Judgment :- (Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 29.09.2002 passed in S.C.No.326/2001 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court(FTC.No.I), Chengalpattu.) A.C.Arumugaperumal Adityan, J. This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.326/2001 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court,(FTC-I), Chengalpattu. 2. The short facts of the prosecution case is as follows: On 13.5.2001 at about 19.00 hours due to previous enmity the accused wrongfully restrained P.W.1 in front of his house and kicked him on the testicles causing injuries and during the same transaction with an intention to kill the father of Mathiazhagan (P.W.1) viz Vembadi, stabbed him on the left chest with a knife thus causing instantaneous death and in the same transaction the accused has also attacked P.W.1 with the same knife on the left hip and left hand and attacked P.W.4 with knife on the left hand and left thigh and with the same knife attacked P.W.5 on the left hand and left leg and with the same knife attacked P.W.6 on the right hand causing simple injuries. There are nine eye witnesses to the occurrence out of which P.W.1 to 6 are the injured witnesses and P.W.7 & 8 have not supported the case of the prosecution and P.W.9 is the other eye witness, even though he is not an injured witness. P.W.1 is the son of the deceased. According to P.W.1, his father and other injured witnesses and the accused are of the residents of the Srilankan Refugee Camp at Gummudipoondi and since the water hand borewell pumb got repaired, his father(deceased-Vembadi) as vice-president of the refugee camp collected Rs.5/- from each house and the pump was got repaired on 12.5.2001 and on 13.5.2001 at about 6.00 pm, when he(P.W.1) was proceeding to the house of P.W.10 to collected money, the accused called him and enquired about the money collected by his(P.W.1) father in connection with the repair of the hand borewell pumb and kicked on the testicles and thereafter, he returned to his house and informed the incident to his parents, who came to the house of the accused at about 7.00 pm on the same day, questioned the accused how he can beat their boy-P.W.1. Thereupon the accused slapped the mother of P.W.1, who fell down. The accused was also pushed down by P.W.1's father. Thereupon the accused slapped the mother of P.W.1, who fell down. The accused was also pushed down by P.W.1's father. Immediately the accused took a knife from his waist and stabbed on the left chest of his(P.W.1) father causing grievous injuries. Thereafter, the accused had also assaulted P.W.1 and P.W.3 to 6 causing grievous injuries and he(P.W.1) took his father in an auto for admitting him in Ponneri Government Hospital. But his father died on his way to the hospital. Thereafter, P.W.1 preferred Ex.P.1-complaint to P.W.19, Sub-Inspector of Police, who had registered a case in Cr.No.126/2001 under Section 341, 323, 324 & 307 IPC. Ex.P.16 is the FIR. P.W.21-Investigation Officer took up the investigation on 13.5.2001 and went to the place of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar and drew Ex.P.18-rough sketch and seized material objects from the scene of occurrence and went to the hospital and after come to know that the injured-Vembadi died, he altered the charge into under Section 341, 323, 324, 307 and 302 IPC. Ex.P.19 is the altered FIR. After observing the formalities and after completing the investigation, P.W.21 filed the charge sheet. P.W.20 is the Doctor, who had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased, issued Ex.P.17-postmortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to haemorrhage and shock. 3. The case was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ponneri and on appearance of the accused, the learned Magistrate furnished copies to the accused under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and committed the case to the court of sessions under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, framed the charges under Section 341, 352, 302 IPC and 324 IPC (4 counts) against the accused and when questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty. 4. On the side of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 21 were examined and Ex.P.1 to P.24 were filed and M.O.1 to 7 were marked. When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied his complicity with the crime. 4. On the side of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 21 were examined and Ex.P.1 to P.24 were filed and M.O.1 to 7 were marked. When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused denied his complicity with the crime. On the basis of the available documentary and oral evidences, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused under Section 341, 352, 302 IPC and 324 IPC (4 counts) beyond any reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC to undergo life imprisonment and under Section 324 IPC (4 counts) to undergo one year RI under each count. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, has not sentenced separately under Section 341 and 352 IPC since the accused has been given life sentence under Section 302 IPC. Aggrieved by the sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chegalpattu, the accused has preferred this appeal. 5. Now the point for determination in this appeal is whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, against the accused is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the memorandum of appeal? 6. The Point:- The accused-Thangam and the deceased-Vambadi and P.W.1 to 11 are of residents of Srilankan Refugee Camp at Gummudipoondi. We have heard Mr. V.Parthiban, the learned counsel for the accused/appellant and Mr.V.R.Balasubramanian, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent and considered their submissions. There are nine eye witnesses to the occurrence, out of which P.W.1 & 4 to 6 are the injured witnesses. They all corroborated with each other while narrating the occurrence before the trial Court. P.W.20 is the Doctor, who had conducted the autopsy on the corpse of Vembadi. According to P.W.20, the deceased had sustained a stab wound measuring 4 x 5 x 6 cm below the left nipple in the mid clavicular line and he(P.W.20-doctor) has opined that the death was due to haemorrhage and shock. P.W.15 is the doctor, who had treated P.W.5-Ramakrishnan, P.W.4-Thambithurai, P.W.1-Mathiyazhagan and P.W.6-Bhahir, and issued Ex.P.7 to P.10, copies of the accident register in respect of the injuries sustained by them at the hands of the accused with knife. P.W.3 is the brother-in-law of the accused. P.W.2 is the mother of P.W.1, who was slapped by the accused. P.W.15 is the doctor, who had treated P.W.5-Ramakrishnan, P.W.4-Thambithurai, P.W.1-Mathiyazhagan and P.W.6-Bhahir, and issued Ex.P.7 to P.10, copies of the accident register in respect of the injuries sustained by them at the hands of the accused with knife. P.W.3 is the brother-in-law of the accused. P.W.2 is the mother of P.W.1, who was slapped by the accused. She has also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1, 4 to 6 along with P.W.9. So, the charge against the accused has been proved beyond and reasonable doubt as correctly held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, which does not warrant any interference by this Court. 