Judgment : R. Balasubramanian, J. The appellants, three in number, stand convicted in S.C.No. 16 of 2003 on the file of Court of Sessions, Perambalur, under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs.2,000/- on each carrying a default sentence. Hence, the present appeal. Heard N. Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and V. Arul, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the State. To substantiate their case. the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 besides marking Exs.P.1 to P.19 and exhibiting M.Os.1 to 10. 2. The prosecution case is that due to dispute over a property, at about 9.00 a.m. on 19.7.2002, when the deceased was in his agricultural land, A1 to A3 arrived at the scene, coming from near by garden land and indiscriminately out the deceased each having a weapon of offence, resulting in his death. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the younger brother and wife of Ganeasan, since deceased. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the younger brother and wife of Ganeasan, since deceased. P.W.1 in his evidence would state as hereunder: “A1 and A2 are the sons of A3; over house site measuring 3 cents, there was a dispute between the deceased on the one hand and the accused on the other hand; cases initiated before the civil court ended in favour of the deceased; however, A3 was proclaiming that the civil litigation ended in his favour; a perusal of the record shows that the civil Court has decided in favour of the deceased over an extent of 2 9 cents; there were repeated panchayats in the village, in which the accused wanted all the three cents to be given to them; however, the panchayat declared that only in respect of half-a-cent of land, there is decree in favour of the accused; both party did not agree to the decision of the panchayat; the accused cut the standing trees in the disputed land and removed them; when the deceased questioned them, they threatened to cut him and he was by his side; fearing danger and for want of support, they left the place; on the morning of 19.7.2001 (the occurrence day), it had rained and therefore, he and the deceased went to the land to plough; the deceased was ploughing the land and the witness was removing the weeds; at about 9.00 a.m. P.W.2 brought food; the deceased asked him to go first and take food and accordingly, he went to a nearby well, where he was taking food; he heard some disturbing voice from the nearby garden land, which made him run towards the scene and at that time, he saw A1 cutting on his brothers neck; A2 cutting indiscriminately on the left shoulder and neck of the deceased, followed by A3 also cutting indiscriminately on the neck and back; all the three accused indiscriminately cut the victim; and his brother fell down profusely bleeding; frightened by the attack by the use of weapons, he kept quiet; then, on the raising a hue and cry, P.W.3 and another came there; the villagers also gathered; his brother died at the spot itself; therefore, he went to the police station, where he told a scribe abut the incident; the scribe reduced it into writing and read it over to him and affirming that the contents are correct, he signed it; Ex.P.10 is the said complaint; M.Os. 1 to 3 are the weapons of offence in the hands of the respective accused.” P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased and her evidence regarding the motive and the occurrence proper is on the same lines as spoken to by P.W.1. 3. P.W.13 is the Inspector of police in the investigating police station, before whom at 11.00a.m. on 19.7.2001, P.W.1 appeared and gave the complaint; he registered that as Ex.P.1 in Crime No. 486 of 2001 under Section 302 Of I.P.C. Ex.P2 is the printed F.I.R. prepared by him. He sent the express records to the Court as well as to the higher officials. He commenced investigation immediately after noon and then, reached the scene of occurrence. In the presence of P.W.4 and another, he prepared the observation mahazar, Ex.P.2 and the rough sketch Ex.P.13. He caused photographs of the scene of occurrence to be taken. Between 1.00 p.m. and 3.00 p.m. on that day, he conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses. Ex.P.14 is the inquest report. At 3.15. p.m. on that day, he recovered from the scene of occurrence, blood-stained earth and sample earth - M.Os. 4 and 5, under Ex.P.3 attested by the same witnesses. Then, he sent the dead body through police constable Rangasamy to the Government Hospital at Jayankondam with a requisition to conduct post-mortem. P.W.9 is the constable, who accompanied the dead body to the hospital for post-mortem. He was present throughout post-mortem. After post-mortem, he removed M.Os.9 and 10, the dhoti and towel, from the dead body and handed over the same to the investigating officer with his special report, Ex.P.7. 