Judgment :- (Criminal Appeal against the Judgment and conviction dated 22.4.2002 made in S.C.No.375 of 2001 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Salem.) Ar. Ramalingam, J. Appellants/accused 1 to 4 have filed this appeal against the conviction and sentence for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.3000 under section 302 IPC against A1, life imprisonment with fine of Rs.3000 under section 302 read with section 34 IPC against A2 to A4, rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.1500 under section 307 IPC against A2, rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.1500 under section 307 read with section 34 IPC against A1, A3 and A4, rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.1500 under section 307 IPC against A1 and rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.1500 under section 307 read with section 34 IPC against A2 to A4. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal can be narrated as follows:- A2 is the wife of A1. A3 and A4 are parents of A1. The deceased is one Subramaniam. PW3 Kandasamy is the elder brother of the deceased. PW2 Palanisamy is the son in law of the deceased. PW1 Sevi is the son of the deceased. A1 Raju and PW3 Kandasamy are neighboring land owners. There was misunderstanding and enmity between the family of A1 and that of PW3 in respect of common ridge between their lands and also in respect of taking grass from the said common ridge. 3. Whileso, on 31.1.2000, at about 4.00 pm, there was wordy quarrel between PW3's daughter in law viz., one Palaniammal and A1's family in respect of taking grass from the common ridge. It was informed to the deceased Subramani at about 6.00 pm on the same day by one Arumugam who is a close friend of the deceased Subramani. Thereupon, at about 8.30 pm on the same day, the deceased Subramani went to PW3's land to enquire about the said quarrel and dispute. PW1 Sevi and PW2 Palanisamy also followed him. PW3 went to lock the motor pumpset room in the land. At the same time, A1 Raju armed with M.O.1 Kuthukol, A2 Manimekalai armed with M.O.2 knife, along with A3 Perumayee and A4 Siddan came there and all the accused questioned PW3 as to why they are quarreling. PW1 Sevi and PW2 Palanisamy also followed him. PW3 went to lock the motor pumpset room in the land. At the same time, A1 Raju armed with M.O.1 Kuthukol, A2 Manimekalai armed with M.O.2 knife, along with A3 Perumayee and A4 Siddan came there and all the accused questioned PW3 as to why they are quarreling. At this juncture, the deceased Subramani stated that the matter could be talked in the morning. However, A1 remarked that all the disputes are only due to the said deceased Subramani and immediately A1 stabbed the deceased Subramani on his left chest with M.O.1 Kuthukol and at the same time, A2 Manimekalai stabbed PW2 Palanisamy with M.O.2 knife. At the same time, A3 and A4 viz., Perumayee and Siddan caught hold of PW1 Sevi and A1 came to stab PW1 also and when PW1 resisted, he sustained injuries on the right hand and flank and thereafter, on hearing noise, others came there and the accused ran away. The injured Subramani died on the spot and PW2 was brought to hospital by PW4 Govindasamy and another. Before that PW1 went to Edapady Police Station and gave complaint at about 10.00 pm marked as Ex.P1. PW9 Sub Inspector of Police, Edapady Police Station received Ex.P1 and registered the case and prepared FIR marked as Ex.P13 and he referred PW1 to the Hospital for treatment. PW2 Palanisamy and PW3 Kandasamy besides PW1 are witnesses to the occurrence. In the meanwhile, PW10 Medical Officer attached to Edapady Government Hospital examined PW2 Palanisamy as well as PW1 Sevi and issued wound certificate and Accident Register with opinion that the injury sustained by PW2 is grievous in nature and that of PW1 is simple. PW13 Inspector of Police, Edapady Police Station, on receipt of Ex.P1 at 11.00 pm on 31.1.2000, took up investigation and proceeded to the occurrence place and on 1.2.2000 at 6.30 am, he prepared observation mahazar marked as Ex.P2, rough sketch Ex.P21 and conducted inquest upon the dead body and prepared inquest report marked as Ex.P22 and made arrangements for sending the dead body for post mortem through the Constable PW8 with requisition marked as Ex.P19. PW12, Medical Officer attached to Government Hospital, Edapady, conducted post mortem on 1.2.2000 at 10.30 am and issued post mortem report Ex.P20 with his opinion that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage on account of injury sustained by him in his vital organs like lungs and heart. Thereafter, PW13 Inspector of Police continued investigation and recovered blood stained earth and sample earth, blood stained banian of PW1 by preparing mahazars and then examined witnesses. Thereafter, during the continuance of his investigation, he obtained police custody of the accused on 9.2.2000 since the accused had already surrendered before the Court and recorded their confessional statements and in pursuance of the confessional statements, he recovered M.O.1 Kuthokol and M.O.2 Soori knife. Subsequently, another Inspector of Police PW14 completed the investigation and filed charge sheet. 