Judgment :- P.D. Dinakaran, J. The appellant was tried in S.C.No.16 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri District at Krishnagiri and by the judgment dated 11. 2006, he was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, for having murdered his wife by using hammer and billhook, pursuant to a wordy quarrel ensued between them, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/= in default, to undergo rigourous imprisonment for two years. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred. 2. The deceased is nonetheless the wife of the appellant/accused. The foundation for the prosecution was laid by P.W.2, based on whose statement given under Ex.P.1, and the complaint Ex.P.3, lodged by P.W.3, the Village Administrative Officer of Uddhanapalli, the FIR in Crime No:583 of 1998 came to be registered on 29. 1998 at 4.00 p.m., by P.W.11, Sub Inspector of Police, Kalamangalam Police Station, the respondent herein, for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 3. The prosecution case, as per the charge, is that on 29. 1998 at about 1.00 pm., the appellant/husband following a wordy quarrel with the deceased/wife with regard to a money dispute, with an intention to kill her, by using the deadly weapons, namely, hammer and billhook, repeatedly attacked her on the left side head and face, which resulted in the instantaneous death of the deceased, by which the appellant/accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. 4. The genesis of the prosecution version as unfolded by the prosecution witnesses during the course of trial are as follows:- (a) According to P.W.1, who is a neighbour, on 29. 1998, at about 12.00 noon, when he was passing through the residence of the accused and the deceased to go to the garden lands, he saw both the accused/husband and the deceased/wife sitting in the entrance door steps talking with each other. When he returned after an hour at 1.00 pm., he heard the hue and cry emerging from the residence of the deceased. At that time, he saw the accused with the hammer in his hand and enquired the accused as to what happened and went inside the house and found the deceased/wife lying in a pool of blood. When he returned after an hour at 1.00 pm., he heard the hue and cry emerging from the residence of the deceased. At that time, he saw the accused with the hammer in his hand and enquired the accused as to what happened and went inside the house and found the deceased/wife lying in a pool of blood. Since the accused threatened him that he will also meet the same fate, he came out of the house and informed about the same to his junior paternal uncle, P.W.2. (b) P.W.2, Junior Paternal Uncle of P.W.1, working as President of the Uddhanapalli Agricultural Cooperative Society, when he was in the Office on 29. 1998 at 1.00 pm., on hearing the incident as narrated by P.W.1, went to the place of occurrence along with P.W.1. By that time, the neighbours gathered there and they saw the accused sitting in the door steps with M.O.1, Hammer in his hands. P.W.2 called the accused and when he came near, he tactfully recovered the hammer from him and went inside the house and saw the dead body of the deceased. He saw blood all over the place and the brain of the deceased was found to be smashed. Thereafter he went to the Office of the Village Administrative Officer (P.W.3) by 2.00 p.m., and handed over the accused. The VAO recorded a statement Ex.P.1 from P.W.2 and also a statement from the accused, which is Ex.P.2. The VAO visited the scene of occurrence and prepared a report. Thereafter the accused was handed over to the police along with the statements, report and bloodstained hammer and shirt and dhoti worn by the deceased. (c) P.W.4 is the sister of the deceased who deposed that at about 5.00 p.m., she received the intimation from the neighbours that her sister, the deceased was murdered by her husband. She visited the scene of occurrence and saw the dead body of the deceased with grievous injuries on her head and neck. P.Ws.5 to 7 are also hearsay witnesses of the occurrence and they deposed that they saw the dead body of the deceased with injuries in her residence. P.W.8 is the mahazar witness who spoke about the preparation of Observation Mahazar and Seizure of the M.Os 1 and 2 from the scene of occurrence. (d) P.W.11 is the Sub Inspector of Police who on 29. P.W.8 is the mahazar witness who spoke about the preparation of Observation Mahazar and Seizure of the M.Os 1 and 2 from the scene of occurrence. (d) P.W.11 is the Sub Inspector of Police who on 29. 1998 at about 4.00 p.m., when P.W.3 gave the complaint Ex.P.3, registered a case in Crime No.583 of 1998 under Section 302 IPC. The FIR is Ex.P.9. He sent printed copies of the FIR to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hosur, and to the higher police officers. He also recovered M.Os.1 to 3 at the police station. (e) P.W.12, Investigating Officer, on receipt of the FIR copy in Crime No.583/98, reached the place of occurrence at 5.15 p.m., and prepared an Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.4 in the presence of P.Ws.2 and 8. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P.11 is the Inquest Report. He recovered sample earth and bloodstained earth from the scene of occurrence and also recovered M.O.2 billhook in the presence of witnesses. Thereafter, he sent P.W.9, Head Constable with requisition Ex.P.6 to P.W.10, Medical Officer to conduct postmortem on the body of the deceased. (f) P.W.10, Medical Officer, attached to the Hosur Government Hospital conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and found the following injuries:- External Injuries:- 1. Crush injury of the entire left side of maxilla, mandible, temporal, parietal and occipital region exposing the crushed macerated brain, bones and soft tissues. Skin margins ragged. 