JUDGMENT :- R. Regupathi, J. The appellant, sole accused in the case, was in love with P.W.2 who was working as an Accountant in the shop of P.W.1, alleged to have visited her at his shop for meeting her on 7. 2004 at 8.00 pm., that the deceased who is also an employee in the shop of P.W.1 alleged to have questioned the conduct of the appellant and under such circumstances there was a wordy quarrel between the accused and the deceased and the accused is alleged to have slapped at the deceased on his right cheek and in pursuance of which, the deceased fell down and sustained injury on his head. The deceased was admitted in the Hospital and ten days later, succumbed to the injuries, thereby charges were framed against the accused under Sections 452 and 302 IPC. When the accused was initially questioned after framing of the charges, it was denied by him and therefore, the trial of the case was taken up. 2. The prosecution to substantiate its case, examined P.Ws 1 to 14 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.18, besides marking Material Objects 1 to 3. Two Exhibits, viz., Exs.D.1 and D.2 were marked and no witnesses were examined on the defence side. The learned Trial Judge, on conclusion of the trial, acquitted the accused. Aggrieved against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Judge, the present Appeal has been preferred by the State. 3. P.W.2 is the niece of P.W.1. P.W.1 was running a shop at the scene of occurrence, in which the deceased, P.W.2,3,5 and 8 are working. The accused was supplying mineral water cans to the shop of P.W.1. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that the accused developed acquaintance with P.W.2 and expressed his desire to marry her for which, P.W.2 was not willing. After knowing about the conduct of the accused, P.W.1 requested brother of the accused to reprimand and further stopped supply of mineral water cans from the accused. Under such circumstances, on 7. 2004, at 8.00 pm., the accused visited the shop and wanted to meet P.W.2, for which, it was replied that P.W.2 was not present in the shop. After knowing about the conduct of the accused, P.W.1 requested brother of the accused to reprimand and further stopped supply of mineral water cans from the accused. Under such circumstances, on 7. 2004, at 8.00 pm., the accused visited the shop and wanted to meet P.W.2, for which, it was replied that P.W.2 was not present in the shop. The accused told him that P.W.1 is preventing him from meeting her and under such circumstances, the accused who is an employee of the shop took the deceased to the side of the road and both of them started to quarrel with each other and under such circumstances, the accused slapped the deceased, consequent to the same, the deceased fell down on the road and became unconscious. The deceased sustained bleeding injuries and the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. The deceased thereafter was shifted to the Hospital and admitted therein. P.W.1 went to the Police Station and lodged the complaint Ex.P.1. P.W.13, Sub Inspector of Police on receipt of the complaint from P.W.1, registered a case in Crime No:838/04 for an offence punishable under Sections 452 and 324 IPC. When he visited the Hospital, the deceased was found unconscious. Therefore, he has recorded the statement from P.W.1. 4. P.W.2 is the niece of P.W.1 and in his evidence she has stated that she knew the accused at the time when he came to the shop for supplying mineral water cans and she used to talk to him. She came to know that the deceased was interested in her and thereafter she went to her native place and subsequently, she came to know about the occurrence. P.Ws 2,3,5 and 8 are employees of P.W.1 and they have corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. 5. P.W.10 has been examined to substantiate that on 7. 2004, there was electric light at the scene of occurrence. Ex.P.9 is the certificate issued by the Junior Engineer, TNEB, Arumbakkam, to that effect. It is the evidence of P.W.9 that initially, the deceased was brought to the Hospital and since the deceased was unconscious, Ambulance was arranged and thereby he was subsequently admitted in the Apollo Hospital. P.W.12, Head Constable, on receipt of the First Information Report given by P.W.13, despatched the same to the Court as well as the Superior Officer. 6. P.W.14 is the Investigating Officer, who took up the investigation on 7. P.W.12, Head Constable, on receipt of the First Information Report given by P.W.13, despatched the same to the Court as well as the Superior Officer. 6. P.W.14 is the Investigating Officer, who took up the investigation on 7. 2004 and visited the Apollo Hospital at 6.30 pm., and found the deceased unconscious. The offence was altered into one under Section 452 and 307 IPC and prepared a Special Report, Ex.P.11, and despatched the same to the Court. Thereafter he visited the scene of occurrence at 7.00 am., on the next day and prepared Observation Mahazar Ex.P.2 and Rough Sketch, Ex.P.12. Blood stained earth and sample earth, M.Os.2 and 3 have been recovered in the presence of witnesses. At about, 10.40 a.m., the accused was arrested. A statement has been recorded from him in which he has stated that he will produce his shirt from his residence. The admissible portion of the statement is marked as Ex.P.4. Subsequently, the accused produced the shirt, M.O.1 and the same was recovered under Ex.P.5. On 17. 2007, he has received the death intimation and altered the offence into one under section 452 and 302 IPC and prepared Express Report, Ex.P.13 and sent the same to the learned Magistrate. He visited the Hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased between 9.15 a.m., and 11.15 a.m.,. Ex.P.14 is the Inquest Report. 