Judgment M. CHOCKALILNGAM, J. Challenge is made to a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division (Essential Commodities Act), Salem, in S.C.No.287 of 2006 whereby the appellants 7 in number along with two others ranked as A-6 and A-8, stood charged, tried and found guilty as follows: Table 2.The trial Court recorded an order of acquittal of A-6 and A-8 of all the charges levelled against them and A-1, A-3 to A-5, A-7 and A-9 in respect of the other charges. 3. Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows: (a) P.W.1 is the brothers son of the deceased Perumal. Perumal had four brothers. The family owned 5 acres of land. On division, each one was enjoying 1 acre of land. P.W.2 is the senior paternal uncles son of P.W.1. P.W.3 is the brother and P.W.4 is the wife of Perumal. They were all residents of Nambiampatti Nadar Street. All the accused persons belonged to the same place. They were inter se related. In between the lands of the prosecution witnesses and the deceased, there were 10 palmyra trees which were under the enjoyment of the prosecution witnesses. 15 days prior to the occurrence, A-1 and A-3 cut the leaves in those palmyra trees. The same was objected to; but, these accused did not pay heed to those words. Thereafter, a panchayat was convened. The panchayatdars who came to the place, advised both the parties that they could enter possession after the property was measured. In view of the advice given, all the leaves which were cut, were left in that place. (b) On 13. 2006 at about 10.00 A.M., A-1 and A-3 took the leaves from the place where it was actually kept. P.W.2 questioned the conduct of the accused. The accused replied that they would do so and others should not question the same. Immediately, P.W.2 went to the house of the panchayatdars. But, they were absent. Then, he came back to inform to the deceased and his wife, P.W.4. At that time, all the accused persons were running towards the house of the deceased. A-1 and A-3 were armed with wooden-logs, A-2 with a crowbar, A-4 with a knife and others with sticks. A-2, A-5 and A-9 damaged the weaving factory of the prosecution witnesses. One Chellammal, the mother of P.W.1, questioned the act of the accused. At that time, all the accused persons were running towards the house of the deceased. A-1 and A-3 were armed with wooden-logs, A-2 with a crowbar, A-4 with a knife and others with sticks. A-2, A-5 and A-9 damaged the weaving factory of the prosecution witnesses. One Chellammal, the mother of P.W.1, questioned the act of the accused. Immediately, A-9 hit her with a stone on her left hip. On seeing this, the deceased Perumal asked them whey they should attack a female. On hearing this, A-1 attacked him with the wooden-log on his right shoulder. A-3 attacked him with the wooden-log on his left hand. A-2 who was armed with a crowbar, attacked him on both the flanks and also on the head. P.W.2 witnessing the same, came to the rescue. At that time, A-4 attacked him with a knife on the left knee, while A-6 was catching hold of him. On sustaining the injury, P.W.2 sat down. At that juncture, A-6 sustained an injury, when A-4 attacked P.W.2. P.W.3 the brother of the deceased, asked about their illegal acts. Immediately A-2 attacked him with the crowbar, and A-7 attacked him with the stone. When there was a distressing cry, all the accused leaving the stones there, ran away from the place of occurrence with crowbar, wooden-logs and knife respectively. (c) The severely injured Perumal and the injured P.Ws.2 to 4 were taken to the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Hospital, Salem, where P.W.14 was the Doctor on duty. At about 11.45 A.M., he examined the severely injured Perumal and the accident register copy is marked as Ex.P23. He also examined P.W.3 and gave treatment. The injuries are noted in the accident register copy, Ex.P24. The same Doctor examined P.W.2, and the accident register copy is marked as Ex.P25. (d) When P.W.13, the Sub Inspector of Police of the respondent police station, was on duty at about 1.30 P.M., P.W.1 appeared before him and gave Ex.P1, the complaint, on the strength of which a case came to be registered in Crime No.156 of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 427, 323, 324, 506(2) and 307 of IPC. Ex.P22, the printed FIR, was sent to the Court. Ex.P22, the printed FIR, was sent to the Court. (e) P.W.15, the Inspector of Police of the Circle, on receipt of the copy of the FIR, took up investigation, proceeded to the place, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P3, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P26. In the meantime, Perumal who was admitted in the hospital with severe injuries, died at about 2.20 P.M. An intimation was received by the respondent police. Then, the case was altered to Sec.302 IPC along with the other provisions. Ex.P27, the altered report, was sent to the Court. The Investigator proceeded to the mortuary in the hospital, conducted inquest on the dead body of Perumal in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P28. A requisition was given to the hospital authorities for the conduct of postmortem. (f) P.W.11, the Tutor in Department of Forensic Medicine, Government Mohan Kumaramangalam College and Hospital, Salem, on receipt of the said requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Perumal and has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P19, with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries. (g) Pending the investigation, A-4 to A-8 were arrested on 13. 