Judgment :- K.N. Basha, J. A-1 is the appellant in Crl.A.No.73/2006 and A-2 and A-3 are the appellants in Crl.A.141/2006. The appellants have come forward with these appeals challenging the judgment dated 112. 2005 by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, made in SC.No.116/2005 convicting the appellants for the offence under section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentencing each of them to life imprisonment and also imposing a fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. 2. It is reported before this court by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellant/A-3 in Crl.A.141/2006 had died during the pendency of the appeal. Therefore, the appeal in respect of A-3 in Crl.A.No.141/2006 is abated. 3. The factual scenario as unfolded during the course of trial is as follows:- [a]P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased Panchatcharam. P.W.2 is the brother-in-law of P.W.1. The deceased was a vegetable vendor at Zambazaar Market, Chennai. On the fateful day of the occurrence, i.e., 13.02.2005 at 2.30 p.m. the deceased returned to his house after his business in the market and informed his wife, P.W.1 that he is going to saloon at Big Street, Triplicane, for hair cut. P.W.3 is the Proprietor of the saloon, viz., Classic Saloon situated at Big Street, Triplicane, Chennai. It is stated by P.W.3 that the deceased came to his shop at 4.00 p.m. [b] As the deceased did not return home for a long time, P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, went to the saloon in search of the deceased and at that time, the deceased was coming out from the saloon shop. Accused 1 to 3 came there and A-1 questioned the deceased as to how he can come from Zambazaar and behave like a boss at the scene place. The deceased told A-1 to come to Zambazaar to see what he was. After this wordy quarrel, A-1 immediately took the Porcelain Washbasin from the saloon and beat the deceased on his head saying that he would kill him. While P.W.1 intervened A2 and A-3 pushed her down. Thereafter, all the accused took the broken pieces of washbasin and stabbed the deceased on his head and face repeatedly and the deceased swooned and fell down and died on the spot. [c] P.W.2 also came to the scene following P.W.1 who is said to have witnessed the occurrence. While P.W.1 intervened A2 and A-3 pushed her down. Thereafter, all the accused took the broken pieces of washbasin and stabbed the deceased on his head and face repeatedly and the deceased swooned and fell down and died on the spot. [c] P.W.2 also came to the scene following P.W.1 who is said to have witnessed the occurrence. P.W.1 asked P.W.2 to remain at the scene and left for the police station to give a report. P.W.11, the Inspector of Police attached to Triplicane Police Station, received the report Ex.P.1 from P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.282/2005 for the offence under section 302 IPC. Ex.P.12 is the First Information Report. He sent the same to the higher officials and to the court concerned. [d] P.W.11 took up the investigation and went to the scene of occurrence. He prepared Ex.P.2-the Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.13-rough sketch. He recovered M.O.1 series-broken pieces of porcelain washbasin under Ex.P.3. He held inquest on the dead body of the deceased from 5.15 p.m. to 6.15 p.m. Ex.P.14 is the Inquest Report. He sent the body for postmortem through the constable along with a requisition Ex.P.7. [e] P.W.8, the doctor attached to Royapettah Government Hospital, after receiving the requisition under Ex.P.7, conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased on 14.02.2005 at 11.00 a.m. He found the following injuries:- "Abrasions:- 1]2X5cm over the right side of forehead. 2]3x5cm over left hip. 3]2X5cm over right side of chest. 4]2.5x5cm over right shoulder. 5]2x5cm over front of right leg. 6]Laceration 4x1x1cm involving the right lower eyelid close to ciliary margins and adjacent outer aspect of right orbit. 7]A V shaped laceration over right side of forehead 3x1x1cm. 8]A vertical laceration 4x2cmxcavity deep over mid-forehead. 9]A gaping laceration 11x8cmxcavity deep over left side of face overlapping injury number [8] and involving left orbit, left eye bridge of nose and left snout with depressed communited fracture of the bones of the underlying region. [Nasal Lacrimal and maxilla]. The margins are irregular and taging of tissues made out. Fragments of china clay material found embedded in the underlying tissues. 10]A transverse laceration along the left eyebrow measuring 5x2cmxcavity deep merging with injury number [9] raising out a flap of skin tag exposing the fractured roof of orbit and the soft tissues of left eye and adjacent parts of face. Fragments of china clay material found embedded in the underlying tissues. 