Judgment :- M.Karpagavinayagam,J. The appellants are A-2, A-27, A-28 and A-29. Though A-1 to A-34 were tried for various offences like Sections 147, 148, 302, 324, 323 and 109 read with 302 IPC, the trial Court chose to convict the appellants alone, namely A-2, A-27, A-28 and A-29 for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo life imprisonment and acquitted all the other accused in respect of the other charges. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have filed the above appeal. 2. Brief facts leading to conviction are as follows: (a) The accused party (caste Hindus) belonging to Vanniyar community, were residing in Puliampatty Village. The deceased party belonging to Adi Dravidar community, were residing in the same village in a colony. (b) On 17.7.1992, one Sekar belonging to Vanniyar community died. The tradition is that whenever a person from Vanniyar community dies, Adi Dravidar community people used to offer "varisai" and help the family to take the body to the burial ground. On 18.7.1992 at 1.00 p.m., deceased Kuppusamy, P.W.1 Jayavel, P.W.4 Alamelu, P.W.5 Muniammal, brought the "varisai" and kept the same before the dead body. The funeral procession started to the burial ground. (c) While so, one Subash belonging to Adi Dravidar community was dancing. The same was objected to by one Chinna Thambi, belonging to the same community. A-1 Selvam objected to this and questioned him as to how could he ask Subash to stop the dance. In the wordy quarrel that ensued, Chinna Thambi who belongs to Adi Dravidar community, was beaten by A-1 Selvam, who belongs to Vanniyar community. Then, the villagers pacified both the parties and they dispersed. (d) After the funeral was over, both parties returned to their respective places. At about 4 p.m, P.W.1 Jayavel, P.W.2 Govindan, P.W.3 Kasi and deceased Kuppusamy had conversation among themselves along with Chinna Thambi, who was beaten by A-1 Selvam at the time of funeral procession. At that time, all the accused numbering 1 to 34, came to the colony with stone, wooden logs, iron pipe, stick, "soolam", etc. and attacked the deceased party. (e) A-2 Ammasi beat the deceased with the iron pipe on the head. A-27 Arumugam beat the deceased on his forehead with the wooden log and others attacked P.W.1 and other witnesses. Then, the accused persons fled away from the scene. and attacked the deceased party. (e) A-2 Ammasi beat the deceased with the iron pipe on the head. A-27 Arumugam beat the deceased on his forehead with the wooden log and others attacked P.W.1 and other witnesses. Then, the accused persons fled away from the scene. (f) The deceased sustained serious injuries on the head and P.Ws.1 to 5 also sustained injuries. Arrangements were made to take them to the hospital by catching a bus. Accordingly, they got into the bus from the village and the bus was proceeding to Chengam Government Hospital for treatment. (g) When the bus crossed the village, it was stopped by the accused party. A-28 Shanmugam went inside the bus and caught hold of the tuft of the deceased and dragged him out from the bus and beat him. A-29 Raj also beat the deceased on his head with the wooden log. The other witnesses, who were present in the bus, were also attacked by the other accused. When the injured persons raised a hue and cry, the accused persons ran away from the scene. (h) At about 6.00 p.m., the deceased and injured persons went to Chengam Government Hospital through another bus. P.W.11 Doctor admitted them and gave treatment to P.Ws.1 to 5 and issued Exs.P-6,9,8,7 and 11 accident registers, respectively. P.W.11 Doctor also treated the deceased, who was unconscious, and issued Ex.P-10 accident register. Message was sent by P.W.11 Doctor to the Police. (i) In the meantime, on 18.7.1992 at about 7.30 p.m., A-2 Ammasi and A-3 Prasad went to Police Station and gave a complaint against seven named persons including P.Ws.1 and 2, stating that they were attacked by them while they were going back to their house. This was received by P.W.14 Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the same in Crime No.230 of 1992 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324 and 323 IPC. A-2 and A-3 were sent to the hospital with the Police Memo. P.W.11 Doctor gave treatment to A-2 and A-3 at about 9.15 p.m. and issued Exs.D-3 and D-4 respectively. This was received by P.W.14 Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the same in Crime No.230 of 1992 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324 and 323 IPC. A-2 and A-3 were sent to the hospital with the Police Memo. P.W.11 Doctor gave treatment to A-2 and A-3 at about 9.15 p.m. and issued Exs.D-3 and D-4 respectively. (j) In the meantime, on receipt of the message, the Head Constable went to the Police Station and received a complaint from P.W.1 which is Ex.P-1 and handed over the complaint copy to P.W.14 Sub-Inspector of Police and registered a case at