2. Cut injury below left ear 6"x6"x bone deep. 3. Amputation of left index finger at the proximal inter phalangeal joint. Amputated piece of 1k(?) left index finger was also brought for postmortem. Internal Examination:- Hyoid Bone, intact. Ribs, no fracture. Heart, C/s pale. Lungs, C/s. Pale. Liver,C/s. Pale. Stomach, Empty. Spleen, C/s.pale. Kidneys, C/s. Pale. Bladder, empty. Uterus, Size and shape normal. Cavity, Empty. Skull, laceration with loss of skin bones, membranes and brain matter on the left side. Base of skull no fracture." P.W.10, issued Ex.P.8, Postmortem Certificate. He also opined that the deceased would appear to have died about 22 to 24 hours prior to autopsy due to injury to brain. (g) P.W.9, Head Constable who handed over the body of the deceased to the Government Hospital, after performance of autopsy by P.W.10, Medical Officer, recovered M.Os.6 to 7, the dress materials worn by the deceased under Form No.95. (g) P.W.9, Head Constable who handed over the body of the deceased to the Government Hospital, after performance of autopsy by P.W.10, Medical Officer, recovered M.Os.6 to 7, the dress materials worn by the deceased under Form No.95. In the meanwhile, P.W.12, Investigating Officer recorded statements from the witnesses, including the prosecution witnesses and also obtained a statement from the accused. The accused was sent to judicial custody on 30.9.1998. The Investigating Officer also recorded statements from the Sub Inspector of Police who registered the case and from the Medical Officer, who conducted the postmortem. He arranged to send the material objects to the Judicial Magistrate Court for receiving the chemical analysis report from the Regional Forensic Sciences Laboratory, Salem. Thereafter, Chemical Analysis Report and Serology Report were received, which are marked as Exs.P.14 and P.15 respectively. On conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed final report against the accused on 30.3.1999 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 IPC. 5. After filing of the final report, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, which was taken up in Sessions Case No: 16 of 2004 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri District at Krishnagiri and charge was framed by the learned Sessions Judge against the accused, for which the accused denied his complicity with the crime and therefore the trial of the case was taken up. In order to substantiate its case before the Sessions court, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.15 and also produced M.Os.1 to 11. On conclusion of the examination of the prosecution witnesses as referred to above, when the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code with regard to the incriminating materials appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, he denied each and every incriminating material as false and pleaded not guilty. However, no witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the defence. 6. The Learned Sessions Judge after perusal of the materials on record and after hearing the arguments made by both the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above and aggrieved against the conviction and sentence, the present appeal is preferred. However, no witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the defence. 6. The Learned Sessions Judge after perusal of the materials on record and after hearing the arguments made by both the parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above and aggrieved against the conviction and sentence, the present appeal is preferred. 7.1 Learned counsel appearing for the appellant though conceded that it is a homicidal death, as revealed by the Postmortem Certificate, contends that the prosecution has not proved the charge punishable under Section 302 IPC to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. According to the learned counsel, Ex.P.2 statement given by the accused is not reliable as it is in the form of an extra judicial confession, which is a weak piece of evidence to form the basis for conviction. Further, the statement of P.W.1 who speaks about the last seen theory, recorded by the Village Administrative Officer, has not been entrusted to the Police Officer. 7.2 It is also submitted by the learned counsel that even as seen from Ex.P.2 statement of the accused, it is only the deceased who started the quarrel by insisting the accused to get back the money lent by him for interest to third parties. According to the learned counsel, in the Extra Judicial confession given by the accused to P.W.3, Village Administrative Officer, it is stated by him that the the accused and deceased were eking out their livelihood only from the interest money received from the amounts lent by him to third parties after selling his agricultural lands; the deceased was insisting for getting back the same, and on the date of occurrence, it is only the deceased who picked up the altercation initially, and later a wordy quarrel ensued between them. Because of the wordy quarrel, he got provoked and in the heat of passion, he took M.O.1, hammer which was present in the house itself and attacked the deceased on her left side of the head and thereafter took M.O.2, billhook which was also available in the house, attacked the deceased on her left side of face and neck. Thus, according to the learned counsel, as seen from Ex.P.2, statement given by the accused himself, there was no premeditation on the part of the accused to commit the murder of the deceased. Thus, according to the learned counsel, as seen from Ex.P.2, statement given by the accused himself, there was no premeditation on the part of the accused to commit the murder of the deceased. On the other hand, it was only the deceased who was the aggressor, due to which, the accused got provoked and therefore attacked the deceased in the heat of passion upon a sudden wordy quarrel. 