7. P.W.7, is the Medical Officer of the Apollo Hospital, who speaks about the admission of the deceased on 7. 2004 and his death on 12. 2004. Ex.P.8 is the death intimation. P.W.11 is the Constable, who, on the instruction of the Investigating Officer produced the dead body of the deceased for postmortem and after completion of the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. P.W.6 is the Medical Officer, who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. The following external and internal injuries were noticed by him and he issued Ex.P.7 postmortem report. "1. Healed abrasion over left dorsal side of wrist 3x1 cm 2. Dark red right temporo parietal subscalp contusion. 3. Extradural dark red Haemorrhage over both cerebral hemisphere. 4. Subdural Haemorrhage over left temporal lobe. 5. Intracerebral haemorrhage in right and left temporo parietal lobes. 6. Patechial haemorrhage in the brain stem region." 8. "1. Healed abrasion over left dorsal side of wrist 3x1 cm 2. Dark red right temporo parietal subscalp contusion. 3. Extradural dark red Haemorrhage over both cerebral hemisphere. 4. Subdural Haemorrhage over left temporal lobe. 5. Intracerebral haemorrhage in right and left temporo parietal lobes. 6. Patechial haemorrhage in the brain stem region." 8. It is the case of the Medical Officer that the deceased would appear to have died of Traumic Brain injuries. The Investigating Officer after examination of the prosecution witnesses and after receiving the opinion from the Medical Officer and reports from the Chemical Analyst, filed the final report before the learned Magistrate for an offence punishable under Sections 342 and 302 IPC. On conclusion of the trial, on the basis of the oral and documentary materials produced by the prosecution, the accused was questioned, for which, he has pleaded not guilty and claimed innocence. He has filed a written statement, wherein he has stated that the deceased quarreled with him and made an attempt to assault and at that time, some of the other employees of P.W.1 prevented the same. Under such circumstances, there was quarrel between the deceased and other employees. The other employees had pushed the deceased out of the shop and under such circumstances, the deceased fell down and sustained injuries on the Marble stone laid therein. 9. Exs.D.1 and D.2, viz., Police Intimation and Injury Report given by the Apollo Hospital were marked and the appellant counsel particularly relied on the entries made in the said reports, in which the cause of the injury has been mentioned as follows:- "Alleged history of assault, when the patient was quarrelling with one of his colleague and he pushed him with force and he fell down and got hit on his head with a stone". 10. The learned Trial Judge, after perusal of the materials produced by both sides and after hearing the oral arguments advanced, acquitted the accused and aggrieved against that, the present appeal has been preferred before this Court by the State. 11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, contends that the occurrence was witnessed by eye witnesses P.Ws 2,3,5 and 8. The presence of the accused at the time of occurrence is also not disputed by himself. In the statement filed by the accused, it is specifically admitted that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused. 11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, contends that the occurrence was witnessed by eye witnesses P.Ws 2,3,5 and 8. The presence of the accused at the time of occurrence is also not disputed by himself. In the statement filed by the accused, it is specifically admitted that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused. However, deviating from the case of the prosecution, mentioned that the deceased fell down on the pushing and assault of other employees of P.W.1 and claimed innocence. Insofar as the other materials produced by the prosecution, it will strengthen the case of the prosecution since the accused is the aggressor, who has gone to the shop of P.W.1 for the purpose of meeting P.W.2 and he has gone there intentionally and when the deceased made an attempt to persuade the accused to forget about P.W.2, a quarrel ensued in which, it is the positive evidence of the eye witnesses that the accused assaulted and pushed the deceased down and only on account of that the deceased sustained injuries. It is submitted that in view of the highhanded action of the accused, the offence alleged is substantiated. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Judge on erroneous reasons acquitted the accused and submitted that there are wealth of materials available to convict the accused as charged. 12. Per contra, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/accused has submitted that the accused has been acquitted on well founded grounds and the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 5 and 8 are interested witnesses and the oral testimony of their evidence suffer with infirmities and contradictions and the Trial Judge has rightly disbelieved the case of the prosecution. Relying on Exs.D.1 and D.2, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that it is probable that the deceased fell down on the assault made by his colleagues and under such circumstances, submitted that it is a case for acquittal. 