about 10.00 p.m. in Crime No.231 of 1992 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 323 and 307 IPC. He sent the documents to the Court as well as to the higher officials. (k) At about 2.30 a.m. on 19.7.1992, the deceased Kuppusamy died at the Chengam Government Hospital. On receipt of the death intimation, P.W.14 Sub-Inspector of Police altered the offence into one under Section 302 IPC. (l) Then, P.W.15, the Inspector of Police at about 5.30 a.m., took up investigation. He went to the spot, prepared observation mahazar, rough sketch etc. He also went to the colony and prepared observation mahazar, rough sketch etc. and also recovered the available materials from the scene of occurrence. Then, he proceeded to Chengam Government Hospital and conducted inquest over the body of the deceased and during the course of inquest, he examined P.Ws.1 to 5. The body was sent for post-mortem. (m) P.W.12 Doctor conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased and found as many as four injuries on the body of the deceased. Ex.P-13 is the post-mortem certificate. Ex.P-15 is the opinion of P.W.12 Doctor who conducted post-mortem and in the opinion, he has stated that the death was due to head injuries. (n) On 19.7.1992, P.W.15 Inspector of Police arrested some of the accused and on 20.7.1992, he arrested the other accused. He conducted investigation and examined the other witnesses. On 19.10.1992, A-27, A-28 and A-29 and some of the other accused had been arrested and they were sent for judicial custody. After investigation in Crime No.230 of 1992, he referred the case as "mistake of fact". (o) Then, on 30.3.1993, P.W.16 Inspector of Police, the successor of P.W.15, took up further investigation and examined the further witnesses. A-2 was arrested on 16.10.1993. After investigation in Crime No.230 of 1992, he referred the case as "mistake of fact". (o) Then, on 30.3.1993, P.W.16 Inspector of Police, the successor of P.W.15, took up further investigation and examined the further witnesses. A-2 was arrested on 16.10.1993. After finishing the investigation, P.W.16 filed the charge sheet against the accused. (p) During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 16 were examined, Exs.P-1 to P-28 were filed and M.Os.1 to 16 were marked. (q) The accused denied their complicity in the crime, when they were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating materials and they stated that they only were attacked by the prosecution witnesses. (r) On the side of defence, Exs.D-1 to D-4 were marked. (s) The trial Court ultimately convicted the appellants/A-2, A-27, A-28 and A-29 alone for the offence under Section 302 IPC and acquitted the other accused in respect of the other charges, as stated above. This judgment is under challenge before this Court in this appeal. 3. Mr.K.Asokan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants would take us through the entire evidence and contend that there is no acceptable evidence to hold that the accused are liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and as such, they are entitled to be acquitted of the charge. The gist of his contentions is as follows: (a) The origin and genesis of the occurrence have been suppressed by the prosecution parties. In the 4 O'clock occurrence, both parties sustained injuries. As a matter of fact, A-2 Ammasi and A-3 Prasad sustained serious injuries on the head. These injuries were not explained by the prosecution. P.W.1 Jayavel would depose and admit that he saw A-2 and A-3 who were admitted in the hospital and found injuries on them. When there is suppression of the fact that as to how the occurrence started, the failure to explain the injuries on the accused would affect the core of the prosecution case. (b) P.W.1 Jayaval in Ex.P-1 complaint mentioned that only 10 accused participated in the entire occurrence at 4'O clock. On the other hand, P.W.1 Jayavel comes to the Court and gives evidence stating that 34 accused came and attacked the deceased and prosecution parties in the occurrence. P.W.1 Jayavel in Ex.P-1 complaint stated that A-2 Ammasi, the first appellant herein, attacked the deceased with the stick. On the other hand, P.W.1 Jayavel comes to the Court and gives evidence stating that 34 accused came and attacked the deceased and prosecution parties in the occurrence. P.W.1 Jayavel in Ex.P-1 complaint stated that A-2 Ammasi, the first appellant herein, attacked the deceased with the stick. In the evidence, P.W.1 Jayavel stated that A-2 Ammasi used M.O.11 iron pipe to attack the deceased. Even though P.W.1 did not mention the name of the appellants 2, 3 and 4 (A-27, A-28 and A-29) in Ex.P-1, he improved in his evidence by implicating them. