Judgment : Per R. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. 1. Appellants are accused No.1 and 2 in S.C. No.59 of 2003 on the file of the Additional Court of Sessions, Coimbatore, in which they were tried for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. On being found guilty at the end of the trial, each one of them stands sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs.5,000/- carrying a default sentence. Hence, they are before this Court in these appeals. Heard G. Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for A1, S. Sivakumar, learned counsel appearing for A2 and N.R. Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for State in both the appeals. 2. The prosecution case is that on the intervening night of 21.3.2000 and 22.3.2000, both the accused poured acid on the victim, namely, Pratheep, assaulted him on his head, resulting in his death on 10.7.2000 and therefore punishable for the offence referred to earlier. The prosecution to substantiate their case examined P. Ws. 1 to 16 besides marking Exs. P. 1 to P.23 and M.Os 1 to 8. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was brought before Court at the instance of the accused. 3. P.W.1 is having a Goldsmithy shop in Gandhi Park at Coimbatore. A1, A2, P.W.2, deceased and several others were working under him. The deceased prior to his death was working for almost one year with P.W. 1. The accused were also working there during the same time. When they were so working, the deceased often used to make fun of the accused, resulting in a quarrel between them. At 8.30 p.m. on 21.3.2000, there was a similar incident at the instance of the deceased, resulting in exchange of words. P.W.1 intervened and brought peace between them. The accused were also working there during the same time. When they were so working, the deceased often used to make fun of the accused, resulting in a quarrel between them. At 8.30 p.m. on 21.3.2000, there was a similar incident at the instance of the deceased, resulting in exchange of words. P.W.1 intervened and brought peace between them. At 3.00 hours on 22.3.2000, Sathish employed under P.W.1, told P.W.1 as here under: “the deceased and both the accused were sleeping in the front of the Smithy shop; P.W. 2 and others were sleeping in the open terrace; at 2.45 hours, P.W.4 employed in the adjoining Goldsmithy shop woke him (Sathish) up and told him that he (P.W.4) heard some noise in the Smithy shop and accordingly Sathish taking the key from P.W.2 opened the Smithy shop and found there was none in the shop; however, Sathish heard some noise from the bathroom and then Sathish opened the bathroom, he found Pratheep - since deceased sitting under the water tap and weeping; Pratheep was brought out and made to lie down; when Sathish enquired him, Pratheep told him that both the accused poured acid on him and as he (Pratheep) was having a burning sensation in the skin, he went to the bathroom to splash water on him and at that time they (the accused) bolted the bathroom door and left” P.W.1 went to the shop immediately, where he found Pratheep was bleeding through a wound on the back of his head and when he enquired, Pratheep told him that both the accused poured acid on him. Immediately, P.W.1 took Pratheep in an autorickshaw to the nearby hospital, namely, Maruthi Hospital and finding none there, transported Pratheep in the ambulance available at the Maruthi Hospital to another hospital, namely, Ramakrishna Hospital and got him admitted there at 3.30 a.m. Pratheep was talking on the way to the hospital, but after admission, he did not talk at all. P.W.1 informed the medical officer about the crime and also informed the parents of Pratheep, who came there. When P.W.1 was in the hospital, Inspector of Police from the investigating police station examined him and since the Inspector of Police found Pratheep unconsious, he examined P.W.1. The oral narration of P.W.1 was reduced into writing and the same was read over to him by the Inspector of Police, in which, he had signed. When P.W.1 was in the hospital, Inspector of Police from the investigating police station examined him and since the Inspector of Police found Pratheep unconsious, he examined P.W.1. The oral narration of P.W.1 was reduced into writing and the same was read over to him by the Inspector of Police, in which, he had signed. Ex.P.1 is the said complaint. P.W.14 at 1.00 p.m. in the afternoon, reached the Smithy shop and in the presence of P.W.1 observed the bathroom. At that time, they found a letter on the table and the contents of the letter were in Malayalam. P.W. 10 the other Sub-Inspector of Police was also there. P.W.14 showed that letter to P.W.10, who translated the contents of the same orally after reading it. The translation is as here