Judgment :- Accused 1 and 2 in S.C.243/1995 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli are the Appellants. By the Judgment dated 08.10.1996, the trial court has convicted the Appellants / accused 1 and 2 under Section 304(I) read with S.34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years each and also imposing fine of Rs.5,000/= each. Out of the fine amount, Rs.5,000/= was awarded as compensation to P.W.1 - Thoppuli @ Uma. 2. Deceased Sundar is the husband of P.W.1. Accused 1 and 2 are the brothers and are sons of Vasantha. Both accused and the deceased are all residents of Trichy Railway Colony, Bells Ground Slum Area. 3. Motive and prior occurrence: Sometime prior to the occurrence, brother of accused had taken the sons of P.W.1 and deceased to Kumbakonam and engaged them in a hotel cleaning work. Since then, the family of deceased had developed resentment towards the family of the accused. There is a well adjacent to the house of the deceased. On 02.05.1994 Vasantha - mother of the accused came to the house of P.W.1/deceased to fetch water from the well. At that time, the deceased questioned the conduct of her son in taking their children to Kumbakonam and employing them for cleaning work in the hotel. Such questioning of the deceased resulted in wordy altercation. At that time, deceased Sundar had beaten Vasantha and pushed her down. Vasantha left saying that he would inform the same to her sons. 4. Occurrence: On the same day - 02.05.1994 - 9.15 PM, the deceased came out of the house to brighten the Hurricane Lamp. At that time, Accused 1 and 2 armed with Aruval came to the house of the deceased. A1 inflicted cut injuries on the head of the deceased Sundar. Sundar had fallen down again, and in order to save himself when he was about to run, A2 inflicted cut injury on the left neck. After Sundar had fallen down, accused 1 and 2 indiscriminately cut the deceased on the head and on the ear. When Sundar tried to ward off the attack, he sustained injuries in the right hand also. The occurrence was witnessed by P.W.1 - Thoppuli @ Uma, P.W.2-Subramanian, P.W.3-Mahalakshmi, P.W.4-Kasthuri and P.W.5-Murthy. When P.Ws.1 to 5 shouted, accused 1 and 2 ran away with Aruval. P.W.2 brought the auto of P.W.6 - Adaikalaraj. When Sundar tried to ward off the attack, he sustained injuries in the right hand also. The occurrence was witnessed by P.W.1 - Thoppuli @ Uma, P.W.2-Subramanian, P.W.3-Mahalakshmi, P.W.4-Kasthuri and P.W.5-Murthy. When P.Ws.1 to 5 shouted, accused 1 and 2 ran away with Aruval. P.W.2 brought the auto of P.W.6 - Adaikalaraj. Injured Sundar was taken to Trichy Government Hospital. 5. Treatment: Sundar was admitted in the Government Hospital, Trichy at 10.15 PM by P.W.10 - Dr.Shanmugam. Sundar informed the doctor that he sustained injuries due to assault by known persons. P.W.10 treated Sundar at 10.15 PM. Noting the injuries - varying sizes of incised gaping wounds on the scalp, on the left neck and right hand of Sundar, P.W.10 issued Ex.P.8 - Accident Register. Sundar was admitted in the Emergency Ward. 6. Registration of the case: On admission of Sundar in the hospital, intimation was sent to the Police Station. On receipt of intimation from Trichy Government Hospital, P.W.12 - Sub Inspector of Police, Palakkarai went to the hospital. Statement of Sundar (Ex.P-9) was recorded by P.W.12, which was attested by P.W.10 - Duty Doctor. On the basis of Ex.P-9, a case was registered in Crime No.550/1994 under Section 307 IPC under Ex.P.11 - First Information Report. 7. Injured Sundar succumbed to injuries at 11.40 PM. On receipt of phone message from the hospital about the death of Sundar, P.W.12 altered the First Information Report into one under Section 302 IPC under Ex.P.12 - Express Report. 8. Investigation: Upon receipt of copy of First Information Report, P.W.10 - Inspector of Police had taken up the investigation. On 03.05.1994 - 4.00 AM, the scene of occurrence - Bells Ground Slum Area was inspected in the presence of P.W.1 and Paramasivam. Ex.P.1 - Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.13 - Rough Plan were prepared on the scene of occurrence. M.O.1 - blood stained mud and M.O.2 - sample mud were seized under Ex.P.2 - Seizure Mahazar. P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and inquest was held on the body of deceased Sundar. Ex.P-14 is the Inquest Report. After the inquest, the body was sent to autopsy. 9. Post Mortem: Pursuant to the requisition from the Inspector of Police - P.W.13, P.W.11 - Dr.Muthukumar had conducted the autopsy on the body of deceased Sundar. He has noted the following:- Incised gaping wound ... left ear; left parietal scalp; right parietal scalp; lateral neck; Laceration ... After the inquest, the body was sent to autopsy. 