10]A transverse laceration along the left eyebrow measuring 5x2cmxcavity deep merging with injury number [9] raising out a flap of skin tag exposing the fractured roof of orbit and the soft tissues of left eye and adjacent parts of face. 11]An oblique gaping cut injury across the face involving right snout, bridge of nose measuring 11x3cmxcavity deep. The upper parts of the wound merges with the injury No.9. The margins are clean cut and the lower angle is acute. The wound exposes the underlying fractured left maxilla inner wall of both orbit and nasal and lacrimal bones. 12]A gaping cut injury involving base of nose and nasal septum measuring 5x1 to 2cmxcavity deep exposing nasal cavity. The wound merges with the injury No.11. 13]An oblique cut injury 3 to 5 cmx1cmxbone deep over right cheek merging with injury No.11. The margins are clean cut and lower angle is acute Bridging tissues seen in the deep plane. 14]Fracture of upper right inner incisor made out with laceration of the alveoli and loosening of outer incisor. 15]Fracture dislocation of the central and left lateral incisors of the lower jaw made out with laceration of the alveoli and fracture of the socket. 16]A V shaped laceration seen over the lower Jaw 6x1 to 3cm x bone deep exposing the lacerated underlying soft tissues and fractured chin of lower jaw. 17]Incised wound 2x0.5cmx0.5cm over left side of chin. 18]Laceration 6x4.5cmxcavity deep over the left ear causing sub total severing of the left ear. The left ear is seen hanging by a tag of skin. 19]An oblique cut injury over left side of face and adjacent measuring 9x0.5cmx0.5cm. The margins are clean cut and the angles are acute. 20]An oblique laceration over left side of head 1.5cm above left ear 5x2.5x1cm. 21]Cut injury over left side of face 3.5x0.5cmx0.5cm, 2cm above injury No.20. 22]An oblique, cut injury 4x1 to 2 x bone deep over left side of head 3cm behind the left ear and 5cm above the hairline over back of head. 23]An irregular gaping chop wound over left side of back of head 8x1 to 2cm x bone deep exposing the fractured vault and bruising of underlying tissues. Small fragments of china clay materials found in the tissue. 23]An irregular gaping chop wound over left side of back of head 8x1 to 2cm x bone deep exposing the fractured vault and bruising of underlying tissues. Small fragments of china clay materials found in the tissue. 24]An oblique cut injury 4x1.5cmx1cm over top of head 4cm above injury No.23." Ex.P.8 is the Postmortem Certificate wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries 16 to 22 hours prior to postmortem examination. [f]P.W.11, in continuation of his investigation, examined P.Ws.1,2,3 and others and recorded their statements. He made arrangements to take photographs M.O.11 series. On 14.02.2005 at 9.00 a.m. he arrested A-1 and A-2 at the Junction of G.P.Road and Thayar Sahib Street. He recovered M.Os.8 and 9-blood stained shirts of the accused 1 and 2 under Ex.P.9. At 11.30 a.m. on the same day, he arrested A-3 at Whites Road and West Cott Road Junction. He recovered M.O.10-blood stained shirt from A-3 under Ex.P.5. The Investigating Officer sent A-1 along with a Police Memo to the Government Hospital, Royapettah, as A-1 was having an injury on his left wrist. The doctor P.W.10 attached to the said hospital, examined A-1 on 14.02.2005 at 4.15 p.m. Ex.P.11 is the Accident Register wherein he found the following injury:- "Left Hand Dorsum:- A lacerated wound 5x2x0.5cm. Underlying soft tissue intact. No bony tenderness." [g]A-1 said to have informed the doctor, P.W.10 that he has sustained the injury while he had thrown the porcelain wash basin material. P.W.11 remanded the accused for judicial custody through court. He sent the material objects for chemical examination through court under Ex.P.15. He examined the doctors, P.W.8 and P.W.10 and recorded their statements. After receiving Postmortem Certificate-Ex.P.8, Ex.P.9716-Serologist Reports and Ex.P.10-Biologist report and after completing the investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 302 read with 34 IPC on 25.02.2005. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges against the accused examined P.Ws.1 to 11, marked Exs.P.1 to 17 besides marking M.Os.1 to 12. 5. When the accused were questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, each of the accused denied their complicity and they have come forward with a version of total denial. 5. When the accused were questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, each of the accused denied their complicity and they have come forward with a version of total denial. They have not chosen to examine any witness but marked Ex.D.1, the Remand Report dated 14.02.2005 in respect of A-1. 