4. P.W.6 is the doctor, who did post-mortem on the dead body at 5.30 p.m. on 19.7.2001. During post-mortem, he found various symptoms as noted by him in Ex.P.6, the post-mortem report. The symptoms noted by him therein are as hereunder: External Injuries: Head is found to be attached with the body only with a tag of skin length of 9 cm, breadth of 9 cm. (1) An incised wound circular in shape diameter of 13 cm found on the neck below the I cervical vertebra. The injury extends the whole of neck spring only a little portion of skin which connects the head and neck. The structures that are cut are skin, subcutaneous tissues, muscles, vertebral bones, blood vessels and deeper structures. (1) An incised wound circular in shape diameter of 13 cm found on the neck below the I cervical vertebra. The injury extends the whole of neck spring only a little portion of skin which connects the head and neck. The structures that are cut are skin, subcutaneous tissues, muscles, vertebral bones, blood vessels and deeper structures. (2) Three pieces of flesh seen in the cut portion of head. Sliced portions of trachea, vertebral bones, muscles and deeper structures seen in the flesh. (3) An incised wound circular in shape found over the neck above the collar bone diameter 13 cm. The structures that are cut are wind pipe, arteries and veins, vertebral bones and deeper structures. (4) An incisedwould of 10 cm × 2.5cm bone depth in front of right shoulder. (5) An incisedwound of 13 cm × 9 cm × 7½ cm over the back of right shoulder. (6) An incisedwound of 7.5cm × 2cm. × 9 cm over the front of left arm. (7) A cut injury on the left arm just above the elbow 13 cm × 8 cm × bone depth. On dissection: Left humerus found to be fractured. Internal Examination: Thorax: No fracture of ribs on both sides. Heart: All chambers empty. Lungs, Liver, Spleen, Kidneys - Normal and congested. Stomach - empty. Bladder - full of urine. (2006) 2 MLJ (Crl) 260 at 263 Head - No fracture of skull bones. Brain- Normal. Death would appear to have occurred 6 to 12 hours before autopsy”. The doctor is of the opinion that death would have occurred due to shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained to the vital organs about 6 to 12 hours prior to autopsy. He also gave evidence that the weapon shown to him would have caused those injuries and all those injuries are sufficient to cause death. 5. P.W.13 continued his investigation by examining P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and others by recording their statements. He examined further witnesses and recorded their statements. He recovered in Form 95, the dhoti and towel handed over to him by the constable, who accompanied the dead body for post-mortem. He arrested A1 at 6.30 a.m. on 21.7.2001 in the presence of P.W.7 and another and examined him. The first accused gave a voluntary confession statement at that time, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P.4. He recovered in Form 95, the dhoti and towel handed over to him by the constable, who accompanied the dead body for post-mortem. He arrested A1 at 6.30 a.m. on 21.7.2001 in the presence of P.W.7 and another and examined him. The first accused gave a voluntary confession statement at that time, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P.4. Pursuant to Ex.P.4 the weapon of offence used by A1, M.Os.7 and 8 came to be recovered under Ex.P.5 attested by the same witnesses. Then, he came back to the police station with the arrested accused and the incriminating objects recovered. A1 was sent for judicial remand. At 7.30 a.m. on 24.7.2001, he arrested A2 in the presence of P.W.11 and another and at that time, A2 gave a voluntary confession statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P.8. Pursuant to Ex.P.8, the weapon of offence used by A2 came to be recovered under Ex.P.9 attested by the same witnesses. The second accused was sent for judicial remand. The case properties so far recovered were sent to Court with a requisition to subject the same for chemical examination. The third accused surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate at Ariyalur on 27.7.2001. He took him into police custody by filing an application and examined him at 7.15 a.m. on 28.7.2001 in the presence of P.W.12 and another. The third accused gave a confession statement at that time, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P.10 pursuant to which the weapon of offence used by him came to be recovered under Ex.P.11 attested by the same witnesses. The third accused was surrendered in Court for continuation of remand and the case properties recovered by him were sent to the Court. Ex.P.15 is the requisition given by him to the Court to subject the case properties for chemical examination. 6. P.W.3 knows the accused as well as P.Ws.1, 2 and the deceased. He also knows about the property dispute between the two and the panchayats held in the village. He would state that on the occurrence day, the deceased was ploughing his land and P.W.2 brought food for him. His house is very close to the occurrence place and on hearing the noise, he came running and that he saw all the accused indiscriminately cutting Ganesan with Aruval. On seeing that, P.W.3 was stunned and he also saw Ganesan falling down with profusely bleeding injuries. His house is very close to the occurrence place and on hearing the noise, he came running and that he saw all the accused indiscriminately cutting Ganesan with Aruval. On seeing that, P.W.3 was stunned and he also saw Ganesan falling down with profusely bleeding injuries. All the accused made good their escape. P.W.4 is the village assistant in the Utkottai Village. At 8.00 a.m. on 19.7.2001, when he was in his office, he was informed that Ganesan is lying down with cut injuries, which made him to go