Judgment :- Accused 1 to 4 in S.C.67/1996 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge (Incharge of Principal Sessions Judge), Villupuram are the Appellants. By the Judgment dated 05.03.1997, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted A1 to A4 for various offences and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment. 2. Gist of charges framed against the accused and the findings of the trial court and the sentence imposed upon them is as under:- Charge Gist of the charge Against which accused Finding of Trial Court Sentence 1 U/s.323 IPC – For causing simple injuries to deceased Perumal Gounder A1, A3 and A4 Found guilty. Sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for one month. 2 U/s. 302 IPC – Causing he murder of Perumal Gounder A2 Found not guilty u/s.302 IPC but found guilty u/s.304 (II) IPC. Sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years. 3 U/s. 302 r/w 34 IPC – Sharing the common inten-tion in causing the murder of Perumal Gounder A1, A3 and A4 Found not guilty u/s.302 r/w 34 IPC but found guilty u/s.304 II IPC. Sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years. 3. Common facts on which the Prosecution case proceeds could briefly be stated thus: Deceased Perumal Gounder and Prosecution witnesses are related as under: A2 and A3 are sons of A1. A4 is the son-in-law of A1. Prosecution witnesses and the accused are all residents of Konakkalvadi Village and are neighbours. 4. About six months prior to the occurrence on 21.06.1993, deceased Perumal Gounder borrowed Rs.1000/= from A1 for the marriage expenses of his daughter Poongavanam. A1 was asking for return of money. 5. On the date of occurrence - 21.06.1993 - 6.30 PM, A1 asked for return of money. Perumal Gounder replied saying that he would pay the amount after selling the gingilly seeds. Infuriated over the same, A1 abused Perumal Gounder in vulgar words. In turn, Perumal Gounder also abused A1 scolding him in vulgar words, which resulted in wordy altercation. 6. Occurrence: A1 held Perumal by his neck with his right hand and beat Perumal Gounder on his left side cheek. A2 - son of A1 came out of his house. A2 fisted on the chest of the deceased and pushed him down. When Perumal Gounder had fallen, he had hit against the wall of his house and sustained head injury. A3 and A4 had repeatedly kicked Perumal Gounder on his chest. A2 - son of A1 came out of his house. A2 fisted on the chest of the deceased and pushed him down. When Perumal Gounder had fallen, he had hit against the wall of his house and sustained head injury. A3 and A4 had repeatedly kicked Perumal Gounder on his chest. P.Ws.1 to 3 prevented the accused. The accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. Perumal Gounder had become unconscious. 7. Complaint before Rishivandiyam Police Station: Injured Perumal Gounder was taken to Rishivandhiyam Hospital at 8.30 PM. Since no doctor was available in Rishivandhiyam Hospital, P.Ws.1 to 3 waited in the Rishivandhiyam Bus Stop to go to Thirukoilur for admitting Perumal Goudner in Thirukoilur Government Hospital. While they were waiting for the bus, deceased Perumal Gounder succumbed to the injuries. P.W.1 went to Rishivandhiyam Police Station and lodged Ex.P.1 - Complaint before P.W.9 - Sub Inspector of Police at 11.00 PM. On the basis of Ex.P-1, a case was registered in Crime No.102/1993 under Sec.302 IPC of Rishivandhiyam P.S.in Ex.P.8 - First Information Report. 8. Transfer of First Information Report and registration of the case in Thirukoilur Police Station: The place of occurrence - Konakkalavadi is within the jurisdiction of Thirukoilur Police Station. Exs.P-1 and P-8 were sent to Thirukoilur Police Station through P.W.10 - Grade-I P.C. P.W.10 - Grade-I P.C. handed over Exs.P-1 and P-8 to P.W.12 - Sub Inspector of Police on the early morning of 22.06.1993 - 5.30 AM. On the basis of Exs.P-1 and P-8, P.W.12 - Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.351/1993 on the file of Thirukoilur Police Station under Sec.302 IPC in Ex.P.16 - First Information Report. 9. Investigation: P.W.14 - Inspector of Police had taken up the investigation. He has firstly visited the place - Rishivandhiyam Bus Stop, where the body of Perumal Gounder was lying. That place was inspected in the presence of P.W.6 - Village Administrative Officer and one Arthanari. Regarding that place, Ex.P-4 Observation Mahazar and Ex.P-19 - Rough Plan were prepared. From that place, M.O.5 - blood stained mud and M.O.6 - sample mud were seized under Ex.P.5 - Seizure Mahazar. Photographs (M.O.8 series) were also taken by P.W.7 Photographer. 10. Inquest: On 22.06.1993 between 7.30 AM - 10.30 AM, P.Ws.1 and 3 and other witnesses were examined in the presence of Panchayatdars and inquest was held on the body of deceased Perumal Gounder. Photographs (M.O.8 series) were also taken by P.W.7 Photographer. 10. Inquest: On 22.06.1993 between 7.30 AM - 10.30 AM, P.Ws.1 and 3 and other witnesses were examined in the presence of Panchayatdars and inquest was held on the body of deceased Perumal Gounder. Ex.P-20 is the Inquest Report. After inquest, the body was sent to Thirukoilur Government Hospital for autopsy through P.W.8 - Police Constable. 11. Post Mortem: One Dr.Somasundaram (since dead) had conducted autopsy on the body of deceased Perumal Gounder. He has noted abrasion on the back of right side scalp and the corresponding internal injury to the brain and rupture of blood vessels. Viscera was sent for chemical analysis. Ethyl Alcohol was detected in the viscera of deceased Perumal Gounder. Upon perusal of the viscera report, Dr.Somasundaram had issued his final opinion - Ex.P-18 opining that the deceased died of shock as a result of Injury No.1 and he was under influence of Alcohol at the time of death. 12. Further investigation: P.W.14 - Inspector of Police inspected the scene of occurrence in Konakkalavadi Village in the presence of P.W.5 - Muthu Gounder and one Govindasamy. Regarding the scene of occurrence, Ex.P-2 Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.21 - Rough Plan were prepared on the scene of occurrence. M.O.3 - blood stained mud and M.O.4 - sample mud were seized from the scene of occurrence under Ex.P.3 - Seizure Mahazar. 13. Arrest of the accused: A1 and A2 were arrested on 24.06.1993 - 2.00 PM near Periya Erikarai, Sozhavandi Village and they were sent to judicial custody on the same day. A3 - Subramani was arrested on 27.06.1993 in Ariyur Bus Stop. He was sent to judicial custody on the same day. 14. The material objects were sent for chemical analysis. Upon receipt of the Chemical Analysis Report and completion of other investigation, P.W.14 filed the charge sheet against the accused 1 to 4 under Secs.323; 302 r/w 34 IPC. 15. To substantiate the charges against the accused, in the trial court, P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined. Exs.P-1 to P-21 were marked. M.Os.1 to 8 were produced. The accused were questioned about the incriminating circumstances and evidence under Sec.313 Crl.P.C., the accused denied them and stated that a false case is foisted against them. 16. Upon consideration of the evidence, the trial court accepted the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 as reliable, cogent and convincing. Exs.P-1 to P-21 were marked. M.Os.1 to 8 were produced. The accused were questioned about the incriminating circumstances and evidence under Sec.313 Crl.P.C., the accused denied them and stated that a false case is foisted against them. 16. Upon consideration of the evidence, the trial court accepted the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 as reliable, cogent and convincing. Finding that the act of A2 in fisting the deceased on the chest and pushing him down had caused the head injury and that A3 and A4 have shared the common intention by beating and kicking the deceased, A1 to A4 were found guilty and convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as aforesaid in para (2). 17. Aggrieved over the conviction, A1 to A4 have preferred this Appeal. 18. Learned counsel for the Appellants contended that the trial court erred in accepting the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 as reliable even when their evidence suffer from discrepancies and inconsistencies. Delay and mode of registration of First Information Report is yet another point advanced onbehalf of the Appellants. Contending that the oral evidence is inconsistent with the medical evidence, the learned counsel submitted that the death was caused due to excessive drinking by Perumal Gounder, which resulted in rupture of blood vessels which aspect was not properly appreciated by the trial court. It is the further contention that when the occurrence was unpremeditated and the accused had no intention to cause the death and in the absence of mental element, the trial court erred in convicting A2 under Sec.304(II) IPC and A1, A3 and A4 under Sec.304(II) r/w 34 IPC. 19. Countering the arguments of the Appellants, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) has drawn the attention of the Court to the evidence of P.Ws.9 and 12 and the registration of the First Information Reports and contended that the First Information Reports are registered as per the procedure. The learned Government Advocate has taken me through the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 on the overt act of the accused and contended that the