7. The learned counsel for the accused/appellant would contend that since there was only one stab injury caused by the accused on the deceased as per the evidence of P.W.20-Doctor and also by the ocular witnesses, the accused cannot be held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, but only to a lesser offence. 8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate relied on the decision reported in AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 1264 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Dhool Singh) and contended that the number of injuries is not always the determining factor in ascertaining the intention. It is the nature of injury, the part of body where it is caused, the weapon used in causing such injury which are the indicators of the fact whether the accused caused the death of the deceased with an intention of causing death or not. The facts of the said case is that on 15.7.1989, P.W.1-Magan lodged a complaint with Police Station Pahada alleging that on the previous day at about 9.00 pm the respondent Dhoo Singh had caused serious injuries with a sharp-edged weapon to Amar Singh son of Shankar Singh in a field known as Pahada which incident according to the complaint was noticed by Ramesh-P.W.1. The attack in question was alleged to be due to the dispute between the respondent and deceased-Amar Singh as to the right of the deceased to graze his cattle on the land belonging to the respondent. It is based on the said complaint that after investigation the police of Pahada Police Station filed a charge-sheet against the respondent for offences punishable under Section 302 IPC as also under Section 4 and 25 of the Arms Act. It is based on the said complaint that after investigation the police of Pahada Police Station filed a charge-sheet against the respondent for offences punishable under Section 302 IPC as also under Section 4 and 25 of the Arms Act. Learned Sessions Judge-II, Udalpur, in Sessions Case No.58 of 1989 after trial found the accused guilty convicted and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and levied fine and lesser sentences under the said provisions of law. It was contended on the side of the appellant in that case that the appellant had caused only one injury on the body of the deceased and hence there was no intention to cause the death of the deceased. It was further contended in that case that punishment under Section 304(ii) IPC alone will be attracted. The Honourable Apex Court while deciding the said issue has observed as follows: "The number of injuries is irrelevant. It is not always the determining factor in ascertaining the intention. It is the nature of injury, the part of body where it is caused, the weapon used in causing such injury which are the indicators of the fact whether the respondent caused the death of the deceased with an intention of causing death or not. In the instant case it is true that the respondent had dealt one single blow with a sword which is a sharp-edged weapon measuring about 3 ft. in length on a vital part of body namely the neck. This act of the respondent though solitary in number had severed sternoclinoid muscle, external jugular vein, internal jugular vein and common carotid artery completely leading to almost instantaneous death. Any reasonable person with any stretch of imagination can come to the conclusion that such injury on such a vital part of the body with a sharp-edged weapon would cause death. Such an injury in our opinion not only exhibits the intention of the attacker in causing the death of the victim but also the knowledge of the attacker as to the likely consequence of such attack which could be none other than causing the death of the victim." The above said dictum squarely applies to the present facts of the case. According to P.W.20, the Doctor, who had conducted autopsy on the corpse of the deceased-Vembadi, the one stab injury found on the left side of the chest was measuring 4 x 5 x 6 cm had pierced the lower lobe of the lung and also pierced the left ventricle anterior aspect entering into left ventricle of the heart to an extent of 5 cm and 6th and 7th rib on the left side also got fractured. The nature of the injury itself throw transparency to lead us to an inference as to the amount of force used by the accused while causing the above said stab injury on the left side of the chest of the deceased. It is seen that the weapon-knife used by the accused was about 25 cms length, out of which, the blade of the knife itself is 15 cms in length as seen from Ex.P.5-Mahazar. After committing the murder of the deceased, the accused has also assaulted with the same knife on P.W.1, 4 to 6 on various parts of their body causing simple injuries on them. So, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has correctly come to the conclusion that the accused is liable to be punished under Section 302 IPC and also under Section 324 IPC (4 counts) on the basis of the evidence of ocular witnesses P.W.1 to 6 and 9, which was corroborated by the medical evidence. Under such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the findings of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, in S.C.No.326/2001 need not be set aside and interfered with for the reasons stated in the memorandum of appeal, The point is answered accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment passed in S.C.No.326/2001 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu. The accused is to be secured immediately and sent to jail to undergo the unexpended portion of the sentence.