under: “To save our life, we assaulted Pratheep and we realised that he had become serious; therefore we are leaving this place after locking Pratheep in the bathroom; we are not taking any gold, but only Rs.80/- in cash; please do not harass those in our house” From the crime scene, a plastic can containing 10 to 15 milligrams of acid, a discoloured shirt due to acid contact and a lungi were recovered. P.W.9 was present at that time. M.O.s 2 to 4 were the incriminating objects recovered. Pratheeps parents and relatives came, to whom P.W.1 informed. Pratheep was taken to the hospital at Trichur on 22.4.2000, where he was admitted. Pratheep was transferred from the Coimbatore Hospital to the Hospital at Trichur, since his relatives found difficult to visit Coimbatore often. P.W.1 was visiting Pratheep in the hospital at Coimbatore till he was transferred to Trichur. Pratheep was not in a position to talk till he was discharged from the hospital at Coimbatore. P.W.1 was asked to inform the police, if he comes to know about the accused. Coming to know about the involvement of A1, P.W.1 went to Kerala to see A1s father and asked him whether he had any information about his son (A1) and his father replied that A1 did not contact him at all, but however, he produced letters written by A1 to him. P.W.1 brought that letters to Coimbatore on 27.4.2000 and handed over the same to the investigating officer, who received, as it is a necessary material for investigation. P.W.1 brought that letters to Coimbatore on 27.4.2000 and handed over the same to the investigating officer, who received, as it is a necessary material for investigation. M.O.5 series are the two letters stated to have been written by A1 to his father. They were recovered under Ex.P.2/Form 95. From the hospital at Trichur, information was received on 10.7.2000 that Pratheep died. Immediately, P.W.1 went to Trichur and the Inspector of Police was also there. P.W.1 was present during the inquest and he was also examined. Information came that A2 is coming from Mumbai on 2.9.2000 by Kurla Express to Coimbatore and P.W.1 passed on that information to P.W.16, who accordingly keeping a watch at the Railway Station at Coimbatore, arrested A2 in the presence of P.W.1 and others. A2 is examined by the police and he gave a voluntary confession statement, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P.3. Pursuant to which, M.Os. 6 and 7 came to be recovered under a mahazar/ExP.4. 4. P.W.14 is the Sub-Inspector of Police during the relevant time in the investigating police station. At 10.45 a.m. on 22.3.2000, he received intimation from the Ramakrishna Hospital, Coimbatore and accordingly he proceeded to the hospital, where he found Pratheep - an in patient not in a position to talk. Accordingly, by examining P.W.1, who was present there, he recorded his statement. He came back to the police station at 12 noon and registered that complaint as Ex.P.1 in Crime No.80 of 2000 under Section 326 I.P.C. Ex. P.19 is the printed first information report. He sent the express records to the Court as well as to higher officials. He proceeded to the scene of occurrence and in the presence of P.W.9 and another, he prepared Ex.P.11, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.20, the rough sketch. In the presence of the same witnesses, he recovered M.Os. 1 to 4, namely, a plastic can with a capacity of one litre containing 10 ml. of liquid; an ash colour full sleeve shirt, a violet colour lungi and a letter under Ex.P.12, the mahazar attested by the same witnesses. The lungi and the shirt had acid stain on it. He found the bathroom tiles blood stained and accordingly, he caused that to be photographed. M.O.8 series are the photographs and the negatives. of liquid; an ash colour full sleeve shirt, a violet colour lungi and a letter under Ex.P.12, the mahazar attested by the same witnesses. The lungi and the shirt had acid stain on it. He found the bathroom tiles blood stained and accordingly, he caused that to be photographed. M.O.8 series are the photographs and the negatives. His investigation revealed that Ramesh and Safi (A1 and A2) employed in P.W.1s Goldsmithy shop are responsible for the crime. He found them absconding. He came back to the police station with the recovered incriminating objects. He recovered M.O.5 (two inland letters) produced by P.W.1 on 27.4.2000 as letters written by A1 to his father. Ex.P.2 is the recovery mahazar. All the incriminating objects so recovered by the Sub-Inspector of Police were sent to the Court with a requisition Ex.P.21 to subject the same for chemical examination. Ex.P.22 is another letter sent to the Court requesting it to subject M.O.1 and M.O.5 series for appropriate examination by experts. With the help of P.W. 10, the Sub-Inspector of Police, he got the contents of M.O.1 translated. P.W.11 is the head constable in the investigating police station. At 9.30 a.m. on 10.7.2000, he received Ex.P.13 the death intimation and accordingly, he altered the Section of offence from one under Section 326 I.P.C. into one under Section 302 I.P.C The altered express first information report is Ex.P.14. 