discrepancies pointed out in their evidence would not undermine their evidence. Pointing out the medical evidence, it is submitted that injury No.1 is proved to be responsible for the death and that A2 is proved to have caused the injury and the trial court had rightly convicted him under Sec.304(II) IPC. Pointing out the medical evidence, it is submitted that injury No.1 is proved to be responsible for the death and that A2 is proved to have caused the injury and the trial court had rightly convicted him under Sec.304(II) IPC. Pointing out the overt act of A1, A3 and A4, the learned Government Advocate further submitted that by beating and kicking the deceased Perumal Gounder, A1, A3 and A4 are proved to have shared the common intention and that the findings of guilt and conviction is well in conformity with the evidence on record and that there is no reason warranting interference. 20. Upon consideration of the evidence, judgment of the trial court, available materials on record and submissions of both sides, the following points arise for determination in this Appeal; (i) Whether the Prosecution has established that A2 has caused injury No.1 which has caused the death of Perumal Gounder ? (ii) Whether the trial court is right in convicting A1, A3 and A4 under Sec.304(II) r/w 34 IPC ? (iii) Whether conviction of A1 to A4 suffers from any infirmity warranting interference ? 21. In Konakkalavadi Village, the accused and the deceased party are neighbours. House of Perumal Gounder is on the northern side of Rishivandhiyam Road. The house of the accused is on the north western side of the house of the deceased. Few months prior to the occurrence as neighbours Perumal Gounder and accused were maintaining good relations. In fact, about six months prior to the occurrence, deceased Perumal Gounder borrowed Rs.1000/- for the marriage of his daughter, which in fact has resulted in the occurrence. The occurrence on 21.06.1993 was due to sudden quarrel when A1 asked for return of money. At that time, Perumal Gounder was in a drunken mood. He has replied that he would pay the amount after selling gingilly. There was exchange of vulgar abuses between the parties, which resulted in wordy altercation between them. 22. Before analysing the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, it is necessary to refer to certain aspects. After post mortem, Dr.Somasundaram had sent the viscera for chemical analysis. Ex.P-15 is the Viscera Report. Ethyl Alcohol was detected in the viscera of Perumal Gounder as noted below; Stomach contained ... 293 mgs.of Ethyl Alcohol Intestine and Contents contained ... 316 mgs.of Ethyl Alcohol Liver contained ... 477 mgs.of Ethyl Alcohol Kidney contained ... After post mortem, Dr.Somasundaram had sent the viscera for chemical analysis. Ex.P-15 is the Viscera Report. Ethyl Alcohol was detected in the viscera of Perumal Gounder as noted below; Stomach contained ... 293 mgs.of Ethyl Alcohol Intestine and Contents contained ... 316 mgs.of Ethyl Alcohol Liver contained ... 477 mgs.of Ethyl Alcohol Kidney contained ... 75 mgs.of Ethyl Alcohol Thus it is evident that at the time of occurrence, deceased Perumal Gounder was drunk. Under the influence of alcohol, there is every possibility of using vulgar abuses against the accused party and the accused party getting infuriated over the same and reacting to the same. 23. During autopsy, the following external injury was noted on the scalp; An abrasion on the back of right side of scalp. Blood oozed and dried up. On internal examination, it was noted, ....over the surface of right lobe of brain lot of blood clots present due to rupture of Brain vessels. No fracture of skull.... 24. Though diffused swelling on the left side face and right side chest near nipple were noted, Dr.Somasundaram was of clear opinion that the deceased died of shock as a result of injury No.1 (injury to the brain). 25. We are to proceed on the premise that;- (i) deceased died of injury No.1 - Injury to the Brain; (ii) there was no previous enmity between the parties and the occurrence was unpremeditated. In the above backdrop, evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.W.4 - Narayanasamy are to be analysed. 26. P.W.1 is the brother; P.W.2 is the wife of Perumal Gounder and P.W.3 is the wife of P.W.1. In their evidence, P.Ws.1 to 3 have narrated the occurrence that A1 asked for return of money and Perumal Gounder replying the same that he would return the amount after selling gingilly. P.Ws.1 to 3 have also spoken about the vulgar abuses exchanged between the deceased Perumal Gounder and A1. Infuriated over the same, A1 held Perumal Gounder by his neck with his right hand and beat Perumal Gounder on his left cheek. A2 came out of his house and fisted on the chest of the deceased and pushed him down. Perumal Gounder had fallen down and hit against the mud wall with stones. A3 and A4 have repeatedly kicked Perumal Gounder on his chest. P.Ws.1 to 3 have narrated about the occurrence. 