Judgment :- The Criminal appeal is filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the Judgment dated 14.10.1998 rendered in S.C.No.55 of 1998 by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli Division, at Tirunelveli. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is briefly as follows:-(i) P.W.1 Subbiah was the resident of Kadayanallur. P.W.6, Easwari is the sister of P.W.1. P.W.1 belong to Scheduled Caste. Thiru Seenapandi, P.W.5, Tahsildar, Tenkasi gave certificate Ex.P.4 that P.W.1 belong to Pallar community. P.W.4 Subramaniam, Tahsildar gave certificate Ex.P.3 that the accused belong to Hindu Maravar community. ii) On the fateful day, the accused scolded P.W.1 with filthy language about his caste and attacked him with Aruval, as a result of which, P.W.1 sustained injuries. P.W.2, was present when the accused attacked P.W.1. He was a neighbor of P.W.1. Then a complaint was given to P.W.8. iii) P.W.8, Selvaraj, was the Head Constable at Kadayanallur Police Station. On 06.07.1997 at about 7.00 p.m. onreceipt of accident intimation Ex.P.6 from the I Grade Police Constable 1465, he went to the Tirunelveli Hospital and at that time P.W.1 Subbiah was not in a position to speak, he obtained the statement from Ramaiya who accompanied the injured Subbiah under Ex.P.1. Then he reached the Kadayanallur Police Station and registered a case in Crime No.428 of 1997 under Section 307 I.P.C. Printed First Information Report is Ex.P.7. Then he sent a copy of the first information report along with the statement to the Court and to the Kadayanallur Inspector for further investigation. iv) P.W.3, Dr.Mohammed Ismail attached to the Government Hospital at Kadayanallur examined P.W.1,Subbiah and found the following injury:- "Wound measuring 6" X 3" at the back extending to neck." He gave the wound certificate Ex.P.2. v) Thereafter, P.W.9, the Inspector of Kadayanallur Police Station took up the case for further investigation and he went to the scene of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P.8 and drew rough sketch Ex.P.9 in the presence of witnesses, Poomari and Devadass. He also recorded the statements of witnesses, namely, Ramaiya, Subbiah, Easwari,Devadass, Poomari, and Head Constable Selvaraj. On 11.07.1997 at about 3.30 p.m. he arrested the accused at Thirukoodapurim Bus Stop, in the presence of witnesses, P.W.7-Sait and Iraikas. The accused gave a confession statement. The admissible portion of his confession statement is Ex.P.10. On the basis of his confession statement, P.W.9 recovered the weapon M.O.1 under Ex.P.11 in the presence of witnesses. On 11.07.1997 at about 3.30 p.m. he arrested the accused at Thirukoodapurim Bus Stop, in the presence of witnesses, P.W.7-Sait and Iraikas. The accused gave a confession statement. The admissible portion of his confession statement is Ex.P.10. On the basis of his confession statement, P.W.9 recovered the weapon M.O.1 under Ex.P.11 in the presence of witnesses. Then he remanded the accused to judicial custody. He recorded the statement of Sait and Iraidass. vi) Then, P.W.10, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch took up the case for further investigation. On 07.08.1993 he examined Tahsildars Subramaniam, and Seenipandian and recorded their statements. He also obtained community certificate Ex.P.3 for the accused. On the same day, he examined the doctor and P.Ws 1, 2 and 6. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet under Section 307 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(x) of Prevention of the Offences against SC and ST Act against the accused. 3. Before the trial Court, P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.11 were marked. M.O.1 was also marked. 4. On consideration of the evidence, learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli found the accused guilty under Section 324 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of 18 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo R.I. for a period of three months. 5. Challenging the said judgment, the accused has filed the present appeal. 6. The point for consideration is: Whether the accused is guilty under Section 324 I.P.C. 7. The Point: P.W.1 Subbiah is the resident of Kadayanallur. His sister is P.W.6, Easwari. P.W.1 belongs to Hindu Pallar - Scheduled Caste. P.W.5 Seenipandi, Tahsildar gave certificate to this effect. The accused/appellant belongs to Hindu Maravar Community and P.W.4, Subramanian, Tahsildar gave certificate to this effect. 8. On the fateful day, i.e. on 06.07.1997 at about 6.12 p.m. near Kadayanallur Telegraph office, the accused attacked P.W.1, Subbiah with Aruval, M.O.!. P.W.1 spoke about the occurrence. His version is strengthened by the evidence of eye witness, P.W.2. P.W.1 was taken to the hospital by his sister P.W.6, Easwari. P.W.1 was given treatment by Dr.Mohammed Ismail P.W.3. He found the following injury: "Wound measuring 6" X 3" at the back extending to neck." He gave the wound certificate Ex.P.2. So, the evidence of P.Ws 1, 2, 3, and 6 would go to show that the accused attacked P.W.1, Subbiah with Aruval. P.W.1 was given treatment by Dr.Mohammed Ismail P.W.3. He found the following injury: "Wound measuring 6" X 3" at the back extending to neck." He gave the wound certificate Ex.P.2. So, the evidence of P.Ws 1, 2, 3, and 6 would go to show that the accused attacked P.W.1, Subbiah with Aruval. There is no reason to reject the version of the eye witness, P.W.2 also. 9. On a careful consideration of the evidence, I find that they spoke truth and there is no reason to reject the version of P.Ws 1 and 2. Further, the weapon Aruval, M.O.1 was also recovered by which the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. Under such circumstances, the trial Judge has come to the correct conclusion and I see no reason to disturb his finding. Hence, the conviction of the accused under Section 324 I.P.C by the trial Judge is confirmed. So far as the sentence is concerned, it is seen that the occurrence took place due to community clash. P.W.1 and the accused belong to different community, thereby the victim was attacked by the accused. If the accused is detained in the prison for long time, it will create further difference of opinion between them and there cannot be any chance of compromise between them. Considering the age of the accused, nature of the offence and also the circumstances of the case, I think it is just and proper to modify the sentence imposed by the trial Magistrate. The accused is sentenced to under go R.I for two months instead of 18 months. The judgment of the trial court in respect of fine amount is confirmed. 11. With the above modification in the sentence, the Criminal appeal is disposed of.