5. P.W.8 is the doctor, who did post-mortem on the dead body on 11.7.2000 on receipt of Ex.P.9. He commenced post-mortem at 11.00 a.m. on that day and completed it at 12.20 p.m. During postmortem, he found various symptoms as noted by him in Ex.P.10,the post-mortem report. According to him, death would have occurred 9 to 12 hours prior to autopsy; injury Nos. 6 and 7 are bed sore injuries and injury Nos.1 to 5 could have been possible due to pouring of acid and injury No.8 might have been caused due to assault by M.O.6, the hammer. According to him, death is as a result of complications following acid burns and head injury sustained. The symptoms in the post-mortem report are as here under: Injuries: (Ante-mortem):- 1. Infected burns on both sides of outlet aspect of fact, around neck, around both arms upto elbows, around back and front aspects of chest and upper part of abdomen. 2. According to him, death is as a result of complications following acid burns and head injury sustained. The symptoms in the post-mortem report are as here under: Injuries: (Ante-mortem):- 1. Infected burns on both sides of outlet aspect of fact, around neck, around both arms upto elbows, around back and front aspects of chest and upper part of abdomen. 2. Healing burns with area of epitheliazation and partial scarring over fore-head, around both eyes, nose, inner aspects of both sides of face, and front of chin, over the front and sides of abdomen. 3. Infected wound 30 × 22 cm around upper and middle aspects of left thigh (area of skin grafting). 4. Healing burns with pale base 9 × 4 cm over the lower 1/3rd of outer border of right forearm. 5. Healing burns 10 × 3/5cm over the middle of outlet border of left hand. 6. Infected wound 14 × 10 cm over the smell of back (bed sore). 7. Infected wound 13 × 9 cm over the back of heel (bed sore). 8. On dissection the right parietal and occipital bone showed a vertical depressed fracture 8×2 cm (upperprotion) ×3 cm (middloe) × 1.5 cm (lower part). Dura showed collection of yellowish brown viscous fluid (old entradural Haemorrhage). The right occipital pole showed laceration 5 × 4 × 1 cm along with adjoining area of cerebellar region 3.5 × 1.5 cm × superficial. 9. Depressed fracture 2.5 × 0.5 cm (front) × 1 cm (middle and 0.5 cm back involving top and back aspects of right parietal bone. The inner table of skull bone showed corresponding fracture over an area 3×2 cm. Other findings: Brain pale. Mouth and pharynx pale. Neck structures intact. Eact chest cavity contained 200ml. of straw coloured fluid. Trachea and bronchi pale. Lungs congested and oedematous. Valves and chambers of heart normal. Coronaries patent. The myocardium of left ventricle showed an area of yellowish brown discolouration (3×1cm) at its middle (fibnosis). Fatty change of liver present. Spleen, kidneys pale. Stomach contained less than 100 ml. of pure blood without any unusual smell and the mucosa showed two ulcerated area 0.8×0.8 cm and 1.5×0.5 cm closer to fundus. Urinaru bladder empty. Spinal column and cord intact. All other organs pale.” 6. P.W. 10 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who was present in the crime scene along with P.W.14. Stomach contained less than 100 ml. of pure blood without any unusual smell and the mucosa showed two ulcerated area 0.8×0.8 cm and 1.5×0.5 cm closer to fundus. Urinaru bladder empty. Spinal column and cord intact. All other organs pale.” 6. P.W. 10 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who was present in the crime scene along with P.W.14. He was present during the preparation of observation mahazar by P.W.14. He was also present when M.O.1 was recovered and he translated the contents of M.O.1 (it was in Malayalam). P.W.15 handed over the investigation to the regular Inspector of Police, namely, P.W.16. P.W.16. continued the investigation from where it was left earlier by P.W.15. He verified the investigation already done by P.W.14. He examined further witnesses and recorded their statements. P.W.12. is the Scientific Expert. He examined M.O.2, a plastic can with 10 ml. of liquid, M.O.3, the ash colour full sleeve shirt and M.O.4, the violet colour lungi received by him, as an enclosure to Courts letter Ex.P.15. In M.O.2, he found Hydrochloric Acid; in M.O.4, he detected Hydrochloric Acid and gave his report Ex.P.16 stating that Hydrochloric Acid would endanger human life and the de-colouring of the shirt is due to their