27. A2 came out of his house and fisted on the chest of the deceased and pushed him down. Perumal Gounder had fallen down and hit against the mud wall with stones. A3 and A4 have repeatedly kicked Perumal Gounder on his chest. P.Ws.1 to 3 have narrated about the occurrence. 27. P.W.4 - Narayanasamy is the uncle of deceased Perumal Gounder and residing in the same street. He came to the house of the deceased in the later part of the occurrence. P.W.4 had seen A2 fisting Perumal Gounder on the chest and pushing him down. P.W.4 has also spoken about the kicking by the other accused. In his cross examination, P.W.4 stated On the strength of that answer, it is contended that P.W.4 could not have possibly seen the occurrence. This contention assailing the evidence of P.W.4 has no force. His answer in the cross examination cannot be considered in isolation and has to be considered along with his version in the chief examination. In his chief examination, P.W.4 has clearly spoken about the overt act of the accused particularly of 28. P.Ws.1 to 4 are closely related to deceased Perumal Gounder. Though they are related witnesses, their evidence cannot be discarded. There is no provision of law that evidence of related witness is to be viewed with suspicion. All that is enjoined upon the Court is that their evidence is to be scrutinised with care and caution. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 is to be scrutinised carefully keeping in view the deficiencies pointed out in their evidence. It is to be seen, Whether the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 is against the general tenor of the medical evidence and that deceased Perumal Gounder died of excessive drinking. 29. In their cross examination, the witnesses have denied that deceased Perumal Gounder was in the habit of consuming alcohol. But as stated earlier, from Ex.P-15 Viscera Report, it is clear that deceased Perumal Gounder had consumed alcohol prior to the occurrence, which is suggestive of the fact that perumal Gounder was in habit of consuming alcohol. 30. Main contention urged by the Appellants is that deceased Perumal Gounder, who was in the habit of drinking, might have fallen elsewhere and sustained the injuries. 30. Main contention urged by the Appellants is that deceased Perumal Gounder, who was in the habit of drinking, might have fallen elsewhere and sustained the injuries. It is the further contention that Perumal Gounder was so fragile in health and that excessive drinking might have resulted in rupture of blood vessels resulting blood mixed with froth present in the nostrils and mouth. 31. In support of the above contention, much reliance is placed upon certain answers elicited from P.W.13 - Dr.Thangavel, who had spoken about Ex.P-17 - Post Mortem Certificate. In his evidence, P.W.13 - Dr.Thangavel stated that if a person is drunk excessively, there is possibility of rupture of blood vessels This answer is only the opinion evidence of P.W.13. Such medical opinion evidence need not be the last word on this aspect. After all, opinion is formed in the mind of a person regarding a fact situation. In this case, consistent evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 on the overt act of A2 cannot be discarded on the medical opinion evidence of P.W.13. For more than one reason, evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 cannot be doubted on the opinion evidence of P.W.13; firstly, P.W.13 was not confronted as to what is the excessive drinking; secondly, he was not questioned in this case whether the presence of Alcohol as noted in para (22) had exceeded the limit to cause rupture of blood vessels; thirdly, only Dr.Somasundaram had conducted the autopsy and P.W.13 has no personal knowledge of the injuries or about the extent of drinking by the deceased. It is also to be noted that P.W.13 - Dr.Thangavel had not personally conducted the autopsy. Opinion evidence of P.W.13 cannot efface the positive direct evidence adduced by the Prosecution. 