Judgment :- C. Nagappan, J. The appellants are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Sessions Case No.36 of 2009 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Tiruvarur and they have preferred this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on them by judgment dated 24. 2009 in the case. For the sake of convenience, in this Judgment, the appellants will be referred to as Accused No.1 and 2. 2. Charge under Section 302 read with 34 IPC was framed against A1 Siva alise Sivakumar and A2 Manikandan. The learned Sessions Judge found A1 Sivakumar and A2 Manikandan guilty of the charge and convicted and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for Life each and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/- each. In default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year each. 3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and marked Exs.P1 to P14 and M.Os.1. to 7. 4. Briefly the prosecution case is summarised as follows: P.W.1 Mahalingam and PW.2 Veerammal are the parents of the deceased Balamurugan and they are living in Indira Nagar Colony at Harithuvaramangalm. PW.3 Ilaiyaraja is the brother-in-law of Balamurgan. PW.4 Annappattu is the sister of PW.1 Nahalingam and PW.5 Velayudham is her son. A1 Siva alias Sivakumar and A2 Manikandan are also the residence of the same colony. On 10. 2007 at 9 pm, Balamurugan came home and asked PW.2 Veerammal as to whether ‘idlis’ sent by him to home were delivered by A1 Sivakumar and she replied that Sivakumar did not hand over idlis and Balamurgan went out by saying that he would enquire Sivakumar as to why he did not deliver idlis. PW.4 Annappattu and PW.5 Velayudham saw Balamurgan standing in front of the house of A1 Sivakumar and asking him as to why he did not deliver idlis and there was exchange of words. On hearing the commotion, PW.2 Veerammal and PW.3 Ilayaraja rushed there. A1 Sivakumar went inside his house and brought MO.1 Aruval (Billhook) and A2 Manikandan caught hold of Balamurugan and A1 Sivakumar cut him with Aruval and Balamurugan prevented the attack with hands and the cut fell on his right index finger. Balamurugan ran away to the nearby garden of Karunanidhi and both the accused chased him and A2 Manikandan caught hold of Balamurugan and A1 Sivakumar cut Balamurugan with MO.1 Aruval on the neck and Balamurugan fell down dead. Balamurugan ran away to the nearby garden of Karunanidhi and both the accused chased him and A2 Manikandan caught hold of Balamurugan and A1 Sivakumar cut Balamurugan with MO.1 Aruval on the neck and Balamurugan fell down dead. A1 Sivakumar took his vehicle and went away and A2 Manikandan also left the place. P.Ws.2 to 5 witnessed the occurrence. PW.2 Veerammal rushed home and informed her husband PW.1 Mahalingam about the occurrence. PW.1 Mahalingam went to Harithuvaramangalam Police Station at 11.30 pm on 10. 2007 and gave Oral statement about the occurrence and PW.12 Sub Inspector Renganathan recorded Ex.P1 statement and obtained the signature of P.W.1 Mahalingam in it and registered a case in Crime No.105 of 2007 under Sections 341 and 302 IPC and prepared Ex.P12 First Information Report and sent the same to the Court and higher officers through Grade I Constable PW.11 Mahalingam. PW.14 Inspector Abdul Latheef took up the investigation and went to the occurrence place at 00.40 hours on 10. 2007 and prepared Ex.P2 observation mahazar in the presence of PW.6 Rajendiran and another. Ex.P13 is the Rough Sketch drawn by him. He seized MO.2 Blood stained earth and MO.3 Sample earth from the occurrence place under Ex.P3 mahazar in the presence of same witnesses. He conducted inquest on the body of Balamurugan and prepared Ex.P14 Inquest Report. He took MO.5 Photographs of the body through PW.13 Photographer Jayakumar. He examined PW.1 Mahalinagam, PW.2 Veerammal, PW.3 Ilaiyaraja, PW.4 Annappattu, PW.6 Rajendran and some other witnesses and recorded their statements. He sent the body for postmortem by giving requisition. P.W.9 Dr. Arumuga Pandian conducted post-mortem on the body of Balamurugan at 11 am on 10. 