8.1 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that even though as per the statements of the prosecution witnesses it was the deceased who aggravated the situation and who was the cause for the wordy quarrel about the money dispute between them which led to the occurrence, it cannot be said that there was no intention for the accused to commit the murder of the deceased/wife, because he took the deadly weapons, namely, M.O.1, Hammer and M.O.2, Billhook and hit her repeatedly on the vital parts of the body, namely, the head, face and neck. These overt acts done by the accused would definitely go to show the knowledge and intention on the part of the accused to commit the murder of the deceased. 8.2 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that within an hour of the occurrence, the extra judicial confession given by the accused to P.W.3, Village Administrative Officer had come into existence and hence it could not be a concocted one and the same has been given voluntarily and therefore the prosecution has established its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed. It is also submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that in view of the corroboration of the evidence of P.W.1, by the evidence of P.W.2, the failure to furnish the statement obtained from the accused by the VAO is not fatal to the prosecution case. 9. We have given our careful consideration to the material evidence available on record and heard the rival submissions of the counsel appearing on either side. 10. The point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has substantiated its case beyond reasonable doubt? 11. 9. We have given our careful consideration to the material evidence available on record and heard the rival submissions of the counsel appearing on either side. 10. The point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has substantiated its case beyond reasonable doubt? 11. In the case on hand, there is no direct eye witness for the occurrence, but the prosecution case entirely revolves around the circumstantial evidence, namely the evidence of P.W.1 who speak about the last seen theory, Ex.P.1, statement given by P.W.2 and Ex.P.2, the statement given by the accused, coupled with medical evidence. Ex.P.2, of course is not a statement given to the Police, but to P.W.3, VAO. However, the contention that in the absence of eye witnesses to the occurrence and the motive having not been established, the extra judicial confession, Ex.P.2, given to P.W.3, VAO cannot be acted upon cannot be countenanced. We are aware that before relying upon the extra judicial confession, its truthfulness and credibility of the evidence of the witness, before whom it has been made, are to be judged. 12. The Apex Court, time again held that the extra judicial confession cannot always be termed as a tainted evidence and corroboration of such evidence is required only by way of abundant caution. If the Court believes the witness before whom the confession is made and is satisfied that the confession was true and voluntarily made, then the conviction can be founded on such evidence alone and it is not open to the Court trying the criminal case to start with a presumption that extra judicial confession is always a weak type of evidence and it depends upon several factors like the nature of circumstances, the time when the confession is made and the credibility of the witnesses who speak for such a confession, vide (i)GURA SINGH -vs- STATE OF RAJASTHAN (2001 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 323) and (ii) Sivakumar Vs. State, by Inspector of Police, (2006)1 SCC Cri 470. 13. In the case on hand, as already stated, immediately after the commission of offence, that is, within an hour, the accused was taken to the office of P.W.3, VAO, by P.W.2 and the accused confessed his guilt. State, by Inspector of Police, (2006)1 SCC Cri 470. 13. In the case on hand, as already stated, immediately after the commission of offence, that is, within an hour, the accused was taken to the office of P.W.3, VAO, by P.W.2 and the accused confessed his guilt. On going through the evidence of P.W.3, we could see that it comes from the mouth of a witness who is totally unbiased and not even remotely inimical to the accused and in spite of lengthy cross-examination, nothing was elicited which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement against the accused. The words spoken to by P.W.3 are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that it was the accused who committed such a gruesome murder of his wife and nothing was omitted by the witness which may militate against it. Further, the evidence of P.W.3 gets strengthened by the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, and P.W.11, Sub-Inspector of Police who registered the case. 14. The prosecution strongly relies on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and other eye witnesses, who are independent witnesses and the medical evidence and also the opinion of the Doctor for the cause of death and the biological report and serological report which would go to show that the bloodstains found in M.Os.1 and 2 and dhoti and shirt worn by the accused tallies with the blood group of the bloodstains found in the saree, blouse and petticoat worn by the deceased. No explanation was offered by the accused regarding the presence of the blood on his cloths. 15. It is the prosecution case that the accused has caused multiple injuries on the deceased by using M.O.1 and M.O.2 indiscriminately on the head, neck and face, which resulted in the instantaneous death. A perusal of the postmortem certificate reveals that there is a crush injury of the entire left side of Maxilla, mandible, temporal, parietal and occipital region exposing the crushed, macerated brain, bones and soft tissues which shows the gravity of the attack made by the accused on the deceased. 