6. Mr.K.Selvakumaraswami, learned counsel for the appellant/A-1 contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of A-1 and other accused by adducing clear and cogent evidence. It is contended that there are three eyewitnesses, P.Ws.1 to 3 and among them P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased and P.W.2 is the brother-in-law of P.W.1 and as such, they are the interested witnesses. It is submitted that P.Ws.1 and 2 could not have been present at the time of occurrence as P.W.3 has not spoken about the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 at the time of occurrence. The learned counsel would further contend that P.W.1 had admitted in her cross examination that she has not seen the accused earlier to the occurrence and as such, the version of P.W.1 as well as her report Ex.P.1 becomes highly suspicious. It is stated by P.W.1 that at the time of occurrence she was pushed down by A-2 and A-3, but she has not sustained any injury which falsifies her version. It is further submitted that though P.W.2 claimed that he has followed P.W.1, who left the house in search of the deceased and thereafter, witnessed the occurrence, P.W.1 has not stated about P.W.2 following her while she went to the scene of occurrence, viz., the saloon shop. Therefore, the presence of P.W.2 at the scene at the time of occurrence is doubtful. It is contended that the evidence of P.W.3 is unbelievable as he has not narrated the entire occurrence and if he has really witnessed the occurrence, he could have given a report to the police. The learned counsel without prejudice to his earlier contentions, submitted that even assuming that A-1 is responsible for causing the death of the deceased, he could not be held liable for the offence of murder as the occurrence is said to have taken place only after a wordy quarrel between the deceased and A-1 and there is absolutely no pre-meditation for A-1 to kill the deceased and the occurrence took place suddenly due to wordy quarrel. 7. 7. Mr.R.Rajasekaran, learned counsel for the appellants/A-2 and A-3 contended that as per the version of P.W.3, an independent witness, the presence of A-2 and A-3 at the scene at the time of occurrence is completely ruled out as P.W.3 implicated only A-1 for attacking the deceased. It is submitted that P.W.3 also categorically stated in his cross examination that no one came in search of the deceased to his shop and further he has not stated about the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and as such, P.Ws.1 and 2 could not have been the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. It is submitted that even as per the evidence of P.W.1, she has not even seen anyone of the accused earlier to the occurrence and as such, her identification of A-2 and A-3 for the first time before the court is unbelievable. It is submitted that the conduct of P.W.1 is unnatural as she has not taken any steps to take the deceased to the hospital. Learned counsel would further contend that the evidence of P.W.2 is also unbelievable as he could not have followed P.W.1 to the scene of occurrence. Therefore, it is submitted that A-2 and A-3 were not at all present at the time of occurrence and as such, the prosecution case in respect of A-2 and A-3 is liable to be rejected. 8. Per contra, Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the prosecution has come forward with the clear and consistent version through the evidence of the eyewitnesses P.Ws.1 to 3. It is submitted that though P.W.3 implicated only A-1, P.Ws.1 and 2 have implicated all the three accused, viz., A-1 to A-3. It is contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is quite clear and natural and there is no serious infirmity in their evidence. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that the evidence of the eyewitnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 is also corroborated by the medical evidence. 9. We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and thoroughly scanned through the entire evidence available on record and also perused the impugned Judgment of conviction. 10. The prosecution heavily placed reliance on the evidence of the eyewitnesses P.Ws.1 to 3. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased and P.W.2 is the brother-in-law of P.W.1. Therefore, their evidence has to be scrutinised with great care and caution. 10. The prosecution heavily placed reliance on the evidence of the eyewitnesses P.Ws.1 to 3. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased and P.W.2 is the brother-in-law of P.W.1. Therefore, their evidence has to be scrutinised with great care and caution. 11. As far as P.W.3 is concerned, the fact remains that he is an independent witness and he is the owner of the saloon shop where the deceased went for hair cut at the time of occurrence. The evidence of P.W.3 clearly shows that there was a wordy quarrel between A-1 and the deceased inside the saloon. It is pertinent to be noted that according to P.W.3, the deceased came to the saloon at 4.00 p.m. for hair cut and at that time, A-1 came there which resulted in a wordy quarrel between the deceased and A-1. The yet another undisputed fact remains that A-1 had taken the porcelain washbasin and thereafter, attacked the deceased. It is seen that P.W.2 has not whispered a word about A-2 and A-3 and also not spoken about the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2. The yet another important factor to be borne in mind is that P.W.3 further admitted in his cross examination that no one came in search of the deceased to the saloon and as such, the presence of P.W.1, wife of the deceased who claimed that she went in search of the deceased to the saloon of P.W.3 is totally excluded. Now, with this scenario of sequence of events as spoken by P.W.3, the independent witness, let us now proceed to consider the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. 