13. We have perused the materials available and submissions made by both the counsel. The learned Trial Judge for the purpose of acquittal, has given the following reasons:- "a) The patent interlination in the Ex.P.1, availability of additional information in the printed FIR Ex.P.10 without having been let in by any one; b) Receipt of FIR, alteration report Ex.P.11, by the Magistrate on 7. The learned Trial Judge for the purpose of acquittal, has given the following reasons:- "a) The patent interlination in the Ex.P.1, availability of additional information in the printed FIR Ex.P.10 without having been let in by any one; b) Receipt of FIR, alteration report Ex.P.11, by the Magistrate on 7. 2004 by 9 a.m., the arrest of the accused and recording of confession from the accused by 10.45 a.m., on 7. 2004, the result of the Forensic Science Laboratory in Ex.P.18 are to the effect that there was no blood detected in M.O.s & M.O.3; c) Non filing of grouping test of the blood of the accused to fix the responsibility on him; d) The reasons given by the Investigating Officer for not securing the dresses of the victim and the witnesses are not plausible. e) Major contradiction between eye witnesses and the expert evidence in fixing the mode of attack and situs of the injury. f) Non examination of one Muthupandi on the side of the prosecution though his evidence is very important in view of the evidence of D.W.21 and in the background of Ex.D.1, D.2 and Ex.P.17., etc., have been seriously contended by the defence in addition to other minor legal and factual error." 14. It is the case of the prosecution that the occurrence took place on 7. 2004 at 8.00 p.m., at the time when the accused visited the shop of P.W.1 and wanted to speak to P.W.2. The occurrence took place at the time when the deceased and the accused were quarrelling on the road in front of the shop. The occurrence was witnessed by PWs 1,2,3,5 and 8. The narration of the eye witnesses are natural and in a given circumstance like this. We do not doubt the presence of the witnesses. At the time of the occurrence, we cannot expect a stranger to be present to come and depose. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case they are natural witnesses and merely because of the reason that P.Ws 2,3,5 and 8 are working with P.W.1, their evidence cannot be simply brushed aside by stating that they are interested witnesses. The accused also admitted his presence at the time of occurrence. The quarrel with the deceased is also admitted to a certain extent. The accused also admitted his presence at the time of occurrence. The quarrel with the deceased is also admitted to a certain extent. The manner of occurrence has been spoken to by P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 5 and 8 and their testimonies cannot be summarily disbelieved. Under such circumstances, when the very presence of the accused himself in the scene of occurrence at the relevant point of time is not disputed, the reasons given by the learned Trial Judge in Paragraph 19 does not appear to be bona fide. 15. It is the positive claim of the accused that a colleague of the deceased at the time when they were persuading the deceased to go back to the shop alleged to have pushed him, in which he has fallen and sustained injuries. Therefore, the core issue to be decided is as to whether the accused pushed the deceased or the colleagues of the deceased pushed the deceased. On a perusal of Ex.D.1, case sheet, though entry has been made as if that one of the colleague of the deceased pushed him, we cannot easily brush aside the ocular testimonies of the eye witnesses as to the manner in which the occurrence took place. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the occurrence has taken place in the manner as put forth by the prosecution and the appellant/accused has not substantiated his case. However, the accused has gone to the shop of P.W.1 only for the purpose of meeting P.W.2. 16. It is the case of the prosecution that P.W.1 did not like the conduct of the accused and only under such circumstances, the deceased who is an employee of P.W.1 came out of the shop along with the accused and made an attempt with the accused to persuade him not to approach P.W.2 any more. Only under such circumstances, a quarrel ensued and the occurrence was alleged to have taken place. 17. It is also admitted that the accused was not armed with any weapon. It is the case of the prosecution that in pursuance of the quarrel, the accused slapped the deceased and this is the overt act attributed against him. In consequence of the assault, the deceased fell down and sustained injury and became unconscious. Though the deceased was admitted in the Hospital, died 10 days later due to head injury. It is the case of the prosecution that in pursuance of the quarrel, the accused slapped the deceased and this is the overt act attributed against him. In consequence of the assault, the deceased fell down and sustained injury and became unconscious. Though the deceased was admitted in the Hospital, died 10 days later due to head injury. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the offence under sections 452 and 302 IPC is not made out. However, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, it will attract only Section 323 IPC. Therefore, while reversing the finding and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial judge, we convict the accused for an offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. 18. Coming to the question of sentence, since the trial ended in acquittal, before passing any sentence, we deem it just and necessary to question the accused with regard to quantum of punishment. Therefore, adjourn the case to 23. 2008.