2007 and found the following. “External Wound: (A) Cut injury left side neck size 10 cm length x 6 cm breadth x 5 cm depth. a) extension middle neck to behind angle of mandiole b) Trachea cut c) Cervical vertebrae seen d) All major Neck vessels left side cut. (B) Cut injury right index 1 x ½ x 1 cm. (C) Abrasion (small) left hand mid finger Dorsal aspect. a) extension middle neck to behind angle of mandiole b) Trachea cut c) Cervical vertebrae seen d) All major Neck vessels left side cut. (B) Cut injury right index 1 x ½ x 1 cm. (C) Abrasion (small) left hand mid finger Dorsal aspect. Heart: Congested 320 gm; Lungs: Congested 430 gm; Rib: No fracture; Stomach: Digested food material; Liver: 1500 gm, Congested; Spleen: 220 gm Congested; Kidney: 120 gm, Congested; Intestine: empty; Head and Meninges: No fracture; Brain 1300 gm congested; Spinal vertex: No fracture.” He expressed opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to neck vessels, 16-24 hours prior to Post-mortem. Ex.P8 is the Post-mortem Certificate issued by him. P.W.14 Inspector Abdul Latheef arrested A2 Manikandan on 10. 2007 at 11.30 am near Kamatchi Amman Temple, Harithuvaramangalam and enquired him in the presence of PW.7 Kannan and another and recorded the confession statement given by him in the presence of same witness. Ex.P5 is the admissible portion. A2 Manikandan took them to his house and took and produced M.C.4 Blood stained shirt worn by him at the time of occurrence and he seized the same under Ex.P4 Mahazar in the presence of the said witnesses. He seized M.Os. 6 and 7, clothes taken from the body after postmortem under Form 95. He examined P.W.5 Velayudham, PW.7 Kannan and some other witnesses and recorded their statements. On 10. 2007, he further examined PW.1 Mahalingam, PW.2 Veerammal, PW.3 Ilaiyaraja and PW.4 Annappattu and recorded their statements. On 10. 2007, he examined PW.11 Mahalingam, P.W.12 Sub Inspector Renganathan and recorded their statements. Accused No.1 Sivakumar surrendered in the Court and PW.14 Inspector Abdul Latheef took him on police custody on 110. 2007 and enquired him in the presence of PW.8 Sambasivam and another and recorded the confession statement given by him in the presence of said witnesses. Ex.P6 is the admissible portion. A1 Sivakumar took them to his house and took MO.1 Blood stained Aruval from the roof of the house and produced the same and he recovered it under Ex.P7 mahazar in the presence of said witnesses. He gave Ex.P9 requisition to send the properties for chemical examination. Ex.P10, Chemical examiner report and Ex.P11, Serologist report were received in the Court. He examined PW.9 Dr. Arumuga Pandian on 210. 2007 and recorded his statement. He gave Ex.P9 requisition to send the properties for chemical examination. Ex.P10, Chemical examiner report and Ex.P11, Serologist report were received in the Court. He examined PW.9 Dr. Arumuga Pandian on 210. 2007 and recorded his statement. He completed the investigation and filed final report on 11. 2008 against the accused. 5. Both the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and they denied complicity. LW.1 Kamatchi was examined and Ex.D1 was marked on the side of the defence. 6. The learned Sessions Judge found both the accused guilty of the charge and sentenced them as stated earlier. Challenging the same, they have preferred the present appeal. 7. The prosecution case is that the accused in pursuance of their common intention, chased Balamurugan and A2 Manikandan caught hold of him and A1 Sivakumar cut him with MO.1 Aruval on the neck, resulting in his instantaneous death. PWs.2 to 5 have been examined as having witnessed the occurrence. PW.2 Veerammal is the mother of the deceased Balamurugan. PW.3 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. PW.4 Annappattu is the sister of PW.1 Mahalingam. PW.5 Velayudham is the son of PW.4 Annappattu. 8. PW.2 Veerammal has testified that on the occurrence day at 9 pm her son Balamurugan came home and asked her as to whether A1 Sivakumar brought ‘idlis’ sent by Balamurugan to home and she replied that Sivakumar did not bring idli and immediately Balamurugan went out by saying that he would enquire Sivakumar as to why he did not deliver idlis and within few minutes, she heard sound from A1 Sivakumar’s house and she ran and saw A1 Sivakumar cutting Balamurugan with Aruval and Balamurugan warded off the same and the cut fell on his index finger and Balamurugan ran for life to the garden of Karunanidhi and both the accused chased him and A2 Manikandan caught hold of Balamurugan and A1 Sivakumar cut him with Aruval on the neck and Balamurugan fell down dead and PW.4 Annappattu and PW.5 Velayudham also witnessed the occurrence and A1 Sivakumar took his vehicle and went away and A2 Manikandan also left the place and she came home and informed the same to her husband Mahalingam and PW.1 Mahalingam lodged the compliant. 