2006. A-4 came forward to give a confessional statement voluntarily, and the same was recorded in the presence of witnesses. The admissible part is Ex.P5, pursuant to which he produced M.O.2, knife, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar. A-5 also gave a confessional statement voluntarily, and the same was recorded. They were sent for judicial remand. (h) A-1, A-3 and A-9 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchencode. The police custody was asked for, and the same was ordered. While they were in police custody, A-1 came forward to give a confessional statement voluntarily. The same was recorded, and the admissible part is Ex.P7, pursuant to which he produced a woodenlog, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar. Then A-3 came forward to give a confessional statement, which was recorded. The admissible part is Ex.P8. He also produced a wooden-log. Consequently the same was recovered. (i) A-2 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani. The police custody was asked and ordered. While he was in police custody, he came forward to give a confessional statement, which was recorded. The admissible part is Ex.P11. The admissible part is Ex.P8. He also produced a wooden-log. Consequently the same was recovered. (i) A-2 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Bhavani. The police custody was asked and ordered. While he was in police custody, he came forward to give a confessional statement, which was recorded. The admissible part is Ex.P11. He also produced a crowbar, M.O.1, which was recovered under a cover of mahazar. (j) All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead body and also the weapons of crime from the accused on production pursuant to the confessional statements, were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences Department which resulted in Ex.P14, the chemical analysts report, and Ex.P15, the serologists report. On completion of investigation, the Investigator filed the final report. 4. The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and also relied on 28 exhibits and 13 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false. No defence witness was examined, but one document was marked as Ex.D1 on their side. The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt insofar as the appellants and hence found them guilty under the provisions of law and awarded punishment as stated supra. The trial Court acquitted A-6 and A-8 of all the charges and the appellants in respect of the other charges. Hence this appeal at the instance of these appellants. .5. The trial Court acquitted A-6 and A-8 of all the charges and the appellants in respect of the other charges. Hence this appeal at the instance of these appellants. .5. Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned Counsel Mr.M.G.Shankaran would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case; that while the learned trial Judge found A-6 and A-8 not guilty in .respect of all the charges and the appellants in respect of the other charges and recorded an order of acquittal on the same evidence, he should have rejected the case of the prosecution in entirety; that it is true that P.Ws.1 to 4 are shown as eyewitnesses, apart from one Chellammal who is shown as an injured witness, but not examined; that though P.W.4 claimed to be an injured witness, no medical evidence was produced in that regard, and thus, the evidence available for the prosecution was that of the socalled eyewitnesses namely P.Ws.1 to 3; that the accident register copy of P.W.2 is marked as Ex.P25 and that of P.W.3 is Ex.P24; that when the evidence of these P.Ws.1 to 4 who are all related inter se, and also to the deceased if carefully scrutinised would clearly indicate that their evidence was liable to be rejected in view of the major discrepancies on the material particulars; that the witnesses were unable to account for the injuries sustained by the deceased; that apart from that, there is nothing to indicate that they had got any common intention; but, the trial Court has found A-1 to A-3 guilty under Sec.302 read with 34 IPC; that though the witnesses claimed to be not only eyewitnesses, but also injured witnesses, they could not account for the injuries sustained either by themselves or by the deceased; that immediately after the occurrence was over, it was P.W.14, the Doctor, who examined the deceased first and then P.Ws.3 and 2; that a perusal of the accident register copies in respect of the deceased and P.Ws.2 and 3 marked as Exs.P23, P24 and P25 respectively, would clearly indicate that they have given different versions as to the number of assailants; and that all would clearly indicate that the prosecution has not placed the evidence which it required to bring home the guilt of the accused. 6. 6. Added further the learned Counsel that in the same transaction, A-6 was also injured; but, a feeble explanation was sought to be given through P.W.2; that in fact, the said explanation was unacceptable; that it could be well seen that the prosecution has not explained the injury sustained by A-6, and this would also shake the case of the prosecution. .7. The learned Counsel would further add that except a few, all other accused have actually surrendered before the Court; that police custody was sought for, and the same was ordered; that it is a matter of surprise to note that all those accused when they were in police custody, came forward to give confessional statements pursuant to which they have produced the wooden-logs, knife and crowbar respectively; but, they were all .nothing but fabricated documents; that this contention was not appreciated by the trial Court; that the trial Court has not marshalled the evidence proper, but has found them guilty, and hence the judgment of the trial Court has got to be set aside and the appellants be acquitted of the charges to which they are entitled to. 8. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 9. It is not in controversy that one Perumal the father of P.W.1, following an incident that took place at about 10.00 A.M. on 13. 2006, at the place of occurrence was taken to the hospital, and it was P.W.14, the Doctor, who gave initial treatment at about 11.45 A.M. A case came to be registered under Sec.307 of IPC along with other provisions of law, and the said Perumal died at about 2.20 P.M. Then the case was altered to Sec.302 of IPC. P.W.15, the Inspector of Police, who took up investigation after the alteration of the case to Sec.302 IPC, proceeded to the hospital and conducted inquest on the dead body of Perumal. Thereafter, on postmortem, the Doctor has also opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries. The cause of death as put forth by the prosecution was never disputed by the appellants before the trial Court or before this Court, and hence no impediment is felt in recording that Perumal died out of homicidal violence. .10. The cause of death as put forth by the prosecution was never disputed by the appellants before the trial Court or before this Court, and hence no impediment is felt in recording that Perumal died out of homicidal violence. .10. