Photographs, it is seen that in and around the scene of occurrence everywhere there are small and big stones. In the heat of passion, A1 might have taken a stone and hit the deceased. Considering the circumstances and the nature of attack, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted A1 under Sec.304 (II) IPC. The finding of guilt of A1 under Sec.304(II) IPC and the conviction are to be sustained. 27. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the attack and the nature of injuries, the trial court has imposed sentence of imprisonment of five years Rigorous Imprisonment upon A1. That sentence of imprisonment is neither harsh nor disproportionate, calling for modification or reduction. 28. Charge No.4 under Sec.323 IPC against A1 to A4: For causing injury to P.W.2, A1 to A4 are charged under Section 323 IPC. On the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 finding that only A2 and A4 beat P.W.2, the learned Sessions Judge convicted A2 and A4 under Sec.323 IPC; A1 and A3 were acquitted under this charge. Since A2 and A4 are not before the Court, evidence on this charge need not be gone into. Suffice it to point out that the finding of the trial court that A2 and A4 caused injury to P.W.2 strengthens that P.W.2 was an injured witness in the occurrence confirming her presence at the time of occurrence. 29. The learned Sessions Judge has carefully considered the evidence in the light of the contentious points urged. The reasonings and finding of guilt are in conformity with facts and circumstances of the case. The finding of guilt, conviction and the sentence of imprisonment are to be maintained and this Appeal is bound to fail. 30. Therefore, the judgment of I Additional Sessions Judge / Chief Judicial Magistrate in S.C.31/1994 (dated 06.03.1997), Krishnagiri convicting A1 under Sec.304(II) IPC and sentence of imprisonment is confirmed and this Appeal is dismissed. The trial court is directed to take immediate steps for securing the accused to commit him to prison for serving the remaining period of sentence.