9. PW.3 Ilaiyaraja has deposed that on the occurrence day viz. 10. 9. PW.3 Ilaiyaraja has deposed that on the occurrence day viz. 10. 2007 at 9.30 pm, he heard commotion near water tank and he rushed there and saw both the accused quarrelling with his brother-in-law Balamurugan and A1 Sivakumar went inside his house and brought Aruval and cut Balamurugan and he warded off the same and the cut fell on his right index finger and Balamurugan rushed to garden of Karunanidhi for escaping the attack and both the accused chased him and A2 Manikandan caught hold of Baalmurugan and A1 Sivakumar cut Balamurugan on the neck with Aruval and Balamurugan fell down dead. 10. PW.4 Annappattu and PW.5 Velayudham are mother and son and they are residing opposite to the house of A1 Sivakumar and they have testified that on the occurrence night at about 10 ‘O’ clock, Balamurugan came to the house of A1 Sivakumar and enquired him as to why Sivakumar did not hand over ‘idlis’ sent by Balamurugan and there was exchange of words and A2 Manikandan caught hold of Balamurugan and A1 Sivakumar cut him with MO.1 Aruval and Balamurugan tried to ward off and the cut fell on his index finger and Balamurugan ran towards garden and both the accused chased him and A2 Manikandan caught hold of Balamurugan and A1 Sivakumar cut him with MO.1 Aruval on the neck and Balamurugan fell down dead instantaneously. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the motive alleged by the prosecution was not established and P.Ws.3 and 4 have stated that they searched for the body in the Garden after the arrival of police and hence they could not have witnessed the occurrence and PW.2 Veerammal in the cross-examination has stated that only on hearing her scream, others came running and hence it is doubtful as to whether P.Ws.3 to 5 could have witnessed the occurrence and the testimonies of the eye-witnesses cannot be relied on. 12. Per contra, Mr. 12. Per contra, Mr. Hassan Mohamed Jinnah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the presence of P.Ws.2 to 5 cannot be disputed and the complaint came to be lodged within one and half hours after the occurrence and the First Information Report reached the In-charge Magistrate at 6.47 am in the morning of next day itself and the names of P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 have been mentioned in the complaint itself as having witnessed the occurrence and there is no enmity suggested to the prosecution witnesses and their testimonies are trustworthy. 13. It is true that all the eye-witnesses are related witnesses, but on that ground their testimonies cannot be discarded. P.Ws. 4 and 5 are residing in the house opposite the house of A1 Sivakumar. The exchange of words took place in front of the house of A1 Sivakumar just before 10 pm on 10. 2007. Both of them have testified that they saw Balmurugan enquiring A1 Sivakumar as to why he did not hand over idli sent by him to his house and in the quarrel, A1 Sivakumar went inside the house and brought MO.1 Aruval and attacked Balamurugan while A2 Manikandan caught hold of him. The presence of P.Ws.4, 5 in the occurrence place can never be disputed. PW.3 Ilaiyaraja is also residing in the same street and according to him, he heard commotion near water tank and he ran and saw the occurrence. There is also an electric light situated at distance of 30 ft. from the occurrence place and it is shown in Ex.P13 Rough Sketch. According to PW.2 Veerammal, Balamurugan came home on the occurrence night and asked her as to whether she received idlis sent through A1 Sivakumar and she replied in negative and Balamurugan went to the house of A1 Sivakumar to enquire and within a few minutes, she heard commotion and she went and saw A1 Sivakumar attacking her son with MO.1 Aruval. 