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellants/accused, the prosecution marched four witnesses as eyewitnesses, out of whom P.Ws.2 and 3 are not only eyewitnesses, but also injured witnesses. It is well settled principles of law that in a given case like this where the eyewitnesses happened to be injured witnesses, their evidence should not be discarded unless and until a strong circumstance is noticed or reason is brought about. Apart from that, the evidence of the injured witness is always on the higher pedal than that of the eyewitnesses. The main reason for that is that when a person is attacked by X, he will not show Y as the person who attacked him because he was the person who was actually injured and aggrieved by the attack made by X. It is true that P.Ws.1 to 4 are the eyewitnesses and in particular, P.Ws.2 and 3 injured witnesses, are inter se related and also related to the deceased. This cannot be a reason to reject their testimony. This Court is mindful of the caution made by the settled principles of law that before acceptance, careful scrutiny test must be applied. .Even after applying this principle of law, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 has got to be accepted since it inspires the confidence of the Court as it is natural. They have clearly given a narration of the attack made by the accused persons, and also P.Ws.2 and 3 were injured in the said occurrence, and they were given medical treatment within a short span of time by P.W.14, the Doctor, attached to the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Hospital. Ex.P24 is the accident register copy for P.W.3, and Ex.P25 is that of P.W.2. Apart from that, the accident register copy of the deceased is marked as Ex.P23. They have categorically spoken to the fact that it was A-1 and A-3 who attacked the deceased with the wooden-logs, and A-2 attacked him with the crowbar. Ex.P24 is the accident register copy for P.W.3, and Ex.P25 is that of P.W.2. Apart from that, the accident register copy of the deceased is marked as Ex.P23. They have categorically spoken to the fact that it was A-1 and A-3 who attacked the deceased with the wooden-logs, and A-2 attacked him with the crowbar. It is true that the postmortem Doctor, P.W.12, has given a certificate to the effect that he died out of the cumulative effect of the injuries sustained by him. But from the perusal of the postmortem certificate. it would be quite clear that the injury that was sustained by the deceased on the head was fatal, and it caused the death. The said injury was caused by A-2 who attacked him with the crowbar on the head and also on both sides of the flank. As far as A-1 and A-3 are concerned, they have attacked him with the wooden-logs and that too on the non-vital parts. 11. It is true that all the persons were aggrieved over the earlier incident and being questioned that morning, they attacked the deceased suddenly. But, at the same time, there is nothing to indicate that all had the common intention to cause the death of Perumal. As far as A-2 was concerned, it was he who attacked him with the crowbar on the head and also on both the flanks. Thus the act which was committed by him would clearly indicate that he had entertained an intention to cause injuries which were fatal leading to his death. Under the circumstances, the act of A-2 would attract the penal provision of Sec.302 IPC. 12. As far as A-1 and A-3 are concerned, they have got to be dealt with for the individual acts. They have attacked him with the wooden-logs and caused the injuries. In such circumstances, their acts would attract the penal provision of Sec.324 of IPC and awarding the punishment of three years Rigorous Imprisonment would meet the ends of justice. .13. As far as others namely A-4, A-5, A-7 and A-9 are concerned, they have been dealt .with by the trial Court for the individual acts on different provisions as narrated above. The ocular testimony put forth by the prosecution in respect of their individual acts stood fully corroborated by the medical evidence. .13. As far as others namely A-4, A-5, A-7 and A-9 are concerned, they have been dealt .with by the trial Court for the individual acts on different provisions as narrated above. The ocular testimony put forth by the prosecution in respect of their individual acts stood fully corroborated by the medical evidence. It can be well stated that the trial Court has marshalled the evidence proper, considered the same and arrived at the right conclusion, and hence that part of the judgment of the trial Court does not require any disturbance in the hands of this Court. 14. Accordingly, the conviction of A-2 by the trial Court under Sec.302 read with 34 IPC is modified, and instead, he is convicted under Sec.302 of IPC. The life imprisonment and fine imposed by the trial Court are confirmed. 15. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court on A-1 and A-3 under Sec.302 read with 34 of IPC are set aside, and instead, they are convicted under Sec.324 of IPC and are directed to suffer three years Rigorous Imprisonment. The sentence already undergone by them shall be given set off. The fine amount if any paid by them in that regard, will be refunded to them. 16. The judgment of the trial Court finding A-1 to A-3 guilty in respect of the other charges and A-4, A-5, A-7 and A-9 guilty in respect of those charges and awarding the punishments as stated supra, is confirmed. The sentences imposed on the appellants are to run concurrently. 17. In the result, with the above modification in conviction and sentence, this criminal appeal is dismissed. It is reported that A-4, A-5, A-7 and A-9 are on bail. Hence the Sessions Judge shall take steps to commit them to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence if any.