9. Post Mortem: Pursuant to the requisition from the Inspector of Police - P.W.13, P.W.11 - Dr.Muthukumar had conducted the autopsy on the body of deceased Sundar. He has noted the following:- Incised gaping wound ... left ear; left parietal scalp; right parietal scalp; lateral neck; Laceration ... right ring finger. Neck region ... left carotid artery and internal jugular vains are cut in the middle of the neck. Skull ... right side parietal bone fracture. P.W.11 opined that the deceased died of injuries sustained to carotid artery and internal jugular vein leading to carotid artery and haemorrhage. Ex.P.10 is the Post Mortem Certificate. 10. Arrest of the accused: On 05.05.1994 near Senthenneerpuram Roundana, A2 was arrested in the presence of P.W.8 - Village Administrative Officer. When being interrogated, A2 voluntarily confessed to his guilt. Admissible portion of the confession statement - Ex.P-3 led to the recovery of M.O.3 - Aruval from near Mariamman Temple Bells ground under Ex.P.4 - Seizure Mahazar. M.O.4 - blood stained shirt of A2 was also seized under Ex.P.5 - Mahazar. 11. P.W.15 Inspector of Police had taken up further investigation on 12.06.1994. A1 was arrested on 16.06.1994 near Guntur Burma Colony, Ammunition Factory. Pursuant to his confession statement (Ex.P-6), M.O.5 Aruval from near the thorny bush in Bells Ground was seized under Ex.P.7 - Seizure Mahazar. The seized material objects were sent for chemical analysis. On completion of the investigation, the accused were charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 12. To substantiate the charges against the accused, in the trial court, P.Ws.1 to 15 were examined. Exs.P-1 to P-18 were marked. M.Os.1 to 8 were also marked onbehalf of the Prosecution. When the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of Crl.P.C.about the incriminating circumstances and evidence, they denied their complicity and pleaded that a false case is foisted against them. 13. Upon consideration of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found that the evidence of natural witness, who witnessed the occurrence, is well corroborated by the evidence of another eye witness - P.W.5. In the view of the trial court, hostility of P.Ws.2 to 4 would not in any way undermine the Prosecution case. 13. Upon consideration of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found that the evidence of natural witness, who witnessed the occurrence, is well corroborated by the evidence of another eye witness - P.W.5. In the view of the trial court, hostility of P.Ws.2 to 4 would not in any way undermine the Prosecution case. Considering the dying declaration of the deceased - Ex.P-9, the learned Sessions Judge found that the omission of P.W.10 to make endorsement about the conscious mental condition of the deceased would not in any way affect the reliability of Ex.P.9 - dying declaration. Finding that there is no convincing ground to discard the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5 and Ex.P-9, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty. Further finding that the accused inflicted cut injury in a sudden fight and that by inflicting injuries on the neck and the head they had the knowledge and intention to commit the murder, the accused were convicted under Section 304(I) IPC and sentenced to imprisonment and fine as aforesaid. 14. Aggrieved over their conviction, Appellants have preferred this Appeal. Elaborately taking me through the evidence, the learned counsel for the Appellants / accused seriously assailed the dying declaration contending that deceased Sundar having sustained such extensive injury on the vital organs would not have been in a position to make a statement. Drawing the attention of the Court to Ex.P-9, the learned counsel further submitted that the non-endorsement in Ex.P-9 as to the fit mental condition and consciousness of the deceased would seriously undermine the reliability of Ex.P.9 - dying declaration and the trial court erred in basing the conviction upon Ex.P.9 - dying declaration. Attacking the evidence of P.W.1 that she is related and a partisan witness, the learned counsel further submitted that P.W.1 being closely related and her presence being highly doubtful in view of the answer elicited from P.w.6, it is contended that the trial court ought not to have based the conviction upon the evidence of P.W.1. Likewise on the basis of the answers elicited from P.W.5 during the cross examination, the reliability of P.W.5 is also very much assailed. 15. Countering the arguments, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the presence of P.W.1 being the wife of the deceased cannot be doubted and that the trial court rightly acted upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5. 15. Countering the arguments, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the presence of P.W.1 being the wife of the deceased cannot be doubted and that the trial court rightly acted upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5. It is further submitted that the hostility of P.Ws.2 to 4 would not in any way undermine the Prosecution case. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that when P.W.12 - Sub Inspector of Police is said to have recorded the statement of Sundar, absence of endorsement of the Duty Doctor as to the fit mental condition would not in any way affect the reliability of Ex.P.9 - dying declaration. 16. Upon careful re-assessment of evidence and other materials on record, judgment of the trial court and the submissions of both sides, the following points arise for determination in this Appeal; (i) Whether A1 and A2 are proved to be responsible for the homicidal death of deceased Sundar ? (ii) Whether the guilt of the accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt and whether the trial court is right in finding them guilt ? (iii) Whether the conviction of the Appellants / A1 and A2 under Section 304(I) IPC and sentence of Imprisonment warrants any interference ? 17. Prosecution mainly relies upon the following evidence; (i) oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5; (ii) dying declaration - Ex.P-9; (iii)objective findings during the investigation like arrest, recovery, etc. It is to be seen, whether the evidence adduced on these aspects convincingly establish the guilt of the accused. 18. Prior occurrence and motive: Younger brother of the accused had taken the sons of P.W.1 - Thoppuli @ Uma and deceased Sundar to Kumbakonam and engaged them in a cleaning work in the hotel. Since the sons of deceased were employed in such menial work - removing the cleaning of the eaten leaves, it is quite natural for the family of P.W.1 felt humiliated. Since the whole family was so insulted, it is quite natural for deceased Sundar having questioned Vasantha, the mother of the accused when she came to the house of the deceased to fetch water from the well at 6.00 PM on 02.05.1994. 19. Both accused and deceased are residing in Bells Ground Slum Area. The house of the accused is situated about ten houses away from the house of the deceased. 19. Both accused and deceased are residing in Bells Ground Slum Area. The house of the accused is situated about ten houses away from the house of the deceased. House of deceased Sundar is on the southern side of the mud road - shown as Sl.No.5 in Ex.P-13. On the north of house of the deceased is the well shown as Sl.No.2 in Ex.P-13. The bath room of the deceased, where the deceased had gone to brighten up the hurricane lamp, is also on the northern side just abutting the well. Vasantha - mother of the accused came to fetch water at 6.00 PM on 02.05.1994. When the deceased questioned her about the conduct of her son, it resulted in wordy altercation and the deceased had beaten her and pushed her down. P.Ws.1 and 5 specifically spoken about this prior occurrence. 20. Vasantha left saying that she would inform her sons about the beating by the deceased. The house of the accused, which is about ten houses away from the house of the deceased, is not shown in the Plan - Ex.P.13. It is quite natural that felt humiliated at the hands of the deceased, Vasantha informed the same to her sons. Enraged over the same, the accused armed with Aruval - M.Os.3 and 5 came near the house of the deceased. The deceased came out of the house to brighten up the hurricane lamp, which is kept in the wall of the bath room. A1 cut Sundar on his head. When Sundar had fallen down and tried to save himself and about to run, A2 inflicted cut injury on his left neck. After Sundar had fallen, A1 and A2 had indiscriminately cut the deceased on the head and on his ear. Sundar also sustained injuries on his right hand, when he tried to ward off the attack. P.Ws.1 and 5 have narrated the occurrence. 21. Evidence of P.W.1 is seriously attacked on two grounds; (i) that she is closely related and a partisan witness; (ii) on the night of 02.05.1994 P.W.1 had gone to cinema; It is not the law that the evidence of a related witness should be equated to that of a tainted witness. When the Court is analysing the evidence of a related witness, prudence requires to be careful in weighing their evidence. When the Court is analysing the evidence of a related witness, prudence requires to be careful in weighing their evidence. What is to be considered is whether the occurrence narrated by them carries ring of truth and whether consistent with the other facts and circumstances. It would be unreasonable to reject the evidence given by the witnesses merely on the ground that they are partisan or interested. While appreciating the evidence of P.W.1, the learned Sessions Judge has adopted the judicial approach in analysing the evidence of P.W.1 cautiously. Evidence of P.W.1 cannot be thrown overboard merely because she is the wife. 22. Presence of P.W.1 is denied that she had gone to cinema on the night of 02.05.1994. P.W.1 has clearly denied that suggestion put to her during the cross examination. Presence of P.W.1 at the time of occurrence is sought to be discredited by the evidence of P.W.6 - auto driver, in whose auto