14. It is relevant to point out that no enmity was suggested to P.Ws.2, 4 and 5 by the defence in their cross-examination. 14. It is relevant to point out that no enmity was suggested to P.Ws.2, 4 and 5 by the defence in their cross-examination. In so far as P.W.3 Ilaiyaraja is concerned, during the cross-examination on behalf of A2 Manikandan, it was suggested that A2 Manikandan and PW.3 Ilaiyaraja went to Kerala for coolie work and on account of non-payment of rent, the house owner picked up quarrel and beat PW.3 Ilaiyaraja and keeping grouse that only on account of A2 Manikandan he happened to get beating, he is deposing falsely. Of course, PW.3 Ilairaja had admitted that they were staying together in Kerala and he was beaten by local people over there. But he has denied the suggestion that he developed grouse over A2 Manikandan for the beating he received. This suggestion of enmity is farfetched. On that ground, the testimony of PW.3 Ilaiyaraja cannot be disbelieved, more particularly, when the occurrence took place near his house. 15. The other contention of the learned counsel is that PW.2 Veerammal in her cross-examination has stated that only on hearing her cry, others came running to the occurrence place and hence they could not have witnessed the occurrence. This contention is also devoid of merit. As already seen, the occurrence took place in front of the house of P.Ws.4 and 5 and they have witnessed the very origin of the occurrence and saw Balamurugan running away being chased by the accused to the garden of Karunanidhi and they saw the occurrence. It is not as if only on hearing the cry of PW.2 Veerammal they came running to the occurrence place. 16. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that after arrival of the police in the occurrence place, P.Ws. 3 and 4 along with the police searched the body in the garden. From the testimonies of the witnesses, it is seen that there was drizzling at the time of occurrence and the final assault took place in the garden and the body was found under the trunk of the tree and they were able to see closely with the help of torch-light. There is nothing to suspect in the version of P.Ws.3 and 4 in this regard. 17. There is nothing to suspect in the version of P.Ws.3 and 4 in this regard. 17. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that all the eyewitnesses have testified in the cross-examination that they gave statements to the police and also put their signatures and thumb impressions in their statements and hence Ex.P1 Complaint cannot be considered as first in time and its origin is doubtful. 18. PW.2 Veerammal and PW.4 Annappattu have affixed their left thumb impressions in their testimonies before the Court and it shows that they are illiterate people. In the course of cross-examination, they have stated that the police enquired them and they described the occurrence and also affixed their left thumb impressions in the statement. What they have meant is the statement recorded by the Investigation Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Further, as stated earlier, PW.2 Veerammal, on seeing the occurrence, rushed to her house and informed her husband PW.1 Mahalingam and immediately he went to the Police Station and gave statement about the occurrence and the same was reduced into writing by PW.12 Sub Inspector Renganathan and the signature of PW.1 Mahalingam was obtained in it. It is relevant to note that Ex.P1 Complaint came into being within one and half hours after the occurrence and it reached the Court in the early morning on the next day. In such circumstances, there is no doubt that Ex.P1 Complaint is the earliest in point of time and PW.1 Mahalingam is the author of it. The testimonies of P.Ws.2 to 5 are natural, cogent and nothing is elicited in their cross-examination to discredit their testimonies. Accepting their testimonies as true, it can be safely concluded that A2 Mahalinagam caught hold of Balamurugan and A1 Sivakumar cut him with Aruval on the neck, resulting in injuries at the time of occurrence. 