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 Jayavel cannot be believed. (c) Further, there are variations with reference to the overt acts attributed to each of the appellants, while comparing with the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, the eye-witnesses. (d) The evidence of P.W.11 Doctor through Exs.D-3 and D-4 would show that A-2 and A-3 told him that they sustained injuries at 4.00 p.m. at Puliampatty on 18.7.1992. As a matter of fact, the complaint given by A-3 Prasad mentioning the attack made on him and A-2 Ammasi, was registered by P.W.14 Sub-Inspector of Police in Crime No.230 of 1992 at about 8.00 p.m. Only thereafter, the complaint given by P.W.1 Jayavel was registered in Crime No.231 of 1992. As it is, both the complaints are case and counter. When there are materials to show that the accused also sustained injuries at 4.00 p.m. at Puliampatty on 18.7.1992 where the occurrence took place, P.W.14 Sub-Inspector of Police must have properly investigated Cr.No.230 of 1992 and found out as to how the accused sustained injuries and as to how the occurrence had taken place, in which the accused and the deceased sustained injuries. Admittedly, this has not been done. Therefore, the biased nature on the part of the investigating agency in not conducting the investigation in respect of Cr.No.230 of 1992, would make it clear that in view of the death of the deceased relating to the subsequent complaint, they have decided to drop the complaint given by A-2 and A-3 and proceeded the investigation on the complaint given by the deceased party. This is against the rules contemplated under Order 588-A of the Police Standing Orders. (e) Even P.Ws.1 and 2 would admit that there is no enmity between the accused persons and the prosecution party. As such, it cannot be said that it is a pre-planned attack. This is against the rules contemplated under Order 588-A of the Police Standing Orders. (e) Even P.Ws.1 and 2 would admit that there is no enmity between the accused persons and the prosecution party. As such, it cannot be said that it is a pre-planned attack. A sudden fight has taken place on 18.7.1992 and both sides sustained injuries. Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that the accused persons committed the murder. 4. On the above aspects, we have heard Mr.E.Raja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records. 6. The main plank of the argument advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the appellants is two-fold. One is that the prosecution has suppressed the origin of the occurrence and there is constant improvement in the case of prosecution by omitting to mention the important overt acts attributed to each of the accused in Ex.P-1, the earliest document. Another is that there are also variations with reference to the part played by each of the accused in the deposition given by the witnesses. 7. According to prosecution, on the date of occurrence, i.e. on 18.7.1992 at about 1.30 p.m., the prosecution party who belongs to Adi Dravidar community, went to attend the funeral procession of one Sekar, who died and they played drums and brought the "varisai". While the funeral procession was on the way to the burial ground, one Subash belonging to the Adi Dravidar community was dancing. This was objected to by one Chinna Thambi, who also belongs to Adi Dravidar community. As A-1 Selvam wanted the dance to continue, there was a quarrel. Then, A-1 attacked Chinna Thambi with the hands and supported the dance performed by Subash. Even though further quarrel ensued with reference to this, the villagers who gathered there and pacified the parties. Ultimately, they dispersed. 8. The colony people, after the funeral ceremony was over, came back to their colony. Since Chinna Thambi was attacked when the funeral procession was on, the said issue was discussed by the deceased with the witnesses and the colony people, behind the Temple in the colony. On coming to know of this, the accused persons went to the colony with the weapons and attacked the witnesses and the deceased. Since Chinna Thambi was attacked when the funeral procession was on, the said issue was discussed by the deceased with the witnesses and the colony people, behind the Temple in the colony. On coming to know of this, the accused persons went to the colony with the weapons and attacked the witnesses and the deceased. When the accused left the place, the persons who sustained injuries were taken to hospital in the bus. While the bus was proceeding towards Chengam Government Hospital, the bus was stopped by some of the accused and A-28 Shanmugam and A-29 Raj beat the deceased again. Thereafter, at the hospital, deceased Kuppusamy died. 9. It is true that there was no prior enmity between the accused and the deceased party. As a matter of fact, the witnesses would state that both were cordial prior to the occurrence. The very fact that the prosecution party, which belong to Adi Dravidar community went to the house of one Sekar who belongs to Vanniyar community for attending the funeral of Sekar, offered "varisai" and played drums, would make it obvious that Adi Dravidar community people wanted to be very cordial with Vanniyar community people. But, the occurrence at 4 O'clock was as a result of the beating incident which took place at 1.30 p.m., wherein one Chinna Thambi, who belongs to Adi Dravidar community was attacked by A-1 Selvam belonging to Vanniyar community. According to the prosecution, the deceased and injured eye-witnesses were attacked at the colony at 1.00 p.m. Again, when they went to hospital by bus, the bus was stopped and the deceased and the injured were beaten. 