Judgment :- (Appeal under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment of the learned I-Additional Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, in S.C.No.166 of 2000, dated 14.09.2001.) S. Ashok Kumar, J. The appellants, who are accused Nos.1 and 3 in Sessions Case No.166 of 2000 on the file of I-Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, have filed this appeal challenging the judgment, dated 14.09.2001, convicting them under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentencing each of them to undergo life imprisonment for the said offence. The appellants and first appellant's wife by name Nagammal (Accused No.2) were tried for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. for causing the death of one Subburaj. After trial, the trial court acquitted accused No.2 in the case. 2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: (a) Accused No.2 Nagammal is the wife of accused No.1 Ramasamy. Accused No.3 Nagaraj is the brother of Accused No.2 Nagammal and brother in law of Accused No.1 Ramasamy. The deceased Subburaj is the brother of accused No.1. P.W.1 Tamilselvi is the wife of the deceased Subburaj. P.W.2 Subbiah Thevar is the father of accused No.1 and the deceased. P.W.6 Singam is the son of the deceased. The lands of accused No.1 and the deceased are adjacent and very often there were disputes with regard to alteration of edges either by accused No.1 or by the deceased. (b) About six months prior to the date of occurrence, i.e. 30.04.1999, a child of Accused No.1, was found dead in the field by drowning into water. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were under the impression that the deceased was the cause for the death of the child and, therefore, they threatened to kill him. (c) On 30.04.1999 at about 5.00 a.m. P.Ws.1 and 2 and the deceased were on their way to their lands and when they were nearing the land of one Rasu Thevar, accused No.1 armed with aruval, accused No.2 with stick and accused No.3 armed with a knife came there and accused No.3 by saying "you are not leaving the land and also you have killed my child" repeatedly cut the deceased on his head, on left hand, neck and on the body. Accused No.2 beat the deceased on legs. Accused No.2 beat the deceased on legs. Accused No.3 stabbed the deceased on his neck and flank with knife and when one Ganesan, Paramathevar and Raju rushed to the place for rescue, the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. The injured Subburaj died instantaneously on the spot. This occurrence took place at 6.00 a.m. on 30.04.1999 and at 9.00 a.m., P.W.1 Tamilselvi, wife of the deceased, went to Kandamanoor Police to give a complaint. Ex.P-1 is the complaint given by P.W.1 to P.W.9 Sub-Inspector of Police. (d) P.W.9 Sub-Inspector of Police, Kandamanoor Police Station, on receipt of Ex.P-1 complaint, registered a case in Crime No.48 of 1999 for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 302 I.P.C. and prepared Ex.P-9 printed F.I.R. and despatched the same to the Judicial Magistrate Court, Andipatti and the copies to the higher authorities. FIR reached the Magistrate Court at 12.00 Noon on the same day. The distance between the police station and the Court is 20 kilometres. (e) P.W.11 Inspector of Police, who received copy of Ex.P-9 FIR, reached the place of occurrence at 10.15 a.m. on 30.04.1999, made an observation and prepared Ex.P-2 and P-15 observation mahazars in the presence of P.W.3 Muthumanickam and one Chandran. He also prepared Ex.P-14 (series) two rough sketches. From the scene of occurrence, P.W.11 Inspector of Police seized M.O.1 bloodstained earth and M.O.2 sample earth under Ex.P-3 mahazar in the presence of witnesses. Between 10.30 a.m. and 11.30 a.m., in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses, P.W.11 conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and prepared Ex.P-16 inquest report. He also arranged to take photographs of the body of the deceased. Thereafter, he sent the body of the deceased to Theni Government Hospital for postmortem with a requisition. He examined witnesses P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and others and recorded their statements. (f) P.W.4 Dr.M.Ashok Kumar, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Theni Government Hospital, received the body of the deceased at 4.00 p.m. on the same day and conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and found the following injuries. "1.A cut injury 6 cm x 0.5 cm x cutting through and through the right Pinna. 2.A cut injury 6 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm over the right dossal aspect of hand. 3.A cut injury 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm over the root of right thumb. "1.A cut injury 6 cm x 0.5 cm x cutting through and through the right Pinna. 2.A cut injury 6 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm over the right dossal aspect of hand. 3.A cut injury 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm over the root of right thumb. 4.A cut injury 2 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm in between right thumb and right index finger. 5.A cut injury 6 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm over the right wrist. 6.A cut injury 4 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm over the left shoulder. 7.A cut injury 3 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm near injury No.6. 8.A cut injury 5 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm over the left shoulder. 9.A cut injury 16 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm extending from the left pinna (cutting the pinna through and through) in front of neck upto left lower jaw. 10.A cut injury 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep over the occipital region of the scalp. 11.A cut injury 5 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm over the left biceps region. 