12. As already pointed out, P.W.3 has completely excluded the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 suffers from other infirmities and improbabilities. It is claimed by P.W.1 that she went in search of the deceased as the deceased did not return home for a long time because the deceased informed her that he is going to saloon shop for hair cut. But the fact remains that she has admitted in her cross examination that she has not went to the saloon shop frequently. It is further seen that P.W.1 has admitted categorically in her cross examination that there was no dispute or quarrel seen after she reached the saloon shop and the occurrence took place only when she went inside and called the deceased outside. It is further seen that P.W.1 has admitted categorically in her cross examination that there was no dispute or quarrel seen after she reached the saloon shop and the occurrence took place only when she went inside and called the deceased outside. In her chief examination, she has stated that while she went near the saloon of P.W.3, the deceased was coming out of the saloon shop after hair cut and at that time, there was a wordy quarrel between the deceased and A-1 which resulted in the occurrence. 13. It is further stated by P.W.1 in her cross examination that the porcelain washbasin was fixed inside the saloon shop and A-1 said to have thrown the washbasin on the deceased and it fell down and broken into 30 pieces. Therefore, it is very clear that P.W.1 has not come forward with a consistent version in respect of the manner of occurrence said to have taken place. It is curious to note that she has not even whispered a word about the presence of P.W.3 at the time of occurrence who is none else than the proprietor of the saloon shop. The yet another version of P.W.1 which is unbelievable is that P.W.1 claimed that while she intervened, she was pushed down by A-2 and A-3. But there is absolutely no abrasion or laceration or any injury found on her which raises doubt about her presence at the scene. It is seen that she has not taken any steps to take the deceased to hospital immediately after the occurrence in spite of her claim that P.W.2 was also present at the time of occurrence and such conduct, raises serious doubt about her version and also about the presence of P.W.2 at the time of occurrence. The version of P.W.1 to the effect that she straight away left for police station leaving P.W.2 at the scene is also unbelievable and unacceptable. P.W.1 stated that she asked P.W.2 to remain at the scene and she left for the police station to give the report Ex.P.1. P.W.11, the Inspector of Police, on the other hand, had stated in his cross examination that P.W.1 came to the police station along with P.W.2 and further she brought a written report, Ex.P.1. Whereas P.W.2 had stated that he remained at the scene near the deceased and P.W.1 left for the police station to give the report. P.W.11, the Inspector of Police, on the other hand, had stated in his cross examination that P.W.1 came to the police station along with P.W.2 and further she brought a written report, Ex.P.1. Whereas P.W.2 had stated that he remained at the scene near the deceased and P.W.1 left for the police station to give the report. P.W.2 also further stated that he is not aware as to who has written the report Ex.P.1. P.W.2 had further claimed that he followed P.W.1, as P.W.1 left for searching the deceased. But, P.W.1 has not stated that P.W.2 followed her while she went to the saloon. It is pertinent to be noted that P.W.1 stated that P.W.2 came in search of her after the accused ran away from the scene and as such, it is crystal clear that even as per the version of P.W.1, P.W.2 was not at all present at the time of the occurrence at the scene. 