10. The trial Court would consider elaborately the evidence adduced by all the witnesses and acquitted the accused who caused injuries on the witnesses on the reason that the witnesses were not able to give correct and consistent particulars. However, the appellants/A-2, A-27, A-28 and A-29 were alone convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC, since there was consistent evidence adduced by the eye-witnesses with reference to the injuries caused on the deceased by the appellants. 11. P.W.1 Jayavel, P.W.2 Govindan, P.W.3 Kasi and P.W.5 Muniammal are the injured witnesses. However, the appellants/A-2, A-27, A-28 and A-29 were alone convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC, since there was consistent evidence adduced by the eye-witnesses with reference to the injuries caused on the deceased by the appellants. 11. P.W.1 Jayavel, P.W.2 Govindan, P.W.3 Kasi and P.W.5 Muniammal are the injured witnesses. All these witnesses would speak about both the occurrences at 4.00 p.m. and at 4.30 p.m. It is also noticed from their evidence that there is a reference about the beating incident which took place at 1.30 pm. while the funeral procession was on. Ex.P-1 is the statement given by P.W.1 Jayavel at the hospital. In Ex.P-1, it is stated that ten persons and others came and attacked the colony people and caused injuries at 4 O'clock. Though some of the names have been given in Ex.P-1, P.W.1 Jayavel was not able to give the name of the other accused. As a matter of fact, according to prosecution, A-2 and A-27 attacked the deceased. But, the name of A-27 has not been mentioned. Though the name of A-2 has been mentioned in Ex.P-1, P.W.1 only stated that A-2 used stick and caused injuries on the deceased. However, P.W.1 would state in the deposition that A-2 used iron pipe and caused injuries. On this reason, it is contended that the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be relied upon. 12. The said submission, in our view, does not merit acceptance for the reason that even though P.W.1 has not mentioned the details in Ex.P-1 with reference to the part played by each of the accused, P.W.1 has stated the details about the occurrences that took place in both the places, by making a general statement. It is not as if P.W.1 has stated that there are only ten persons involved in the incident. But, he has stated that ten and others who belong to Vanniyar community came and attacked the colony people. It is true that in Ex.P-1, it is stated that A-2 used stick and P.W.1, while deposing said that A-2 used iron pipe. But, this variation, in our view, may not affect the prosecution case, because P.W.1 has given the details in Ex.P-1 at the hospital immediately after the occurrence. It is true that in Ex.P-1, it is stated that A-2 used stick and P.W.1, while deposing said that A-2 used iron pipe. But, this variation, in our view, may not affect the prosecution case, because P.W.1 has given the details in Ex.P-1 at the hospital immediately after the occurrence. This is a case where the Vanniyar community people in large numbers, came to the colony and attacked the colony people and caused serious injuries on the deceased and others. So, naturally, when a complaint was given by one of the injured eye-witness, namely P.W.1, he would have been in a shock and in that condition, one may not expect that he would give full details in the complaint. 13. But, the fact remains that the presence of P.W.3 Kasi, who sustained injuries in the 4 O'clock occurrence, has been mentioned in Ex.P-1. If we look at the evidence of P.W.3, it is clear that he has clearly stated that A-2 Ammasi used iron pipe and inflicted injuries on the head of the deceased. Similarly, P.W.2 Govindan, the injured eye-witness and P.W.5 Muniammal also would state that A-2 used iron pipe and caused injuries on the head of the deceased. It may be that A-27's name has been omitted to be mentioned in Ex.P-1. But, P.W.1 deposes that A-27 also participated in the occurrence and caused injuries on the forehead of the deceased. It cannot be stated that there is any contradiction, in view of the fact that all the other witnesses, namely P.Ws.3,4 and 5, the injured eye-witnesses, would state that A-27 was present at the 4 O'clock occurrence and he attacked with the stick and caused injury on the forehead of the deceased. 