12.A cut injury 8 cm x 3 cm x 1 cm over the left cubital fossa. 13.A cut injury 5 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm over the left hand. 14.A cut injury 12 cm x 3 cm x 5 cm over the root of neck left side cutting the underlying muscles, vessels and nerves. Stomach empty, mucosa normal, intestines empty, mucosa normal, bladder empty, liver, spleen, kidneys pale, plural cavity empty, heart both chambers empty, pericardium contains 4ml of straw coloured fluid, lungs c/s pale, brain cut section pale, injury No.14 is fatal injury." He issued Ex.P-4 postmortem certificate opining that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage as the result of injury sustained by him. P.W.8 Grade-I Police Constable, on completion of postmortem, recovered M.O.7 dhoti, M.O.8 shirt, and M.O.9 underwear from the body of the deceased and handed them over to P,.W.11 Inspector of Police. (g) On 05.05.1999 all the accused surrendered before Judicial Magistrte No.V, Madurai. On 07.05.1999 P.W.11 gave a requisition to Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti, requesting police custody of the accused. On 10.05.1999 A-1 and A-3 were given police custody. (g) On 05.05.1999 all the accused surrendered before Judicial Magistrte No.V, Madurai. On 07.05.1999 P.W.11 gave a requisition to Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti, requesting police custody of the accused. On 10.05.1999 A-1 and A-3 were given police custody. When P.W.11 examined them at the police station, Accused No.1 volunteered to give a confession, admissible portion of which is Ex.P-5. Accused No.3 also volunteered to give a confession, admissible portion of which is Ex.P-6. Since A-1 and A-3 stated that the weapons used by them in the commission offence have been hidden in an old dilapidated well, they were kept in the police station in the night. Next day morning, in the presence of P.W.6 and one Chinnamani, P.W.11 Inspector recovered M.O.3 Aruval, M.O.4 Lungi and M.O.5 shirt produced by accused No.1 under Ex.P-7 mahazar. He also recovered M.O.6 knife produced by accused No.3 under Ex.P-8 mahazar in the presence of same witnesses. P.W.11 Inspector of police remanded the case properties and the accused for judicial custody. (h) On 25.05.1999, P.W.11 examined Dr.M.Ashok Kumar and one Thiagarajan and recorded their statements. P.W.11 also gave requisition to the Court to send the case properties for chemical analysis. Requisition sent by the Court is Ex.P-11. Ex.P-12 Chemical Examiner Report and Ex.P-13 Serologist's report were received in the Court. After completing the investigation, on 26.06.1999, P.W.11 filed final report before the court under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. against all the three accused. 3. Before the Sessions Court, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined as witnesses and Exhibits P-1 to P-16 and material objects M.O.1 to M.O.9 were marked. On behalf of the accused, one Chokkanathan was examined as D.W.1 and Exhibits D-1 and D-2 were marked. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code with regard to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the accused denied them either as false or not known. They have further stated that the Investigation Officer obtained their signatures in white papers and prepared the confession statements. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence produced by both the sides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted accused No.2 from the charges levelled against her, but convicted accused Nos.1 and 3 under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo life imprisonment for the said offence. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence produced by both the sides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted accused No.2 from the charges levelled against her, but convicted accused Nos.1 and 3 under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo life imprisonment for the said offence. Hence this appeal by accused Nos.1 and 3. 4. Before this Court, Mr.V.Gopinath, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellants would contend that P.Ws.1 and 2 could not be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence, they have come to the scene of occurrence only belatedly, the deceased had number of enemies who could have caused the death of the deceased and due to motive the appellants have been implicated in the case. Mr.K.Radhakrishnan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would contend that P.W.1, is the wife of the deceased and P.W.2 is the father of the deceased and accused No.1 and their evidence is cogent and clear about the overt acts attributed against each of the accused and the weapons recovered from the accused contained human blood and, therefore, the offences alleged against the appellants have been proved and there is no reason to interfere with the well considered judgment of the trial court. 5. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions of the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials on record. 