Sundar was taken to the hospital. In his evidence, P.W.6 has stated that only P.W.2 had taken the injured wailing Sundar in the auto and only at that time P.W.1 had returned from the cinema. On the strength of version of P.W.6, presence of P.W.1 is sought to be discredited by the accused. P.W.6 was partly treated hostile. While being so, no weight could be attached to the version of P.W.6. His attempt to shatter the Prosecution case by denying the presence of P.W.1 does not merit acceptance. Presence of P.W.1 is confirmed by more than one aspect. In Ex.P.8 - Accident Register, it is stated that Sundar was brought to the hospital by Uma (P.W.1). Further, in Ex.P.9 - Statement also, it is clearly stated that Sundar was taken to the hospital by P.Ws.1 and 2. That apart, she is stated to be an eye witness in Ex.P.14 - Inquest Report. When that being so, no credence could be attached to P.w.6 denying the presence of P.W.1. 23. P.W.1 being the wife of deceased. The house of the deceased is situated just on the southern side of the scene of occurrence. Being a lady, in all probabilities, at 9.15 PM, she would have been present in the house and witnessed the occurrence. The hurricane lamp is on the northern side of the house, which was brightened up by Sundar. Narration of occurrence by P.w.1 inspires the confidence of the court. Being a lady, in all probabilities, at 9.15 PM, she would have been present in the house and witnessed the occurrence. The hurricane lamp is on the northern side of the house, which was brightened up by Sundar. Narration of occurrence by P.w.1 inspires the confidence of the court. The learned Sessions Judge, who had the opportunity of seeing P.W.1 has accepted the version of P.W.1, as inspiring the confidence of the Court. There is no reason to differ from the same. 24. Evidence of P.W.1 does not stand in isolation and is corroborated by the evidence of another eye witness - P.W.5. P.W.5 - Murthy is a resident of the same Bells Ground Slum Area, residing in next adjacent lane. P.W.5 had spoken about the prior occurrence at 6.00 AM and also about the occurrence at 9.15 PM. His version in the chief examination on the overt acts of A1 and A2 is in unison with P.W.1. 25. The following answers were elicited from P.W.5 - Moorthy during the cross examination;- Perhaps overawed by the court atmosphere and the persistent cross examination, P.W.5 has answered in the affirmative to the questions put to him during the cross examination. Despite the above answers elicited during the cross examination, the version of P.W.5 on the overt act of the accused 1 and 2 remains unshaken. Evidence of P.W.5 in the chief examination cannot be discarded on certain infirm answers elicited during the cross examination. Evidence of P.W.5 substantially corroborates the version of P.W.1. 26. Having carefully gone through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5, I find their evidence remains unshaken even after searching cross examination. Nothing worth is elicited affecting their credibility. 27. Complicity of the accused and their identification is sought to be assailed on the ground of paucity of light. Drawing the attention of the Court to Ex.P.13 - Plan and contending that there is no burning lights around the place, the learned counsel for the accused contended that in the absence of evidence showing sufficiency of lights, identification of the accused becomes unreliable. No doubt, in and around the scene of occurrence, there is no street lights. The hurricane lamp which is kept on the wall of the bath room, which the deceased brightened up at the time of occurrence, is on the southern side. The scene of occurrence is on the southern edge of the road. No doubt, in and around the scene of occurrence, there is no street lights. The hurricane lamp which is kept on the wall of the bath room, which the deceased brightened up at the time of occurrence, is on the southern side. The scene of occurrence is on the southern edge of the road. Merely because there is no street light, the contention assailing the identification of the accused has no force. The accused are no strangers to P.Ws.1 and 5 and are already known to them. Even in a full dark night, well known persons could easily be identified. That apart, a person could also be identified by their voice also. While being so, the arguments advanced onbehalf of the accused on the ground of paucity of light and assailing the identification has no force. P.Ws.1 and 5 absolutely have no reason to falsely implicate the accused. 28. The oral evidence is well strengthened by medical evidence. While conducting autopsy, P.W.11 Dr.Muthu Kumar noted the varying sizes of incised wounds on the neck, scalp and on the right index finger and further noted the following:- Neck region: the left carotid artery and internal jugular veins are cut in the middle of the neck. Skull : right side parietal bone fracture horizontally Fracture of the skull and the cut injury on the neck clearly correspond to the overt acts of A1 and A2 respectively. Likewise the injury on the right index finger is the defensive injury, which is clearly spoken by P.Ws.1 and 5. Thus the medical evidence is well consistent with the oral evidence. 29. Evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5 is also strengthened by the objective finding during the investigation. Scene of occurrence was inspected by P.W.13 - Inspector of Police on 03.05.1994 - 4.00 AM. Clotted blood was found on the scene of occurrence - M.O.1 - blood stained mud was seized from the scene of occurrence. Detection of human blood in M.O.1 confirms the Prosecution case regarding the scene of occurrence. 30. A1 was arrested on 16.06.1994 near Guntur Burma Colony near Ammunition Factory. When being questioned, he voluntarily confessed to the guilt. Pursuant to his confession statement, M.O.5 - Aruval was seized under Ex.P.7 - Seizure Mahazar. Likewise, on the basis of the confession statement of A2 - M.O.3 - Aruval was seized under Ex.P-4 Seizure Mahazar. 30. A1 was arrested on 16.06.1994 near Guntur Burma Colony near Ammunition Factory. When being questioned, he voluntarily confessed to the guilt. Pursuant to his confession statement, M.O.5 - Aruval was seized under Ex.P.7 - Seizure Mahazar. Likewise, on the basis of the confession statement of A2 - M.O.3 - Aruval was seized under Ex.P-4 Seizure Mahazar. A2 produced his shirt - M.O.4, which was seized under Ex.P.5 . Human blood - 'B' group blood, blood group of the deceased was detected in M.O.4 - shirt of A2. Detection of human blood in the shirt and recovery of the Aruvals at the instance of the accused is the formidable circumstance militating against the accused. No reasonable explanation is forthcoming from the accused explaining the same. 31. Mainly relied upon by the Prosecution is the statement of Sundar - Ex.P-9 recorded by P.W.12 - Sub Inspector of Police on the night of 02.05.1994. On the basis of Ex.P.9 - Statement, a case was initially registered under Section 307 IPC. After recording of Ex.P.9, within short time, Sundar died at 11.40 PM and the case was altered into under Section 302 IPC. In Ex.P.9 - Statement recorded from Sundar, P.W.10 - Dr.Shanmugam has attested as "recorded before me". While making endorsement, P.W.10 has not specifically stated anything about the fit mental condition and consciousness of the deceased to make the Statement. On this ground, Ex.P.9 is subjected to attack contending that in the absence of any endorsement in Ex.P-9 as to the consciousness and mentally fit condition of Sundar, no reliable could be placed upon Ex.P.9. 32. Of course in Ex.P.9 - statement, only LTI of Sundar is obtained. P.W.10 has not certified in making the endorsement as to the mentally fit condition of Sundar. But P.W.1 in her evidence has clearly stated that her husband was talking and in fit mental condition. In order to satisfy whether the deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration, normally the court would look up to the medical opinion. But the absence of medical opinion as to the fit mental condition would be of no significance where the eye witness has said that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make the dying declaration. 33. But the absence of medical opinion as to the fit mental condition would be of no significance where the eye witness has said that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make the dying declaration. 33. As noted earlier, deceased Sundar has sustained neck injuries - cutting the jugular vein and extensive deep injuries causing fracture of the skull bone. His statement Ex.P-9 was recorded around 10.30 PM. He died at 11.40 PM. Pointing out the same, the learned counsel for the accused submitted, when Sundar died within short interval of time and having sustained injury on the neck and jugular vein Sundar would not have been in a position to make the statement. In this regard, reliance is placed upon (i) 2002 SCC (Crl.) 211 ;(ii) 1999 SCC (Crl.)1176; (iii) 2002 SCC (Crl.) 1491 34. Considering all the decisions, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Laxman's case (2002 SCC (Crl.) 1491) held that the court must decide that the declarant was in a fit statement of mind to make the statement. It was further held that mere absence of doctor's certification as to the fitness of the declarant's state of mind would not ipso facto render the dying declaration as unacceptable. We may usefully refer to the relevant findings of the Supreme Court which reads thus: "The court also must further decide that the deceased was in a fit state of mind and had the opportunity to observe and identify the assailant. Normally, therefore, the court in order to satisfy whether the deceased was in a fit mental condition to make the dying declaration looks up to the medical opinion. But where the eyewitnesses state that the deceased was in a fit and conscious state to make