contact with Hydrochloric Acid. P.W.13 is the Handwriting Expert. He examined M.O.1 which M.O.5 series (2 letters). He gave the serial numbers as Q.1 to Q.3 for the contents of M.O.1 and for the contents of M.O.5 series, he gave S.1 to S.5 as identifying marks. He compared both and found that writing in S.1 tallied with the writings in Q.1 to Q.3 and that both were written by the same person. Ex.P.18 is his report. P.W.16 arrested A2 on 2.9.2000 in the Goodshed Road at Coimbatore Railway Station on being identified by P.W. 1 and examined him. At that time, A2 gave a voluntary confession statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P.3 and pursuant to which, M.Os. 6 and 7 came to be recovered under a mahazar attested by the same witnesses. The accused and the incriminating objects were broght to the police station. The accused was sent for judicial remand and the case properties were sent to Court. 7. P.W.2 is employed under P.W.1. He would state that he, the deceased, A1, A2 and many others were working under P.W.1. The accused and the incriminating objects were broght to the police station. The accused was sent for judicial remand and the case properties were sent to Court. 7. P.W.2 is employed under P.W.1. He would state that he, the deceased, A1, A2 and many others were working under P.W.1. At 8.30 p.m. on 21.3.2000, there was a quarrel between the accused (A1 and A2) on the one hand and the deceased on the other hand, which was sorted out by P.W.1. Then Pratheep - since deceased went to sleep inside the Goldsmithy shop. A1 and A2 left to the adjoining Smithy shop to see television. P.W.2. and others went to the open terrace to sleep. Mid way his sleep, A2 woke him up and by handing over the Smithy shop key, told him that A2 and A1 had assaulted Pratheep - since deceased and they left him in the bathroom by locking it. P.W.2 took that in a lighter vein and by collecting the key, resumed his sleep. Thereafter, he felt that somebody is touching him and he found P.W.4, the worker in the neighbour Goldsmithy shop. P.W. 4 told him that as he is hearing some noise from the Goldsmithy shop, asked him for the key, as it is found locked. Immediately, P.W.2 in the company of Sathish and others went down where they found P.W.9 and others. Then P.W.2 opened the lock and entered the Smithy shop where he found electric light burning and none was found, but however, when he opened the bathroom door, he found Pratheep sitting under the water tap and weeping. Pratheep wanted water. P.W.4 brought. They felt a smell of acid at that time. P.W.4 and others poured water on Pratheep. Pratheep was wearing only his inner wear and his body was charred. He noticed an injury on Pratheeps head. When enquired, Pratheep said that A1 and A2 after assaulting him, poured acid on him and as Pratheep was having a burning sensation, he went to the bathroom to splash water on his body, at the time A1 and A2 bolted the door outside and left. P.W.2 requested Sathish to bring P.W.1 and P.W.1 arrived and asked Pratheep as to what happened. Pratheep repeated what he had already told to P.W.2 and others. P.W.2 requested Sathish to bring P.W.1 and P.W.1 arrived and asked Pratheep as to what happened. Pratheep repeated what he had already told to P.W.2 and others. Then P.W.1 and others in an auto rickshaw took injured Pratheep to Maruthi Hospital and finding none there, Pratheep was taken to Ramakrishna Hospital. They reached Ramakrishna Hospital at 3.30 a.m. and P.W.1 informed the police as well as the parents of Pratheep. Next day, police visited the crime scene, where they found a letter on the table, the contents of which we have already extracted. The said letter is M.O.1 and it came to be recovered. P.W.3 is the father of the deceased. He would state that after getting his son discharged from Ramakrishna Hospital, Coimbatore, he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Trichur where despite treatment he died at 1.30 hours on 10.7.2000, i. e., on the intervening night of 10.7.2000 and 11.7.2000. He would state that when Pratheep was in the hospital at Coimbatore, he could not talk, but once he reached at Trichur, he was in a position to talk. 8. P.W.4 is working in the adjoining Goldsmithy shop. On the occurrence time, he was sleeping in the veranda of his shop and at that time, he heard a painful cry of someone from the nearby shop. When he woke up, he found that the noise was coming from P.W. 1s Goldsmithy shop and he found that shop is locked. Those working in P.W.1s shop were sleeping in the open terrace. P.W.2, the deceased, A1, A2 and others were working under P.W.1. P.W. 4 went to the open terrace, where he found P.W. 2 and others sleeping. He woke up P.W.2 and told him about what he is hearing from P.W.1s shop. At that time, P.W.2 told