16. P.W.1 has last seen the deceased alive in the company of the accused. when he was passing through the residence of the accused and the deceased to go to the garden lands, he saw both the accused/husband and the deceased/wife sitting in the entrance door steps talking with each other. 16. P.W.1 has last seen the deceased alive in the company of the accused. when he was passing through the residence of the accused and the deceased to go to the garden lands, he saw both the accused/husband and the deceased/wife sitting in the entrance door steps talking with each other. When he returned after an hour at 1.00 pm., he heard the hue and cry emerging from the residence of the deceased. At that time, he saw the accused with the hammer in his hand and enquired the accused as to what happened and went inside the house and found the deceased/wife lying in a pool of blood. Since the accused threatened him that he will also meet the same fate, he came out of the house and informed about the same to his junior paternal uncle, P.W.2. P.W.2 and P.W.3, VAO, narrate the events after the commission of the crime. They are all independent witnesses and their oral testimonies cannot be disbelieved or discarded, because there is no need for them to implicate the accused falsely in this case. No motive has also been attributed against them to speak falsehood against the accused. Apart from that, as already stated, Ex.P.2 Statement given by the accused himself being the extra judicial confession before the Village Administrative Officer is admissible in evidence and can be acted upon. Thus, the circumstances put forth by the prosecution are strong enough to hold that the chain of circumstances are so complete and there cannot be any iota of doubt that the death is due to the homicidal violence done by the appellant. 17.1 As regards the contention that the overt acts will not attract Section 300 IPC, the following decisions of the Apex Court are necessary for arriving at a conclusion. 12. The Apex Court in Kikar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1993 SC 2426 , held that in order to bring the case within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, all the following conditions have to be fulfilled, namely (1) The act must be committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion; (2) when there was a sudden quarrel; (3) without the offender taking undue advantage; (4) and the accused had not acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 13. 13. Again, the Apex Court in Rajendra Sing Vs.State of Bihar, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1779 reiterated the necessary ingredients of Exception 4 to Section 300 which are: (a) a sudden fight; (b) absence of premeditation; (c) no undue advantage or cruelty, but the occasion must be sudden and not as a cloak for pre-existing malice. 17.4 In Sandhya Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 4 SCC 653 , the Apex Court noticed the distinction between Section 300 Exception 1 and Section 300 Exception 4 and came to the conclusion that the Court is bound to consider a large number of factors for arriving at an opinion as to whether the fight was sudden or not and/or whether the deceased has taken undue advantage of the situation in the following words: “9. The Fourth Exception to Section 300 IPC covers acts done in a sudden fight. The said Exception deals with a case of prosecution not covered by the First Exception, after which its place would have been more appropriate. The Exception is founded upon the same principle, for in both there is absence of premeditation. But, while in the case of Exception 1 there is total deprivation of self-control, in case of Exception 4, there is only that heat of passion which clouds men’s sober reasons and urges them to deeds which they would not otherwise do. There is provocation in Exception 4 as in Exception 1; but the injury done is not the direct consequence of that provocation. In fact Exception 4 deals with cases in which notwithstanding that a blow may have been struck, or some provocation given in the origin of the dispute or in whatever way the quarrel may have originated, yet the subsequent conduct of both parties puts them in respect of guilt upon equal footing. A ‘sudden fight’ implies mutual provocation and blows on each side. The homicide committed is then clearly not traceable to unilateral provocation, nor in such cases could the whole blame be placed on one side. For if it were so, the Exception more appropriately applicable would be Exception 1. There is no previous deliberation or determination to fight. A fight suddenly takes place, for which both parties are more or less to be blamed. For if it were so, the Exception more appropriately applicable would be Exception 1. There is no previous deliberation or determination to fight. A fight suddenly takes place, for which both parties are more or less to be blamed. It may be that one of them starts it, but if the other had not aggravated it by his own conduct it would not have taken the serious turn it did. There is then mutual provocation and aggravation, and it is difficult to apportion the share of blame which attaches to each fighter. The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation; (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. It is to be noted that the ‘fight’ occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in IPC. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties have worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two or more persons whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner. The expression ‘undue advantage’ as used in the provision means ‘unfair advantage’.” 15. Again in Pappu v. State of M.P. reported in (2006) 7 SCC 391 and Kulesh Mondal v. State of W.B., reported in (2007) 8 SCC 578 the Honble Supreme Court reiterated the same legal principle. 