19. Balamurugan died of homicidal violence is established by the post-mortem doctor. PW.9 Dr. Arumuga Pandian conducted autopsy and he has testified that he found cut injury on left side of neck and on dissection, found trachea, cervical vertebrae and all major neck vessels cut and he also found cut injury on the right index finger. He has expressed opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to neck vessels. Ex.P8 is the Post-mortem certificate issued by him. He has expressed opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to neck vessels. Ex.P8 is the Post-mortem certificate issued by him. In the testimony, he has deposed that the neck injury is necessarily fatal in nature. Accepting the medical testimony, it is clear that Balamurugan died of neck injury sustained during the occurrence. 20. Accused No.1 Sivakumar is said to have given information leading to recovery of weapon of offence. The Investigation Officer PW.14 Inspector Abdul Latheef has testified that A1 Sivakumar absconded after the occurrence and he surrendered in the Judicial Magistrate Court at Kulithalai and he took him in police custody and enquired him in the presence of PW.8 Sambasivam and another and recorded the confession statement, containing Ex.P6 admissible portion, given by him and A1 Sivakumar took them to his house and took and produced MO.1 Aruval from the roof of his house and he recovered it under Ex.P7 mahazar in the presence of same witnesses. The mahazar witness PW.8 Sambasivam in his testimony has also confirmed that A1 Sivakumar gave information and took and produced MO.1 Aruval in his presence. P.Ws.4 and 5 have identified MO.1 Aruval as having been used by A1 Sivakumar to attack Balamurugan at the time of occurrence. 21. A2 Manikandan is said to have given information in his confession statement leading to recovery of MO.4 Blood stained shirt, worn by him at the time of occurrence. According to the Investigation Officer, he arrested A2 Manikandan on 10. 2007 at 11.30 am near Kamatchi Amman Temple in Harithuvaramangalam in the presence of PW.7 Kannan and another and recorded the confession statement, containing Ex.P5 admissible portion, given by him and A2 Manikandan took them to his house and took and produced MO.4 shirt and he seized the same under Ex.P4 mahazar in the presence of said witnesses. The mahazar witness PW.7 Kannan has also confirmed that A2 Manikandan was arrested in his presence and he gave information in his presence and took and produced MO.4 shirt worn by him at the time of occurrence. 22. MO.1 Aruval and MO.4 shirt were sent for chemical examination along with clothes of the deceased viz. The mahazar witness PW.7 Kannan has also confirmed that A2 Manikandan was arrested in his presence and he gave information in his presence and took and produced MO.4 shirt worn by him at the time of occurrence. 22. MO.1 Aruval and MO.4 shirt were sent for chemical examination along with clothes of the deceased viz. MO.6, a portion of the shirt and MO.7 Dhoti and human ‘A’ group blood was detected in MOs.6 and 7 and the same human ‘A’ group blood was detected in MO.1 Aruval and MO.4 shirt and this also implicates the accused to the crime. 23. It has been spoken by the prosecution witnesses that Sharmila, wife of Balamurugan, was living with somebody else prior to her marriage and A1 Sivakumar used to make fun of Balamurugan. The casual remark made by A1 Sivakumar making fun of Balamurugan is mentioned by the witnesses. Balamurugan alone is the aggrieved person and there is no occasion for any grouse either for A1 Sivakumar or A2 Manikandan against Balamurugan. The non-delivery of ‘idlis’ sent by Balamurugan to his house through A1 Sivakumar is found to be the genesis of the occurrence and during the quarrel, A1 Sivakumar went inside his house, picked up Aruval and came out and A1 Sivakumar attacked Balamurugan with it and while Balamurugan warding it, the cut fell on his right index finger and Balamurugan ran for his life and both the accused chased him and A2 Manikandan caught hold of Balamurugan and A1 Sivakumar inflicted the neck injury, which is proved to be fatal, resulting in his instantaneous death. It is clear that both the accused acted in common intention while attacking Balamurugan. The Trial Court has rightly found them guilty of the charge under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and the sentence imposed on them is also proper. 24. There are no merits in the Appeal and the same is dismissed.