him that only just then A2 by handling over the key left saying that both he (A2) and A1 by pouring acid on Pratheep attacked him. P.W.2 told P.W.4 that as he took it in a lighter vein, he resumed his sleep. Then every one came down. The rest of P.W.4s evidence is as spoken to by P.W.2. P.W.5 is the photographer, who proved M.O.8 series. P.W.6 is the duty doctor in the Ramakrishna Hospital, Coimbatore and at 5.15 a.m., on 22.3.2000, Pratheep was brought before him and P.W. 6 was informed that the co-workers had poured acid on Pratheep. Then every one came down. The rest of P.W.4s evidence is as spoken to by P.W.2. P.W.5 is the photographer, who proved M.O.8 series. P.W.6 is the duty doctor in the Ramakrishna Hospital, Coimbatore and at 5.15 a.m., on 22.3.2000, Pratheep was brought before him and P.W. 6 was informed that the co-workers had poured acid on Pratheep. Ex..P.5 is the intimation sent by him to the police. On him, he found various symptoms as noted in Ex.P.6, the accident register and Ex.P.7 wound certificate. The symptoms noted in Ex.P.7, the wound certificate are as here under: “1. Acid burns over fact and chest, adbomen and both hands. 2. Depressed fracture occipital bone. 3. Cut injury scalp. 4. Cut injury pubic area.” Doctor opined that injury Nos.1 and 2 are grievous in nature and injury Nos.3 and 4 are simple in nature. The burn injuries noted on the body of Pratheep are due to contact of Hyrdrochloric Acid or any other acid. According to him, Pratheep was not in a position to talk at all till he was discharged from the hospital. P.W.7 is the duty doctor in the General Medical College Hospital at Trichur. Pratheep was admitted in that hospital at 10.30 a.m. on 22.4.2000 and Pratheep breathed his last at 1.30 a.m. on 10.7.2000 in the hospital itself, though he was given necessary treatment. Ex.P.8 is the certificate issued by him. P.W.9 is a witness to the preparation of the observation mahazar and recovery of M.Os.1 to 4 under the recovery mahazar. A1 was arrested on 27.2.2002 and he was sent for judicial remand. 9. P.W.16 after completing all the legal formalities filed the final report in Court against the accused on 6.4.2001 under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the basis of the incriminating materials made available against them, they denied each and every circumstance put up against them as false and contrary to facts. As already noted, neither oral nor documentary was brought before Court at their instance. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in each appeal would submit that the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4 are far from convincing and therefore, their evidence cannot be accpeted. As already noted, neither oral nor documentary was brought before Court at their instance. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in each appeal would submit that the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4 are far from convincing and therefore, their evidence cannot be accpeted. In Ex.P.1, neither the name of P.W.2, nor the name of P.W.4 is disclosed as persons to whom Pratheep, while alive, is shown to have given the oral dying declaration. On the other hand, in Ex.P.1, it is disclosed that Sathish alone had come to know about the crime at the earliest point of time and to him only Pratheep is shown to have given the oral dying declaration. Sathish had not been examined. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4 as projected by the prosecution cannot be accepted at all. There is a variation between the contents of Ex.P.1 and the evidence of P.Ws 2 and 4. The hand writing experts evidence that the writings in M.O.1 and the writings in M.O.5 series is that of A1 cannot be believed at all, because the person from whom M.O.5 series came to be recovered had not been examined at all. M.O.5 series were not recovered during investigation, but it appears that A1s father is shown to have given those documents voluntarily to P.W.1. Therefore, there is every doubt as to whether M.O.5 series could have been written by A1 at all. What ever it is, in the absence of examination of A1s father to show that he produced M.O.5 series to P.W.1, the hand writing experts evidence cannot be accepted. Lastly it is submitted that even assuming that the entire prosecution case is true, even then the conviction of the appellants for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. cannot be legally sustained, since the cause of death is not only due to complication following the burns, but also due to the head injury. In Ex.P.1 Pratheep is shown to have told Sathish that after he suffered the burn injuries, he went to the bathroom, where he fell down and only in that context he suffered the head injury. Therefore, the submission is that at the best the appellants could be convicted only under Section 326 I.P.C. We heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above points. 