6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that as regards the overt act of accused No.3, the second appellant herein, there is no corresponding injury. But, a perusal of records would show that there is an injury on the neck of the deceased, where A-3 is said to have inflicted injury with knife. Learned senior counsel would contend that it is not a stab injury, but only a cut injury. We are not able to accept this contention. A knife can cause a cut injury as well as a stab injury depending upon the force used, depending upon the position of attack and also depending upon how the recipient/victim reacts at the time of occurrence. Injury No.9 mentioned in Ex.P-4 postmortem certificate would show that it is a cut injury of 16 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm extending from the left pinna, cutting the pinna through and through, in front of neck upto left lower jaw. Injury No.9 mentioned in Ex.P-4 postmortem certificate would show that it is a cut injury of 16 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm extending from the left pinna, cutting the pinna through and through, in front of neck upto left lower jaw. Further, at the time of stabbing or cutting, if the accused has pulled the knife or if the victim has shaken his head, such an injury is possible. Therefore, it cannot be said that no such injury could have been caused by a knife by accused No.3. Injury No.1 also would have been caused by using a knife. It is difficult for any witness to say which accused caused which injury in a precise manner when more than one person attacks a victim. Out of 14 injuries sustained by the deceased, injury No.14 is necessarily fatal as opined by P.W.4 postmortem doctor and this injury has been caused by accused No.1. 7. The occurrence is said to have taken place at 6.00 a.m. on 30.04.1999. At 9.00 a.m. P.W.1 has reached the police station, which is seven kilometre away from the occurrence place and lodged Ex.P-1 complaint. In Ex.P-1 complaint itself P.W.1 has narrated the motive for the accused to attack the deceased and also narrated how the occurrence took place. She has also mentioned the presence of P.W.2, who is none other than the father of the accused No.1. Based on Ex.P-1 complaint, which was received at 9.00 a.m., P.W.9 Sub-Inspector of Police has registered a case for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 302 I.P.C. and prepared Ex.P-9 printed FIR. The FIR has reached the Judicial magistrate Court, Andipatti, at 12.00 Noon. The distance between the police station and Andipatti is 20 kilometres as seen from the evidence of P.W.9 Sub-Inspector of Police. Thus, it could be seen that there is no delay either in lodging the complaint by P.W.1 or in the F.I.R. reaching the Court. 8. The evidence of P.W.1, the wife of the deceased and P.W.2, the father of accused No.1 and the deceased, is cogent and clear and it inspires confidence and there is nothing to suspect their evidence. The learned senior counsel for the appellants could not point out any material contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. 9. 8. The evidence of P.W.1, the wife of the deceased and P.W.2, the father of accused No.1 and the deceased, is cogent and clear and it inspires confidence and there is nothing to suspect their evidence. The learned senior counsel for the appellants could not point out any material contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. 9. When the accused surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai, on 05.05.1999, police custody of Accused Nos.1 and 3 was given on 10.05.1999 on the application of P.W.11 Investigation Officer. When they were examined on the same night, Accused Nos.1 and 3 have volunteered to give confession statements and the admissible portion of which are Ex.P-5 and P-6. Since it was late night and admitted by the accused that the weapons used for the commission of the crime and the bloodstained clothes have been hidden in a dilapidated well, next day morning between 8.30 a.m. and 9.00 a.m., Accused Nos.1 and 3 took and produced M.Os.3 to 6 and the same were recovered by P.W.11 under Exs.P-7 and P-8 in the presence of P.W.6 and one Chinnamani. When the case properties were subjected for chemical analysis, human blood was found in M.O.1 bloodstained earth, M.O.7 dhoti, M.O.8 shirt and M.O.8 underwear worn by the deceased subburaj. Human blood was also found in M.O.3 billhook used by accused No.1, M.O.4 dhoti, M.O.5 shirt worn by him and in M.O.6 knife used by accused No.3. Ex.P-13 Serologist's report would confirm that M.O.7 dhoti and M.O.8 shirt worn by the deceased contained human 'B' group blood. M.O.4 dhoti worn by accused No.1 also contained human 'B' group blood and M.O.6 knife used by accused No.3 also contained human 'B' group blood. Though in M.O.3 Aruval, used by accused No.1, contained human blood, the result with regard to grouping is 'inconclusive'. Thus the weapons used by Accused Nos.1 and 3 contained human blood, particularly, M.O.4 Lungi and M.O.5 shirt worn by accused No.1 and M.O.6 knife used by accused No.3 contained 'B' group blood and it matched with the blood group of the deceased as found in M.O.7 and M.O.8 dhoti and shirt worn by the deceased. This circumstantial evidence also proves the involvement of the accused in the crime. 10. On behalf of the appellant/accused, one Chockanathan was examined as D.W.1. This circumstantial evidence also proves the involvement of the accused in the crime. 10. On behalf of the appellant/accused, one Chockanathan was examined as D.W.1. He has deposed that he came to know about the death of Subburaj at 6.30 a.m. and he and about 10 persons, who were present in the shop, rushed to the spot and after seeing Subburaj lying dead, he returned and at that time he saw P.W.2 Tamilselvi, wife of Subburaj, and P.W.2, father of the deceased and accused No.1, were going to the place of occurrence and according to him, only on presumption accused have been implicated in the case and that the deceased Subburaj had enmity with his in-laws of first wife, who is no more. Admittedly, in his evidence itself, D.W.1 has stated that he had enmity with the deceased. Therefore, it is natural that he has deposed against the prosecution case. 11. We do not find anything worth to consider the contentions of the appellants that they are innocent. The trial court has correctly come to the conclusion that accused Nos.1 and 3 alone have committed the offence based on cogent and clear evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and we do not find any reason to interfere with the reasoning of the trial court and, therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 12. In the result, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed.