Judgment : .1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence imposed by judgment dated 20.7.2000 made in S.C. No.63/99, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri. .2. The appellant/accused is the son of the deceased Krishnan. As per the prosecution case, on 12. 1998 at about 7.00 a.m., there was wordy quarrel between the appellant/accused and his father/the deceased. At that time, the appellant/accused was shaping a wooden stick. During the quarrel, due to sudden provocation on account of the wordy quarrel, the appellant/accused attacked the deceased by a stick on his head, due to which he fell down. P.W.1-Palaniammal, mother of the deceased and grandmother of the accused, Chinna Pappa, wife of the deceased and his daughters-Mallika and Poonkody, raised voice, the accused ran away from the house and the said witnesses tried to administer water, but the deceased lost his breath. On hearing the information through the village people, the Village Administrative Officer, who was examined as P.W.7 went to the scene of occurrence, saw the dead body of the deceased-Krishnan, recorded the statement given by P.W.1 and forwarded the same as Complaint Ex.P.1, along with his Covering Letter-Ex.P.2 to the respondent/Police Station. On the same date at about 10.30 a.m., P.W.8-Head Constable attached to the respondent-Police Station, based on the Complaint, Ex.P.1, registered a case in Crime No.187/98, under Section 302, I.P.C. and sent the F.I.R. relating to the case, to the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dharmapuri. P.W.12 Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the F.I.R. proceeded to the scene of occurrence, at about 11.15 a.m. and prepared Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.3 in the presence of witnesses-P.W.6 and one Pachayappan. The Rough Sketch prepared by Inspector was marked as Ex.P.15. He conducted inquest Report Ex.P.16, in the presence of witnesses and Panchayatars. Similarly, the Investigating Officer recovered Material Objects-M.O.1 & M.O.5, under the cover of a Mahazar in the presence of witnesses. Then, he sent the dead body of the deceased to the Government Hospital, Dharmapuri through Constable-P.W.9, with the Requisition Letter-Ex.P.8, who handed over the dead body of the deceased before the Doctor in Government Hospital, Dharmapuri with the Covering Letter of the Inspector-Ex.P.8 and after Post-mortem he recovered M.Os.2 to 4 from the dead body of the deceased and handed over the same to the Inspector under Form 95, which was marked as Ex.P.9. After the Post-mortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. P.W.10, is the Doctor attached to Government Hospital, Dharmapuri, who conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased-Krishnan. He found the following internal and external injuries as stated in the Post-mortem Certificate-Ex.P.10. 3. External injuries: A Lacerated injury 10cm x 1cm x bone depth on left side of front bone (?) skull (frontal area). Blood Clots seen on the (N.C.) of the skull with Border slight eye evated would gap 1 cm. Internal Appearance: Head and Neck: On opening scalp blood clot seen on frontal and partietal area. Fracture seen on the fronto-parietal suture line. On opening skull: Frontal lobe of brain was congested 5cm x 5cm x 5cm size, Haemotoma seen. Blood Vessels: congested. Brain Membranes: congested. Base of Skull: intact. Hyoid: intact. Thoracoc Cavity: Thoracic Cage: intact. Both Lungs: congested and (N.C.). Heart: congested. Chambers: full. Abdomen: Stomach Empty. Liver, Spleen, Kidneys: Normal. Bladder: Empty. Small and Large Intestines: slightly distended with gases. External Genetalia: Normal. Vertebral Column: Intact. 4. The Doctor has opined that the deceased appears to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to grievous injury to Brain, 8-12 hours prior to the post-mortem. P.W.11 is the Head Clerk attached to Court of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dharmapuri who has sent the Material Objects to the Forensic Sciences Department for chemical analysis. The Chemical Analysis Report received on 13. 1999 and the Serology Report received by him on 13. 1999 was marked as Ex.Ps.13 and 14 respectively. P.Ws.2, 3, 4 and 6 turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case. 5. On the side of the appellant/accused, one Kalaiarasy was examined as D.W.1, who has deposed that the accused is her brother and she is the daughter of the deceased. According to her, prior to the occurrence, the appellant/accused was shaping a wooden stick. On seeing that the deceased quarreled with the accused and attempted to attacked him by the handle of a spade and in order to have self defence, the accused pushed the deceased and hence he fell down sustained injuries and died on the spot. 6. According to her, prior to the occurrence, the appellant/accused was shaping a wooden stick. On seeing that the deceased quarreled with the accused and attempted to attacked him by the handle of a spade and in order to have self defence, the accused pushed the deceased and hence he fell down sustained injuries and died on the spot. 6. While the appellant/accused were questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. he denied the incriminating evidence of the prosecution against him, as false and contrary to facts and said that on the date of occurrence at about 7.00 a.m., when he was shaping the wooden stick, the deceased came and quarreled with him and attempted to attack him with the handle of a spade. In order to prevent the attack, he pushed the deceased, due to which, he sustained injuries and died. 7. The learned counsel appointed as Amiens Curiae would contend that the Village Administrative Officer, who was examined as P.W.7, as per the Village Manual has to prepare three copies of the Complaint and should have sent one to the Court, one copy to the Tahsildar and one copy with him and the said procedure was not followed. Further there is no seal of the Village Administrative Officer available in the Covering Letter-Ex.P.2. 8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate would contend that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the abovesaid procedure need not be followed as the case is based on direct evidence. The Trial Court believed that the evidence of Village Administrative Officer as trustworthy. But, here in this case, the Complaint was given by P.W.1-grandmother of the accused and mother of the deceased and the same was sent by Village Administrative Officer-P.W.7 to the Police Station. Immediately the case was registered by P.W.8 and the F.I.R. was also sent to the Judicial Magistrate on the same day without any delay. The Investigating Officer/P.W.12 went to the scene of occurrence, prepared Observation Mahazar, conducted inquest, sent the dead body for post mortem through the constable-P.W.9. Therefore, there is no possibility for any manipulation. Though P.W.1 is the grandmother of the appellant, she has supported the prosecution case. Therefore, the decision cited by the learned Amicus Curiae was not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. 9. The learned Amicus Curiae would further contend that this is a clear case of self defence. Though P.W.1 is the grandmother of the appellant, she has supported the prosecution case. Therefore, the decision cited by the learned Amicus Curiae was not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. 9. The learned Amicus Curiae would further contend that this is a clear case of self defence. Even in the reply, while the appellant/accused was questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C., he has stated that the deceased, his father attempted to attack him with the handle of a spade, to prevent the same, he attacked the deceased. The same has been stated by D.W.1. But as per the Post-mortem Certificate-Ex.P.10 and the evidence of the Doctor-P.W.10, the head injury found on the dead body of the deceased-Krishnan could have been caused by the wooden stick-M.O.I. 10. The following decision reported in Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2006 (3) Crimes 257 (SC) was cited by the learned Amicus Curiae. I am of the view that the occurrence cannot be construed as exercising right of self defence. Admittedly, no injury was sustained by the appellant/accused. The oral evidence of D.W.1, sister of the appellant and the defence raised by the appellant/accused would not be sufficient to establish the plea of self defence. Further no spade or its handle was recovered at the scene of occurrence or shown in the Observation Mahazar by the Investigating Officer. Had the appellant used force on the deceased on account of self defence nothing could have prevented him from raising the said defence before the authorities on the date of occurrence. Therefore I am not inclined to accept the plea of self defence raised by the appellant and the decision cited above are also not applicable for the facts and circumstance of the case. 11. The learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant/accused further contended that there was no enmity between the appellant/accused and the deceased, who is none other than his father and only due to sudden provocation, he could have attacked with the stick, M.O.1 found at the scene of occurrence and therefor the alleged offence would attract only Section 326, I.P.C and not the Section 304 Part II, I.P.C. as held by the Court below. With regard to the same the learned Government Advocate left it to the discretion of this Court. With regard to the same the learned Government Advocate left it to the discretion of this Court. (i) Ramu v. State of U.P., 2004 (1) Crimes 325 (SC), paragraph 4 reads as follows: "Having examined the evidence on record we are in agreement with the High Court that the appellant did not have any motive whatsoever to cause any fatal injury to the deceased. We also agree with the High Court that the injury in question was caused during a melee in which 6 persons took part therefore in our opinion on the facts and circumstances of this case, the act of the appellant in causing injury to the deceased which led to his death, cannot be the one which could be construed even as an act of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Therefore, to that extent in our opinion the High Court fell in error in holding the appellant guilty for an offence under Section 304, I.P.C. In our considered opinion on the facts and circumstances of this case, the act of the appellant is one of causing grievous hurt with a deadly weapon which is punishable under Section 326, I.P.C. (ii) In re: Rekkan alias Rekka Perumal and Others, 1987 Crl. LJ 38. 12. It is clear from the evidence available on record that there was no enmity between the appellant/accused and his father, the deceased, prior to the occurrence, and it is seen that due to sudden provocation, the appellant attacked the deceased with the stick M.O.1, while it was being shaped by him, during the occurrence. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid decision, to meet the ends of justice, I am of the view to convict the appellant accused under Section 326, I.P.C instead of under Section 304 Part II. I.P.C and modify the sentence to 3 years R.I. instead of 5 years R.I. Accordingly the Appeal is partly allowed. 13. This Court is able to find the sincere efforts taken by the learned Amicus Curiae in defending the case of the appellant/accused and he is entitled to get remuneration as per the rules. The Amicus Curiae is entitled to get a remuneration of Rs.1,500/-.