14. In regard to 4.30 p.m. occurrence, the case of the prosecution that A-28 stopped the bus and after stopping the bus, A-28 entered into the bus, pulled the deceased down and A-28 and A-29 beat him. In Ex.P-1, there is a general statement without mentioning about the particulars of the overt acts of A-28 and A-29. But, P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 5 would give clear details about the part played by A-28. Of course, P.W.2 Govindan did not state about A-29 with reference to 4.30 p.m. occurrence. In Ex.P-1, there is a general statement without mentioning about the particulars of the overt acts of A-28 and A-29. But, P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 5 would give clear details about the part played by A-28. Of course, P.W.2 Govindan did not state about A-29 with reference to 4.30 p.m. occurrence. But all others, namely P.Ws.1, 3 and 5 would specifically state that A-29 also participated and attacked the deceased after the deceased was pulled down from the bus. This aspect of the evidence has been corroborated by the evidence of P.W.11 Doctor. P.W.11 Doctor would state that while he examined the deceased at 7.50 p.m., he found 4 injuries on the head, namely two cut injuries on the scalp, one cut injury on the forehead and "haematoma" over the right half of the forehead. 15. P.W.12 Doctor also would give the following particulars:- External injuries: (i) A cut injury over the front side of the scalp; (ii) a cut injury over the right side of the forehead; (iii) "Haematoma" over the right half of the forehead and (iv) a cut injury over the back of the scalp. On internal examination, he found fracture over the frontal side and middle of the head. In a separate opinion in Ex.P-15 given by him, he has stated that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injuries on the vital organ, namely head. 16. When P.W.12 Doctor was cross-examined on these aspects, he said that these injuries would have been caused by the weapon like M.O.11. So many questions have been put with reference to the nature of injuries, whether they are cut injuries or lacerated. But, the answers elicited from P.W.12 Doctor, in our view, would not be of any use to the defence. On the other hand, there is a specific evidence from P.Ws.11 and 12 Doctors that the injuries might have been caused by the "thadi" and "pipe". Under those circumstances, we have no other go except to hold that there are materials to show that these injuries have been caused by the appellants, with the result, the deceased died on the same day. 17. The next limb of argument is that the injuries on the accused have not been explained and as such, the origin of the occurrence has been suppressed. 18. 17. The next limb of argument is that the injuries on the accused have not been explained and as such, the origin of the occurrence has been suppressed. 18. It is true that P.W.1 would admit that he saw A-2 and A-3 in the hospital with the injuries. But, it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused sustained injuries during the course of the same transaction. Exs.D-3 and D-4 would show that both A-2 and A-3 told P.W.11 Doctor that they sustained injuries at 4.00 p.m. in Puliampatty colony. A-2 Ammasi sustained a cut injury on the scalp and swelling on the face and A-3 Prasad received a cut injury on the back of the scalp. As correctly pointed out by learned Senior Counsel, A-2 and A-3 went to the Police Station and gave a complaint, stating that they were attacked, while they were coming home after attending the funeral of one Sekar. This was registered in Crime No.230 of 1992 as the first case. On the basis of the complaint, a memo was issued and they were taken to hospital. At the hospital, they were admitted at 9.00 p.m. In the meantime, the injured witnesses were admitted at 7.30 p.m. As stated above, P.W.14 received the complaint obtained from P.W.1 at about 8.00 p.m. That was how the complaint which was given by P.W.1 was registered subsequent to the complaint obtained from A-2 and A-3. 19. It is true that when the injuries are sustained by the accused, and if it is shown that the same were inflicted on the accused during the course of the same transaction, the prosecution has to explain the injuries, especially when the injuries are serious. On a perusal of Exs.D-3 and D-4 and the evidence of P.W.11 Doctor, it is clear that the injuries are simple, though the injuries were inflicted on the head of A-2 and A-3. 20. A comparison of Ex.P-23, the counter complaint registered in Crime No.230 of 1992 with Section 313 Cr.P.C. statements given by A-2 and A-3, would make it clear that the version with reference to the incident in which they sustained injuries, is not consistent. 