32. It is to be seen, whether A2 is proved to be responsible for the fatal injury. P.Ws.1 to 4 have consistently spoken that A2 had fisted the deceased on the chest and forcibly pushed him down and Perumal Gounder had hit against the wall with the stone. On the overt act of A2, P.W.2 has stated Likewise, other witnesses have also spoken about the overt act of A2. Thus by the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, Prosecution has proved that during the scuffle between the parties, A2 had violently pushed down the deceased. The contentions urged by the Appellants raising doubts on the overt act of A2 have no force. Thus by the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, Prosecution has proved that during the scuffle between the parties, A2 had violently pushed down the deceased. The contentions urged by the Appellants raising doubts on the overt act of A2 have no force. 33. Fisting on the chest had caused diffused swelling on right side chest near nipple. Pushing down and falling of Perumal Gounder and hitting against the wall with the stone has caused the external injury on the scalp. An abrasion on the back of right side of scalp. Blood oozed and dried up. It has also caused the internal rupture of blood vessels - Over the surface of right lobe of brain, lot of blood clots present due to rupture of brain vessels. No fracture of skull. Thus the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 on the overt act of A2 is strengthened by the medical evidence. 34. The evidence of witnesses on the overt act of A2 is further assailed that there is no positive evidence relating to the stone which is claimed to be very crucial. The stone is not recovered; nor the existence of stone is pointed out in Ex.P.21 - Plan. Scene of occurrence is in front of the house of the deceased (Sl.No.2 in Ex.P.21 - Plan). In Ex.P-21 also, no stone is shown. In Ex.P.2 - Observation Mahazar, scene of occurrence is described as But there is no mention about the stone. When the Investigating Officer was questioned about the non mention of the same in Ex.P-21 - Plan and in Ex.P.2 - Observation Mahazar, the Investigating Officer - P.W.14 has clearly explained the physical feature of the wall stating that it is a mud wall built with the stones. In other words the stones are embedded with the mud wall. It is relevant to refer to that part of answer of the Investigating Officer. At this juncture, we may recall the version of P.W.2 that her husband hit against the wall. Since the stones are embedded with the wall obviously the stone could not be noted either in the Plan or in the Observation Mahazar. The stone also could not be seized. The non-mention of the stone or the description about the physical feature of the wall in Ex.P-2 Observation Mahazar is of no significance. 35. At this juncture, we may refer to yet another point urged by the accused. The stone also could not be seized. The non-mention of the stone or the description about the physical feature of the wall in Ex.P-2 Observation Mahazar is of no significance. 35. At this juncture, we may refer to yet another point urged by the accused. When Ex.P.2 - Observation Mahazar was prepared, blood was found to be splattered in the scene of occurrence. From the scene of occurrence, M.O.3 - blood stained mud was seized. Likewise, from the place where body of deceased Perumal Gounder was found, namely, Rishivandhiyam, M.O.5 - blood stained mud was seized. No human blood was detected in M.Os.3 and 5. Therefore it is contended that non detection of blood stain in M.Os.3 and 5 throws doubt on the Prosecution case. This contention has no merits. That the Chemical Analyst did not detect the human blood would not amount to throwing doubts on the Prosecution case. For various reasons, the blood might have been disintegrated. The Prosecution case that on the scene of occurrence or that the body was kept in Rishivandhiyam cannot be doubted on the ground of non-detection of blood in the seized mud. 36. Perumal Gounder died of injuries in Rishivandhiyam Bus Stop while they were waiting to go to Thirukoilur for admitting him in the hospital. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to Rishivandhiyam Police Station and lodged Ex.P.1 - Complaint at 11.00 PM. On the basis of which, Ex.P.8 - First Information Report was registered in Crime No.102/1993 under Sec.302 IPC of Rishivandhiyam P.S. Place of occurrence - Konakkalvadi is within the jurisdiction of Thirukoilur. Therefore, Ex.P.8 - First Information Report was sent to Thirukoilur Police Station through P.W.10 - Grade I P.C., who handed over the same in Thirukoilur Police Station at 5.30 AM on 22.06.1993. On the basis of Exs.P-1 and P-8, case in Crime No.351/1993 was registered under Ex.P.15 - First Information Report in Thirukoilur P.S. Seriously attacking the entire procedure of registration of First Information Report, it is contended that initially the case was registered in Rishivandhiyam Police Station and later transferred the same to Thirukoilur only to gain time and make up the delay. Conduct of P.W.1 in approaching Rishivandhiyam Police Station in lodging the Complaint is also