10. Let us now examine the case. Therefore, the submission is that at the best the appellants could be convicted only under Section 326 I.P.C. We heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above points. 10. Let us now examine the case. P.W.2, the deceased, A1, A2 and a few more were working under P.W.1. P.W.1 is having a Goldsmithy shop in Gandhi Part at Coimbatore. He had given evidence about that. The occurrence was in the early hours of 22.3.2000, namely, in the intervening night of 21.3.2000 and 22.3.2000. P.W. 1 was informed by Sathish his employee about the incident at about 3.00 a.m. on 22.3.2000. What Sathish disclosed to P.W. 1, we have already narrated while extracting P.W.1s evidence. Ex.P.1 is the complaint given by P.W.1 to P.W.14, the Sub-Inspector of Police. The evidence of P.W.14 shows that he received information from Ramakrishna Hospital where Pratheep was admitted and on he reaching the hospital found Pratheep not in a position to talk and therefore by examining P.W. 1, he recorded his statement - Ex.P.1, which had come to be registered at about 12 noon on 22.3.2000 by P.W.14 in the police station. We are fully aware that Ex.P.1 cannot be a substantive evidence. But at the same time, the contents of Ex.P.1 can always be had in mind to test the veracity/ the correctness or otherwise of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore, for that limited purpose, we extract here under the sum and substance of what Pratheep is shown to have disclosed to Sathish, who in turn told it to P.W.1: “When Pratheep was asked as to how it happened, he replied that during exchange of words, A1 and A2 around 3.00 a.m. poured Sulphur Acid on him; he had burning irritation; he ran into the bathroom to splash water on himself; and at that time they bolted the bathroom door from outside and ran; on account of the acid effect on his body he lost his balance and fell down and while so falling down, he received the injury on the head.” P.W.6 the doctor at the Coimbatore hospital while he was cross-examined had stated that if a person losing his balance falls in a bathroom, injury Nos.2 and 3 noted by him on Pratheep are possible. Injury No.2, noted by him, is in the occipital bone and a cut injury - scalp. Injury No.2, noted by him, is in the occipital bone and a cut injury - scalp. We reiterate at the risk of repetition that Pratheep disclosed to Sathish that he received the head injury due to an accidental fall/on losing balance in the bathroom. Admittedly, except the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4, there is no other evidence to connect the accused with the crime. Before proceeding to examine the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4, we want to hold that the evidence of the handwriting expert, namely, P.W.13 that the contents of M.O.1 and the contents of M.O.5 series have been written by the same person cannot be given any due weight because the person from whom M.O.5 series came to recovered, has not been examined. It is not the case of the prosecution that they have taken the specimen signature/handwriting of A1. P.W.1s evidence is that when he contacted A1s father, he voluntarily handed over those letters stating that his son (A1) had written to him. In the absence of the evidence of A1s father with regard to the production of letters written by A1 to P.W. 1, we have every reason to conclude that M.O.5 series is not proved and that they could have been written by A1 to his father. Therefore, we eliminate from our consideration the evidence of P.W. 13 and his report Ex.P.18. 11. As we have already stated, de hors the hand writing experts evidence, the prosecution has still the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 4. It is no doubt true that neither P.W. 2s name nor P.W. 4s name are mentioned in Ex.P.1. P.W.4 is not employed under P.W. 1 while P.W. 2 is employed under P.W. 1. Sathish, whose name is mentioned in Ex.P.1, is an employee of P.W. 1/ co-employee of P.W.2. Sathishs presence at the crime scene is very much established on the evidence on record. But, Sathish had not been examined. That does not mean the evidence of P.W.2 should be disbelieved. We went through the evidence of P.W.2 and it appears to be a natural and convincing evidence. We had already extracted what he had deposed in Court. His evidence stands fully corroborated by the oral evidence of P.W.4. Therefore, it is clear that to P.Ws. That does not mean the evidence of P.W.2 should be disbelieved. We went through the evidence of P.W.2 and it appears to be a natural and convincing evidence. We had already extracted what he had deposed in Court. His evidence stands