20. A comparison of Ex.P-23, the counter complaint registered in Crime No.230 of 1992 with Section 313 Cr.P.C. statements given by A-2 and A-3, would make it clear that the version with reference to the incident in which they sustained injuries, is not consistent. As a matter of fact, nothing has been elicited from any of the eye-witnesses that the accused sustained injuries during the course of the same transaction at 4.00 p.m. On going through Ex.P-23, it is clear that they sustained injuries when they went back to their house after finishing the funeral ceremony. If that was their case, they must have sustained injuries near their village and need not be in the colony. If their statements to P.W.11 Doctor as stated in Exs.D-3 and D-4 are to the effect that they sustained injuries in the colony, then this must have been explained in Ex.P-23 as to what made them to go to the colony. 21. Further, Section 313 Cr.P.C. statements given by A-2 and A-3 would make it clear that they were attacked and they went to the Police Station and after registration of the complaint, they were sent to the hospital and after 9 O'clock, since they were afraid of the consequences, they left the hospital and went away. Admittedly, they were arrested only after two months after the occurrence. There is no reason as to why these people, having gone to the Police Station and having been admitted in the hospital on the basis of the memo issued by the Police, had chosen to leave the hospital and abscond. If they were attacked by the colony people and if their complaint is true, they should have been available for further investigation by giving appropriate statements. 22. Much was said about failure to conduct investigation in respect of Cr.No.230 of 1992. It cannot be said that no investigation had been done. As a matter of fact, P.Ws.14 and 15 would both state that investigation was taken up and after the death intimation, P.W.15 went to the scene and examined the persons concerned in Cr.No.230 of 1992 and ultimately, P.W.15 has found out that the accused are the aggressors and therefore, the case was referred as "mistake of fact". 23. As a matter of fact, P.Ws.14 and 15 would both state that investigation was taken up and after the death intimation, P.W.15 went to the scene and examined the persons concerned in Cr.No.230 of 1992 and ultimately, P.W.15 has found out that the accused are the aggressors and therefore, the case was referred as "mistake of fact". 23. Yet another aspect to be noticed in this case is that the accused in their complaint Ex.P-23, did not choose to refer to the presence of Kuppusamy, the deceased in this case. In such a situation, we are unable to hold that these injuries found on the accused could have been caused, while the deceased was attacked at the colony. 24. In such circumstances, in our view, the plea of self-defence as projected by the defence counsel, cannot be held to be established. Consequently, we are constrained to hold that all the accused have caused injuries on the deceased, resulting in the death of the deceased. 25. Lastly, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would contend that P.W.5 Chakkarai would state that there was a free fight among these two groups and as such, it cannot be said that it is a case falling under Section 302 IPC. Further, it is pointed out that A-2 and A-29 each caused a single injury and left the place. Similarly, A-28 and A-29 also have inflicted only one injury and therefore, at the most, they could be convicted for the offence under Section 304 (Part I) IPC and not under Section 302 IPC. 26. This argument, in our view, cannot be countenanced for the reason that the deceased was beaten by A-2 and A-27 at the 4 O'clock occurrence in the colony, and again in the 4.30 p.m. occurrence after the deceased was pulled down from the bus and beating again on the head by A-28 and A-29. Ex.P-13 post-mortem certificate would show that there is a fracture over the frontal side of the middle of the head and in the scalp. This injury is very serious and according to Doctor, it is fatal. 27. Therefore, we have no reason to hold that the appellants are liable to be convicted for the lesser offence. On the other hand, we are constrained to hold that they are liable to be convicted for the murder. This injury is very serious and according to Doctor, it is fatal. 27. Therefore, we have no reason to hold that the appellants are liable to be convicted for the lesser offence. On the other hand, we are constrained to hold that they are liable to be convicted for the murder. Since all the four accused caused injuries on the deceased, it is appropriate to convict them for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, instead of Section 302 IPC simpliciter. 28. Accordingly, the conviction imposed on the appellants/A-2, A-27, A-28 and A-29 is modified from Section 302 IPC to Section 302 read with 34 IPC, but the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on them by the trial Court is confirmed. Since the appellants are on bail, the trial Court is directed to take steps to secure their custody to undergo the remaining period of sentence. 29. With the above modification in the conviction alone, the appeal is dismissed.