attacked. This point urged by the Appellants lacks in substance. Conduct of P.W.1 in approaching Rishivandhiyam Police Station in lodging the Complaint is also attacked. This point urged by the Appellants lacks in substance. When Perumal Gounder died in the Bus Stop at Rishivandhiyam, it is quite natural for P.W.1 to go to Rishivandhiyam Police Station and lodging Ex.P.1 - Complaint there. Government Hospital is at Rishivandhiyam. That being so, it is quite common where the Hospitals are situated, the Police Stations on receipt of the complaint register the First Information Report and forward the same to the Police Stations of respective jurisdiction. There is no defect in such procedure. That apart, both Rishivandhiyam and Thirukoilur Police Officials have nothing to gain in trying to make up such delay. This point was urged by the Appellants even in the trial court. Considering the evidence, the Sessions Judge rightly negatived the same. 37. The occurrence was in a sudden quarrel. There was no premeditation. In exchange of vulgar abuses between them, A2 fisted deceased Perumal Gounder on the chest and pushed him down. Death is caused due to injury No.1. In that situation, considering the manner of attack can it be said that A1, A3 and A4 have shared the common intention in causing the death of Perumal Gounder. 38. For appreciation of this aspect, it is necessary to refer to the overt act attributed to the accused and the corresponding injury as per Ex.P.17 - Post Mortem Certificate. Accused Overt act Situs of attack Corresponding Injury as per Ex.P.17 – Post Mortem Certificate A1 Slapped. Left side cheek. Contusion on the left side face. A2 Fisted Pushing him down. On the chest Head Diffused contusion on right side chest. Head injury with corresponding injury to brain. A3 & A4 Kicking On the Chest Diffused contusion on the chest. 39. As discussed earlier, death was due to injury No.1 and the corresponding injury to the brain. The quarrel being unpremeditated, in the heat of altercation, A2 pushed him down; that too, when the deceased had used abusive and provocative language against A1 seeking time for return of money. In that situation, A1, A3 and A4 cannot be said to have shared the common intention in causing the death of Perumal Gounder. A1 slapping on the left side cheek; A3 and A4 kicking on the chest have only caused the simple injuries. In that situation, A1, A3 and A4 cannot be said to have shared the common intention in causing the death of Perumal Gounder. A1 slapping on the left side cheek; A3 and A4 kicking on the chest have only caused the simple injuries. In fact, charge No.1 was framed against A1, A3 and A4 only under Sec.323 IPC. The conviction of A1, A3 and A4 under Sec.304(II) r/w 34 IPC cannot be sustained and the same is to be altered into one under Sec.323 IPC. 40. The overt act of A2 in pushing down the deceased is well proved by the Prosecution. The trial court has discretion to impose appropriate sentence. In appropriate the High Court may reduce the sentence in the facts and circumstances of the case. In this case, the occurrence was unpremeditated. Deceased Perumal Gounder was heavily drunk and he hurled vulgar abuses against A1. Reacting to the same, in a fit of anger, A2 fisted on the chest and pushed him down and Perumal Gounder sustained head injuries. Considering the manner of attack and other circumstances, reducing the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment of seven years to five years would meet the ends of justice. 41. The trial court has well appreciated the evidence. The conviction of A2 under Sec.304(II) IPC is based on the materials on record. The conviction of A1, A3 and A4 of Sec.304(II) r/w 34 IPC (Charge No.3) is altered into Sec.323 IPC and they are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. 42. For the reasons stated above, the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge (Incharge of Principal Sessions Judge), Villupuram in S.C.67/1996 (dated 05.03.1997) convicting A2 under Sec.304(II) IPC is confirmed. For the conviction under Sec.304(II) IPC, Rigorous Imprisonment of seven years imposed on A2 is reduced to Rigorous Imprisonment for five years. 43. The conviction of A1, A3 and A4 under Sec.304(II) r/w 34 IPC (Charge No.3) is altered into Sec.323 IPC and they are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and this Appeal is partly allowed accordingly. Sentence of Imprisonment of A1, A3 and A4 for Charge No.1 imposed by the trial court and Sentence of Imprisonment for Charge No.3 are ordered to run concurrently. 44. The trial court is directed to take immediate steps for securing the accused to commit them to prison for serving the remaining period of sentence.