fully corroborated by the oral evidence of P.W.4. Therefore, it is clear that to P.Ws. 2 and 4, Pratheep had made a clear disclosure that A1 and A2 poured acid on him and when Pratheep went into the bathroom to have water splashing on the body, they left bolting the bathroom door from outside. Besides the disclosure made by Pratheep to P.Ws. 2 and 4, P.W.2s evidence also shows that A2 woke up P.W.2 and gave the key stating that he (A2) and A1 had assaulted Pratheep and locked him in the bathroom. Though P.Ws. 2 and 4 would uniformly say that Pratheep told them that A1 and A2 not only poured acid on him, but also assaulted him, but yet we are of the firm view that having regard to the contents of Ex. P.1 and the absence of evidence of Sathish, whose name is mentioned in Ex.P.1, we are not inclined to hold that the prosecution had established that the accused assaulted Pratheep before pouring acid on him. In other words, the contents of Ex.P.1; failure to examine Sathish and the oral evidence of P.W.1 what Sathish told him, namely, the accused by pouring acid caused injuries on him, we are inclined to give the benefit of our discussion in favour of A1 and A2, the benefit being that there is no evidence establishing that the accused assaulted Pratheep while pouring or before pouring acid. But however, the fact remains, from the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4, established beyond doubt that A1 and A2 are guilty of pouring acid on Pratheep, which ultimately made him to breath his last almost four months later. 12. Once we conclude that the prosecution had established the involvement of A1 and A2 in pouring acid on Pratheep, the next question that follows is for what offence A1 and A2 could be found guilty of. We have already referred to the medical evidence and the medical evidence shows that the death is due to complication following burns and the head injuries. We have already held that there is no evidence to show that A1 and A2 have caused head injuries on Pratheep. We have already referred to the medical evidence and the medical evidence shows that the death is due to complication following burns and the head injuries. We have already held that there is no evidence to show that A1 and A2 have caused head injuries on Pratheep. Therefore, the evidence only establishes that A1 and A2 poured acid on Pratheep. Grievous hurt is defined in Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code. Clause 8 of Section 320 states that if any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits, then it must be held that he has suffered grievous hurt. In this case, Pratheep was shown to be as in inptient at Coimbatore hospital till 22.4.2000 on which date he was discharged; from 22.4.2000 till 10.7.2000 on which date he died, he was found to be an inpatient in the Government General Hospital at Trichur. This period during which he was an inpatient exceeds the period of 20 days and during the entire period of his treatment as an inpatient, Pratheep was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. Therefore, all the requirements of Clause 8 of Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code stands satisfied in this case, which means the accused must be found guilty of offence under Section 326 I.P.C) 13. Accordingly, both the appeals stand disposed of on the following lines: C. A. No. 1228 of 2004: The judgment under challenge is set aside convicting the appellant (A1) under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C., instead he is found guilty under Section 326 read with 34 I.P.C., for which he stands sentenced to undergo six years rigorous imprisonment. Fine amount, imposed on him under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. is maintained for this conviction. C. A. No. 83 of 2006: The judgment under challenge is set aside convicting the appellant (A2) under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C., instead he is found guilty under Section 326 read with 34 I.P.C., for which he stands sentenced to undergo six years rigorous imprisonment. Fine amount, imposed on him under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. is maintained for this conviction. This Court is informed that the appellant (A2) is in prison from 2.9.2000, which means he had already suffered imprisonment for six years. Fine amount, imposed on him under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. is maintained for this conviction. This Court is informed that the appellant (A2) is in prison from 2.9.2000, which means he had already suffered imprisonment for six years. The prison authorities are directed to verify the above fact and if A2 had already suffered six years rigorous imprisonment, then he shall be let off and if not, he shall serve the remaining period of sentence.