4. The prosecution has examined 14 witnesses and marked 22 Exhibits and 8 M.O.s before the Trial Court. When the accused was questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C., they have totally denied the complicity in the offence and have marked three Exhibits as D1 to D3 and no witness was examined. After having considered the materials available in this case, the Trial Court has chosen to convict the accused and such conviction is the subject matter of this appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused contended that the prosecution has no acceptable material to show that the occurrence really occurred in the time and manner alleged by them and there is every possibility to believe that the deceased Subramani would have been murdered somewhere else by some other persons having grudge against him on account of his bad character in dealing with women and money transactions through Chit Funds, etc. and that further there is no enmity between the accused and the deceased Subramani and instead enmity alleged by the prosecution is only between A1's family and PW3's family in respect of taking grass from the common ridge and thereby there is no question of invoking common intention for A2 to A4 along with A1 Raju to murder the deceased Subramani or to attack other witnesses. In such circumstances, he further pointed out that, the punishment awarded by the Trial Court under section 302 read with section 34 and section 307 read with section 34 cannot be justified against any of the accused. Therefore, all the accused are liable to be acquitted from all the charges. In such circumstances, he further pointed out that, the punishment awarded by the Trial Court under section 302 read with section 34 and section 307 read with section 34 cannot be justified against any of the accused. Therefore, all the accused are liable to be acquitted from all the charges. On these aspects, we have heard the Additional Public Prosecutor. 6. On careful analysis of the evidence of PW1 as well as complainant Sevi who is also injured, PW2 Palanisamy who is also injured and PW3 Kandasamy, the direct eyewitness to the occurrence, it is found that they have categorically and cogently, without giving room for any suspicion, given evidence to the effect that as soon as the deceased Subramani remarked that the matter can be discussed in the morning, A1 Raju stabbed the deceased Subramani with M.O.1 Kuthukol by saying that upon the left chest and at the same time A2 Manimekalai stabbed PW2 Palanisamy with M.O.2 knife upon his and further while A1 attempted to stab PW1 Sevi, he tried to obstruct the same and during such obstruction, he sustained injuries upon right hand and flank. Therefore, the cumulative effect of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 clearly goes to show that A1 Raju has stabbed the deceased Subramani with Kuthukol and caused his death and also attacked PW1 with Kuthukol and caused injuries and likewise, A2 Manimekalai has stabbed PW2 Palanisamy and caused injuries. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 or to suspect their version as such. 7. Moreover, PW10 viz., Dr.Kothandaraman has also corroborated by giving evidence to the effect that PW2 Palanisamy came for treatment at about 9.30 pm on 31.1.2000 with some injuries by saying that he sustained those injuries at about 8.30 pm at Vellarnaickenpalayam with knife and he has noted two injuries as and they are grievous in nature and further stated that PW1 Sevi also came for treatment at about 2.00 am on 1.2.2000 accompanied by police and on examination he was able to note two injuries as and they are simple in nature and he has also issued Accident Register Copies and Wound Certificates marked as Exs.P14 to P17 and those injuries could be caused to them by M.Os. 1 and 2. 1 and 2. PW12 Dr.Arulkumar who has done post mortem upon the dead body of the deceased Subramani has found two external injuries and many internal injuries and has given opinion to the effect that the said Subramani died due to the injuries sustained upon his lungs and heart and consequent haemorrhage and those injuries could be caused by M.O.1 Kuthukol and it is significant to note that the said M.O.1 Kuthukol has pierced through the body of the deceased Subramani visibly. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 corroborated by medical evidence clearly shows that A1 Raju is responsible for causing death of father of PW1 viz., Subramani and A2 Manimekalai is responsible for the injuries sustained by PW2 Palanisamy and A1 Raju is also responsible for causing injuries upon PW1. These facts also are being corroborated by the evidence of PW13 Investigation Officer viz., Inspector of Police who has spoken about his examination of witnesses, taking police custody of the accused and recording of confession and recovery of weapons and PW14 is another Inspector of Police who has completed the investigation and filed charge sheet. 8. In all, we are convinced that A1 Raju has committed offences under sections 302 and 324 IPC and A2 Manimekalai has committed offence under section 324 IPC and A3 and A4 have not committed any offence. Consequently, the conviction and sentence of A1 for the offence under section 302 IPC is confirmed. The conviction and sentence of A2 to A4 for the offence for the offences under section 302 read with section 34 IPC is set aside and fine amount paid, if any, is directed to be refunded. The conviction of A2 under section 307 IPC is set aside and instead A2 is now convicted under section 324 IPC and she is sentenced to undergo R.I. for nine months. The conviction of A1, A3 and A4 under section 307 read with section 34 IPC is set aside and the fine amount paid, if any, is directed to be refunded. The conviction of A1 under section 307 IPC is also set aside and instead A1 is convicted for the offence under section 324 IPC and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months and the sentences of A1 to run concurrently. The conviction of A1 under section 307 IPC is also set aside and instead A1 is convicted for the offence under section 324 IPC and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months and the sentences of A1 to run concurrently. The conviction of A2 to A4 under section 307 read with section 34 IPC is also set aside and fine amount paid, if any, is directed to be refunded. A3 and A4 are acquitted from all the charges. 9. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above. The Trial Court is directed to secure the custody of A1 and A2 to enable them to undergo the remaining period of sentence.