14. The yet another disturbing feature as far as the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is concerned, is that if really P.W.2 was present at the scene he could have attempted to save the deceased from the attack of the accused. It is seen that in spite of the claim of P.W.1 that she intervened at the time when the deceased being attacked by the accused, P.W.2 is said to have remained as a silent spectator. It is also pertinent to be noted that P.W.1 has categorically admitted in her cross-examination that she has not seen the accused prior to the occurrence and as such, no value could be given to her identification of the accused for the first time before the Court. The Honble Apex Court in Kanan And Others Vs. State of Kerala Reported In 1980 Mlj [Crl.] Sc 1 has held that:- "It is well-settled that where a witness identifies an accused who is not known to him in the Court for the first time, his evidence is absolutely valueless unless there has been a previous T.I.parade to test his powers of observation. The idea of holding T.I. Parade under section 9 of the Evidence Act is to test the veracity of the witness on the question of his capability to identify an unknown person whom the witness may have seen only once. The idea of holding T.I. Parade under section 9 of the Evidence Act is to test the veracity of the witness on the question of his capability to identify an unknown person whom the witness may have seen only once. If no T.I.Parade is held then it will be wholly unsafe to rely on his bare testimony regarding the identification of an accused for the first time in Court." Therefore, we are of the considered view that it is most unsafe and hazardous to place reliance on the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 as their evidence not at all inspires our confidence. 15. As already stated, as we have excluded the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 as unbelievable and unacceptable, the fact remains that only P.Ws.1 and 2 implicated A-2 and A-3 and P.W.3 an independent witness, has not implicated A-2 and A-3 at all. The categorical version of P.W.3 is to the effect that only A-1 was present at the time of occurrence and there was a wordy quarrel between A-1 and the deceased and thereafter, A-1 said to have attacked the deceased with porcelain washbasin. We are unable to see any infirmity or inconsistency in the evidence of P.W.3 and he has no animosity to implicate anyone of the accused falsely. It is pertinent to be noted that the occurrence is said to have taken place in the saloon shop of P.W.3 as the wordy quarrel took place inside the shop and A-1 is said to have removed the washbasin only from inside the shop and thereafter, the entire occurrence took place just in front of the saloon and therefore, P.W.3 is the more competent and natural witness to speak about the occurrence. As P.W.3 has completely excluded the presence of A-2 and A-3, we are constrained to come to the inevitable conclusion to the effect that A-2 and A-3 are entitled to the benefit of doubt. 16. The above said findings arrived by us on the basis of the evidence of P.W.3 makes it crystal clear about the presence and participation of A-1 at the scene and at the time of occurrence viz., at the saloon shop of P.W.3. As per the version of P.W.3 the wordy quarrel took place only between the deceased and A-1 and thereafter, a-1 took the washbasin from the saloon and attacked the deceased. As per the version of P.W.3 the wordy quarrel took place only between the deceased and A-1 and thereafter, a-1 took the washbasin from the saloon and attacked the deceased. M.O.1-the broken pieces of the porcelain washbasin was also recovered from the scene. .17. The Honble Apex court had held in Kalegura Padma Rao And Another Vs. The State of A.P. Reported In ( AIR 2007 SC 1299 ) that:- ."13..... Even if major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of number of other co-accused persons, his conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of Court to separate grain from chaff. Where chaff can be separated from grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to be deficient to prove guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of particular material witness or material particular would not ruin it from the beginning to end. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liar. The maxim "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" has not received general aceeptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it mounts to, is that in such cases testimony may be disregarded and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence which a Court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but is is not what may be called a mandatory rule of evidence." 18. The above principle of law laid down by the Honble Apex court in the decision cited supra, is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as in this case also, we have discarded and rejected the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. But we have pointed out that the evidence of the independent witness, P.W.3 is quite clear and natural and he is the more competent witness to speak about the occurrence as he is the proprietor of the saloon where the occurrence is said to have taken place and he has clearly and categorically implicated A-1 for attacking the deceased. But we have pointed out that the evidence of the independent witness, P.W.3 is quite clear and natural and he is the more competent witness to speak about the occurrence as he is the proprietor of the saloon where the occurrence is said to have taken place and he has clearly and categorically implicated A-1 for attacking the deceased. We are constrained to state that we are able to separate grain from chaff and as such, in spite of the fact that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 are found to be not safe to place reliance in respect of A-2 and A-3, the evidence of P.W.3 clearly and clinchingly implicates A-1. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that the deceased died due to homicidal violence and that too, at the hands of A-1. .19. Now, let us consider the crucial question of the nature of offence said to have been committed by A-1 on the basis of the materials available on record to the effect whether A-1 attacked the deceased with the intention to cause the death of the deceased. It is seen from the admitted case of the prosecution that A-1 has not come to the scene of occurrence, viz., saloon of P.W.3 with any weapon. The evidence of P.W.3 further discloses that there was a wordy quarrel between A-1 and the deceased and thereafter, the deceased took a stool from the saloon and attacked the accused. The fact remains that the version of P.W.3 in the chief examination is to the effect that the deceased first attacked A-1 with stool. The prosecution has not clarified such version by any reexamination. Therefore, we have to take it that the deceased was attacked by A-1 only due to the conduct of the deceased attacking A-1 by taking the stool from the saloon. It is also not disputed that A-1 had taken the porcelain washbasin only from the shop. The admitted wordy quarrel between the deceased and A-1 coupled with the conduct of the deceased first attacking A-1 with stool, provoked A-1 to take M.O.1-porcelain washbasin from the scene [saloon] and thereafter, attacked the deceased. It is also not disputed that A-1 had taken the porcelain washbasin only from the shop. The admitted wordy quarrel between the deceased and A-1 coupled with the conduct of the deceased first attacking A-1 with stool, provoked A-1 to take M.O.1-porcelain washbasin from the scene [saloon] and thereafter, attacked the deceased. It is relevant to note that the genesis of the incident as brought by the prosecution is traceable to a wordy quarrel between the deceased and A-1 as to who has to dominate in the locality as the deceased hails from a different locality from that of A-1 would have been sparked of by the conduct of the deceased attacking A-1 with a stool, as pointed out earlier. Only thereafter, all of a sudden A-1 said to have removed the washbasin-M.O.1 and attacked the deceased. Therefore, the occurrence took place on the spur of the moment without any pre-meditation. 20. It is seen that the deceased sustained a number of injuries from the perusal of the Postmortem Certificate. The Honble Apex court in Adu Ram Vs. Mukna And Others Reported In ( AIR 2004 Sc 5064 ), has held that number of injuries is always not determinative to the offence and the Apex court has taken into consideration that the assaults appear to have been made in the course of quarrel and ultimately convicted the accused for the offence under section 304[II] IPC. .21. As far as the instant case is concerned, as already pointed out, admittedly there was a wordy quarrel between the deceased and A-1 and the deceased first attacked A-1 with a stool and only thereafter, A-1 attacked the deceased and that too, with M.O.1-washbasin which was lying on the spot, viz., at the saloon. Considering the totality of the circumstances, we are of the considered view that it is difficult to impute to A-1 the intention to put an end to the life of the deceased. However, the nature of injuries and the medical opinion unmistakably point to the fact that the bodily injuries inflicted on the deceased were of such nature that they were likely to cause death and as such, A-1 is liable to be convicted for the offence under section 304[I] IPC. 22. However, the nature of injuries and the medical opinion unmistakably point to the fact that the bodily injuries inflicted on the deceased were of such nature that they were likely to cause death and as such, A-1 is liable to be convicted for the offence under section 304[I] IPC. 22. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on A-1 for the offence under section 302 IPC by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, are set aside and instead, he is convicted for the offence under section 304 [I] IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment. 23. The appeal in respect of A-3 is abated and the conviction and sentence imposed on A-2 are hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed. 24. It is reported that A-1 and A-2 is on bail. Hence, the fine amount, if any, paid by A-2, shall be refunded to him. The Sessions Judge concerned is directed to take steps to secure the presence of the accused/A-1 and commit him in prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence. The sentence already undergone by A-1 shall be given set off.