18. The expression ‘undue advantage’ as used in the provision means ‘unfair advantage’.” 15. Again in Pappu v. State of M.P. reported in (2006) 7 SCC 391 and Kulesh Mondal v. State of W.B., reported in (2007) 8 SCC 578 the Honble Supreme Court reiterated the same legal principle. 18. From the above said legal propositions, it is clear that Exception 4 can be invoked if the death is caused without premeditation, in a sudden fight, in a heat of passion without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and the fight must have been with the person killed. It is settled law that a fight need not be a fight with a premeditation to commit the murder and even a wordy quarrel constitute a sudden fight in the heat of passion. Such overt act which is done in the heat of passion requires that there must be no time left for the passions to cool down and in the case on hand, P.W.1 deposed that he saw the accused and the deceased talking with each other coolly without any wordy quarrel when he was going to the garden lands and when he returned after an hour, he saw the accused sitting in the door steps with M.O.1, Hammer and when he went inside, he saw the deceased in a pool of blood. A perusal of the extra judicial confession given under Ex.P.2 before the Village Administrative Officer, it is seen that, it was the deceased who was the aggressor and who initiated the quarrel with regard to money matter and on account of that, it turned into a wordy quarrel, and in a heat of passion the accused committed the overt acts. Admittedly, in the instant case, there is no previous deliberation or determination to fight. Therefore, the accused had acted pursuant to the verbal altercation in the beginning which turned into a sudden wordy fight and on account of that, in a heat of passion, committed the offence before he got cooled down and it is also clear that such heat of passion continued till he completes the overt acts which all happened without any premeditation. Thus the offence was committed in the heat of passion and no time was left for the passions to cool down. 19. Thus the offence was committed in the heat of passion and no time was left for the passions to cool down. 19. In the present case, P.W.1 says that the deceased was last seen by him alive in the company of the accused and at that time there was no quarrel. Thereafter, as stated by the accused himself in his extra judicial statement, Ex.P.2, the deceased initiated a quarrel with regard to lending of money and insisted for getting back the money and there was a wordy quarrel. It is also not in dispute that on earlier occasion also there were quarrels with regard to the same issue. Then he got provoked and committed the overt acts upon the sudden wordy quarrel. With this available evidence, it is clear that there was no premeditation on the part of the accused. 20. The next question now comes for consideration is whether there was any undue advantage or cruelty on the part of the accused while committing the overt acts. It is seen that the accused did not go in search of the weapons, but used M.Os.1 and 2 which were available in the house itself and in the heat of passion upon a sudden wordy quarrel, attacked the deceased. The fight is a combat between the accused/husband and the deceased/wife. A fight suddenly takes place, for which both parties are more or less to be blamed. It may be that one of them starts, it but if the other had not aggravated it by his own conduct, it would not have taken the serious turn it did. There is mutual provocation and aggravation and it is difficult to apportion the share of blame which attaches to each fighter. In such matter it is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. As there is no direct eye witness to the occurrence, we are only left with Ex.P.2, statement given by the accused himself, wherein he has stated that it is only the deceased who started the wordy quarrel and aggravated the situation. As there is no direct eye witness to the occurrence, we are only left with Ex.P.2, statement given by the accused himself, wherein he has stated that it is only the deceased who started the wordy quarrel and aggravated the situation. Further, the manner in which the accused has acted cannot be considered as an unusual manner or cruel, because, the accused takes up the hammer, hits her at the head, she fells down and then took the billhook and attacks her on her head and neck, which all happens in the heat of passion after the wordy quarrel which would fall within Exception 4 of Section 300. In Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2002) 3 SCC 327 wherein two fatal blows were inflicted by the accused, the Supreme Court held that all fatal injuries resulting in death cannot be termed as cruel or unusual for the purposes of not availing the benefit of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. Therefore, it cannot be said that the offender had taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner. 21. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. However, it cannot be said that he had no intention to commit the grievous injuries. He attacked first with M.O.1 Hammer on the head and then by M.O.2 Billhook on the neck and head and therefore it cannot be said that he had no intention to commit the offence. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the offence committed by the appellant is culpable homicide not amounting to murder which attracts punishment only under Section 304(1) IPC and accordingly, we impose a rigourous imprisonment of 7 years. The fine amount imposed by the trial court shall remain unaltered. 22. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed modifying the conviction and sentence of the accused to the extent indicated above, by setting aside the judgment dated 11. 2006 made in SC.No.16 of 2004 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri District at Krishnagiri.