to the scene of occurrence along with another at about 9.30 a.m. At 11.30 a.m. police came. He witnessed the preparation of Ex.P.2, the observation mahazar and the recovery of blood-stained earth and sample earth under Ex.P.3. They are M.Os.4 and 5. P.W.5 is a resident of the same village and his house is west of the land of Ganesan, since deceased. He knows the accused. He also knows about the property dispute between the accused on the one hand and the deceased on the other hand and the civil litigation initiated and the decree of the civil Court, for which, the accused were raising hue and cry and therefore, a panchayat was convened. The accused refused to go by the decision of the panchayat and left stating that they will find their own way out. On 19.7.2001, P.W.1 and the deceased came to the land to plough it and at about 9.15 a.m. he heard some distress call from the land of Ganesan, since deceased. When he went there, he saw the accused cutting Ganesan and then, running away. When he went there, he found Ganesan lying dead. Police came around 12.30 p.m. P.W.6 is the photographer who took photographs of the dead body from six different angles. M.O.6 series are the photographs and the negatives. P.W.7 witnessed the arrest of A1, the statement recorded from him and the recovery of incriminating object at his instance, as spoken to by the investigating officer. P.W.10 is the police constable, who carried the express records to the Court, which he handed over in Court at 11.45 a.m. on 19.7.2001; P.W.11 witnessed the arrest of A-2; his examination and the recovery of incriminating object, as spoken to by the investigating officer. P.W.10 is the police constable, who carried the express records to the Court, which he handed over in Court at 11.45 a.m. on 19.7.2001; P.W.11 witnessed the arrest of A-2; his examination and the recovery of incriminating object, as spoken to by the investigating officer. P.W.12 witnessed the examination of A3 in police custody; recording his statement and the recovery of incriminating object, as spoken to by the investigating officer. The evidence of P.W.13 shows that as an enclosure to Court*s letter Ex.P.16, the case properties were sent to the laboratory. P.W.17 is the biological report. Ex.P.18 is the chemical report and Ex.P.19 is the serologist report. After completing the investigation, he filed the final report in Court against the accused on 30.8.2001. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. on the basis of the incriminating materials made available against them, they denied each and every circumstances put up against them as false and contrary to facts. Neither any documentary evidence nor any oral evidence was brought in Court at their instance. 7. N. Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, would vehemently contend that P.Ws.1 and 2 primarily and P.W.3 couldn*t have seen the occurrence at all, since, according to them, the occurrence was around 9.00 a.m. and this evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 stands belied by the evidence of P.W.4, which shows that even at 8.00 a.m. on 19.7.2001, he came to know about the assault on Ganesan and the police had arrived at the scene at 11.30 a.m. In this context, learned counsel would submit that P.W.13*s evidence shows that the complaint was registered only at 11.00 a.m. on that day and therefore, the presence of the police at 11.30 a.m. in the scene of occurrence, as could be seen from the evidence of P.W.4 could only show that there should have been an earlier information to the police on the basis of which only, the police would have arrived at the scene. Therefore, the argument is that the evidence on record is not free from doubt and therefore, this Court has to necessarily set aside the judgment under challenge. V. Arul, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State would submit, in meeting these arguments, that this Court would not be in a position to pin the witnesses down to the time which they have mentioned as the occurrence time. V. Arul, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State would submit, in meeting these arguments, that this Court would not be in a position to pin the witnesses down to the time which they have mentioned as the occurrence time. The eye witnesses are rustic villagers and therefore, time conscience in their mind cannot be given undue importance. According to him, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is quite natural and convincing and therefore, there are no reasons at all as to why their evidence must be disbelieved. 8. In the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, we went through the entire materials on record with utmost care and caution. The prosecution, by examining P.W.8 and marking Ex.P.6 the post- mortem certificate, had definitely established that Ganesan was done to death due to homicidal violence. The defence is also not disputing it. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution had established the cause of death of Ganesan as due to homicidal violence. However, the defence is disputing the involvement of the accused in the crime. For this purpose, learned counsel appearing for the appellants primarily relied upon the evidence of P.W.4. He is the village assistant in the village, within whose jurisdiction the occurrence had taken place. His evidence shows that at about 8.00 a.m. on 19.7.2001, when he was in his office, information reached him that Ganesan had been assaulted, which made him to go to the scene of occurrence at 9.30 a.m. According to him, police arrived at the scene at 11.30 a.m. It is not his evidence that when he reached the scene of occurrence, P.Ws1 and 2 were there. The evidence of P.W.1 is that after the occurrence, he left for the police station, where with the help of a scribe, he got the complaint reduced into writing, which he presented before the police. The occurrence was on 19.7.2001, and the witnesses came to be examined almost at the end of the two year period, namely, in June 2003. Giving allowance to failing human memory, it is not possible for us to pin down the witnesses with regard to to the time of occurrence, as spoken to by them, at which point of time only the occurrence is shown to have taken place. Giving allowance to failing human memory, it is not possible for us to pin down the witnesses with regard to to the time of occurrence, as spoken to by them, at which point of time only the occurrence is shown to have taken place. There may be an error this way or that way and in our considered opinion that error on the time of occurrence cannot be given undue importance in the context of convincing and impressive oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the eye witnesses to the occurrence. No question worth mentioning had been put to P.W. 13, the investigating officer, that there was already another complaint before him prior to Ex.P.1 on the basis of which alone, police reached the scene of occurrence at 11.30 a.m. On the other hand, his evidence shows that he reached the scene of occurrence at 12.30 p.m. and the contemporary record prepared by him, Ex.P2 would show that it came to be prepared at the scene of occurrence only at about 12.30 p.m.on 19.7.2001. Therefore, in the absence of any clinching material to show that information regarding the crime had reached the police long prior to Ex.P.1 and the crime itself had taken place much earlier to 9.00 a.m. on 19.7.2001, it is not possible to sustain the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants based on the evidence of P.W.4 that occurrence might have taken place much prior to 9.00 a.m. on 19.7.2001 and if that is so P.Ws.1 and 2 couldn*t have seen the occurrence at all. Whatever it is, the evidence of P.W.1 is that he accompanied his brother, the deceased, in the morning itself to the land when his brother decided to plough his lands. This has not been discredited in any manner. Therefore, the presence of P.W.1 all the time with his brother, since deceased, from the morning of 19.7.2001, till he came to be attacked by the accused stands established beyond doubt. His evidence shows that P.W.2 brought food to her husband and there is nothing unnatural in P.W.2 taking food for the husband, who had left earlier in the morning to plough his land. This would be a natural sequence of events in the village life especially when people like the deceased are agriculturists and they leave their house early in the morning for ploughing their lands. This would be a natural sequence of events in the village life especially when people like the deceased are agriculturists and they leave their house early in the morning for ploughing their lands. We went through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, which undoubtedly establishes the involvement of the accused in the crime. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant is not in a position to bring any material worth mentioning in their evidence to the notice of this Court, which would enable us to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 regarding the occurrence proper. 9. Besides the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, we have the evidence of P.W.3 also, who had also witnessed the entire occurrence. As we noted earlier, his evidence also was not shattered in any manner to disbelieve his evidence regarding the occurrence proper. Of course, from the evidence of P.W.5, it is not possible for us to hold that he is an eye witness to the occurrence. But nonetheless, as noted earlier, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is very strong on the entire episode of the prosecution case, namely, as to how Ganesan came to be assaulted. The evidence on record also shows that the accused on the one hand and the deceased on the other hand were having disputes over a property; panchayat was convened and both the party did not agree for the suggestion given by the panchayat. Therefore, the prosecution had also established the motive for the accused to commit the crime. The words shown to have been uttered by the accused while they were running towards the deceased to commit the crime, as spoken to by P.W.1, do indicate that the crime was committed in pursuance of their motive. 10. For all the reasons stated above we find that there is no infirmity at all in the judgment under challenge and accordingly, it is sustained and the appeal is dismissed. This Court is informed that A2 is on bail. The bail bonds, if any executed by him, shall stand terminated forthwith. The Court of Sessions is directed to secure the presence of A2 and commit him to prison to serve the rest of the imprisonment.