the declaration, the medical opinion will not prevail, nor can it be said that since there is no certification of the doctor as to the fitness of the mind of the declarant, the dying declaration is not acceptable....Consequently, what evidential value or weight has to be attached to such statement necessarily depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. What is essentially required is that the person who records a dying declaration must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind.... What is essentially required is that the person who records a dying declaration must be satisfied that the deceased was in a fit state of mind.... A certification by the doctor is essentially a rule of caution and therefore the voluntary and truthful nature of the declaration can be established otherwise". Thus the Supreme Court has well laid down that the doctor's certification as to the evidence of the declarant's state of mind is only a rule of caution. 35. In the instant case also, mere absence of certification as to declarant's state of mind would not in any way render Ex.P-9 as unreliable. As noted earlier, in her evidence P.W.1 has stated P.W.6 - auto driver, who was treated hostile, has also stated that while he went to take Sundar, Sundar was weeping and crying out of pain. Thus the consciousness and fit mental state of Sundar is well brought out by the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 6. The contention urged by the accused on the improbability of Sundar to make the dying declaration does not merit acceptance. 36. Ex.P.9 - dying declaration is only a piece of evidence relied upon by the Prosecution. The complicity of the accused in causing the fatal injury to deceased Sundar is well proved by the evidence of eye witnesses P.Ws.1 and 5. Therefore, even de hors the dying declaration, the case of the Prosecution is well proved by the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5 and other circumstances. Upon careful consideration of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly acted upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5 and the dying declaration. The reasonings and finding of guilt are well in conformity with the facts and evidence. 37. Nextly to be seen whether the conviction under Section 304(I) IPC is correct and whether the sentence of imprisonment of seven years each is disproportionate. On being learnt that their mother was being hit, the accused enraged over the same, came to the house of deceased Sundar. Their house is about 20 houses away from the house of the deceased. Though there was pre-meditation, the attack was in a fit of anger. Both the accused came from their house with deadly weapon - Aruval - M.Os.3 and 5. The attack was clearly aimed on the neck and head. Both the accused inflicted several cut injuries. Their house is about 20 houses away from the house of the deceased. Though there was pre-meditation, the attack was in a fit of anger. Both the accused came from their house with deadly weapon - Aruval - M.Os.3 and 5. The attack was clearly aimed on the neck and head. Both the accused inflicted several cut injuries. When deceased Sundar attempted to ward off the injuries, one such cut fell on the right index finger and Sundar sustained cut injury. At the time of attack, Sundar was unarmed. During the night time, he happened to come out of the house just to brighten up the hurricane lamp. Even after he had fallen after the attack, the accused would not leave him clearly showing the intention of the accused 1 and 2 in causing the injuries, which are likely to cause death. Considering the manner of attack and the nature of injuries, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the accused under Section 304(I) IPC. 38. Section 304 Part I applies where the accused causes bodily injury with intention to cause death; or with intention to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Part II, on the other hand, comes into play when death is caused by doing an act with knowledge that it is likely to cause death but there is no intention on the part of the accused either to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. 39. Considering the manner of attack and the circumstances and the nature of injuries, the learned Sessions Judge was right in convicting the accused under Section 304(I) IPC. Deep cut injuries were inflicted on the neck and the head. Considering the manner of attack, nature of injuries and other circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment of seven years cannot be said to be harsh or disproportionate warranting interference. This Appeal has no merits and is bound to fail. 40. Therefore, the judgment of I Additional Sessions Judge, Trichirapalli in S.C.No.243/1995 (dated 08.10.1996) convicting the Appellants / accused 1 and 2 under Section 304(I) IPC and the sentence of imprisonment and the fine amount are 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.