Judgment P.N. Prakash, J. 1. The sole accused, Ayyappan, who was tried and convicted in S.C.No 177 of 2012 on 16.08.2013 by the District Sessions Judge, Vellore District, Vellore, is the appellant before us. He was charged and convicted as follows: Section of law Conviction and sentence U/s Section 294(b) IPC 3 months S.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- i/d 2 weeks S.I. U/s 302 Section 302 IPC ‘Imprisonment for life’ and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, i/d 2 years S.I. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Devendran was the brother of Meganathan (P.W.1) and husband of Uma Rani (P.W.2). That on 09.07.2011 around 3.00 in the evening, while Devendran, his wife Uma Rani (P.W.2) and younger brother Meganathan (P.W.1) were going to the shandy, when they neared the limekiln of one RK Anbu, they found the appellant standing there. While the three were talking amongst themselves, the appellant came towards them and asked the deceased as to what they were talking. At that time, the deceased did not give any reply. Enraged by that, it is alleged that the appellant took a log that was lying nearby and gave a blow on the head of the deceased. Meganathan (P.W.1) and Uma Rani (P.W.2) carried Devendran to Government Hospital, Walajah, where Dr. Venkateshwaran (P.W.9) examined Devendran and noted the injuries in the Accident Register, a copy of which was marked as Ex.P11. He was found to be bleeding profusely on the head. Dr. Venkateshwaran (P.W.9) gave him first aid and referred him for better treatment to the Government Medical College Hospital, Vellore. (a) Meganathan (P.W.1) lodged a written complaint (Ex.P1), which was received by Srinivasan (P.W.11) the Inspector of Police on 09.07.2011 at 6.00 p.m, and a case in Gudiyatham Town Police Station Cr.No.430/2011 u/s 294(b) 324 and 307 IPC was registered and the printed FIR (Ex.P15) was prepared. The complaint (Ex.P1) and the printed FIR (Ex.P15) were received by the jurisdictional Magistrate at 10.15 p.m. on 09.07.2011. Srinivasan (P.W.11) took over the investigation of the case and went to the place of occurrence and in the presence of witnesses Haribabu (P.W.4) and Kumaravel (P.W.5) prepared the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2) and the Rough Sketch (Ex.P16). He examined Meganathan (P.W.1), Uma Rani (P.W.2), Jayshankar (P.W.3) and other witnesses. Srinivasan (P.W.11) took over the investigation of the case and went to the place of occurrence and in the presence of witnesses Haribabu (P.W.4) and Kumaravel (P.W.5) prepared the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2) and the Rough Sketch (Ex.P16). He examined Meganathan (P.W.1), Uma Rani (P.W.2), Jayshankar (P.W.3) and other witnesses. On the same day, Srinivasan (P.W.11) arrested the accused and recorded his confession statement, the admissible portion of which was marked as Ex.P4. Based on the disclosure made by the appellant, the Investigating Officer seized the stick (M.O.1) on the showing of the appellant and the same was recovered under the cover of Mahazar (Ex.P3) in the presence of witnesses Haribabu (P.W.4) and Kumaravel (P.W.5). The appellant was thereafter produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate for remand to judicial custody. On 12.07.2011, the Investigating Officer received information from Government Medical College Hospital, Vellore that Devendran had succumbed to the injuries at 12.30 noon and therefore, he sent an Alteration Report (Ex.P7) altering the offence u/s 294(b) 324 and 307 IPC to one u/s 294(b) and 302 IPC . (b) On 12.07.2011, the Investigating Officer conducted inquest over the body of Devendran between 1.30 and 3.30 p.m at the mortuary in the presence of panchayatdars and the Inquest Report was marked as Ex.P18. He sent the body to the hospital for post-mortem by requisition (Ex.P9). Dr. Selvaraj (P.W.10) performed autopsy over the body of Devendran and in his evidence as well in his Post-mortem Certificate (Ex.P12), he observed the following injuries. “Injuries noted: 1. Abrasions over both the knees over the back of chest, back of left thigh and left elbow. 2. An incised wound 5 x 5 cm in the lower part of front of chest (left side) 3. Sutured incised wound on the forehead left side 8 cm x bone depth. On dissection of scalp, skull an dura : Diffuse subscalpal contusions in the frontal regions of both sides. Marked Subdural and subarachnoid haemorrhage noted over both cerebral hemispheres. Cerebral edema noted. Thin hairline fracture in the left cranial fossa of the base of skull. Peritoneal and pleural cavities: Empty. Heart : Normal. All chambers contain fluid blood. Coronaries: Patent. Lungs : Pale. Hyoid bone : Intact. Stomach : Contains 100 ml of greenish colour fluid with nil specific smell. Mucosa : Normal. Small intestine : Contains 15 ml of bile-stained fluid with nil specific smell. Mucosa : Normal. Peritoneal and pleural cavities: Empty. Heart : Normal. All chambers contain fluid blood. Coronaries: Patent. Lungs : Pale. Hyoid bone : Intact. Stomach : Contains 100 ml of greenish colour fluid with nil specific smell. Mucosa : Normal. Small intestine : Contains 15 ml of bile-stained fluid with nil specific smell. Mucosa : Normal. Liver , spleen and kidneys : Congested. Bladder : Empty Opinion as to the cause of death: The deceased would appear to have died of complications of injuries on the head and brain sustained by him.” (c) After getting Viscera Report, Dr. Selvaraj (P.W.10) gave his Final Opinion in Ex.P13 as follows: “Final Opinion: The deceased would appear to have died of complications of injuries on the head and brain sustained by him.” (d)The blood stained lungi (M.O.2) that was worn by the deceased and the stick (M.O.1) were forwarded to the Forensic Sciences Laboratory for examination of the blood group and the Serology Report (Ex.P8) showed that the blood stains found therein were of human origin, but the result of grouping test was inconclusive. Since Srinivasan (P.W.11) was transferred, the investigation was continued by Thirunavukkarasu (P.W.12), who examined the Post-mortem Doctor and other witnesses and completed the investigation and filed a Final Report against the appellant for offence u/s 294(b) and 302 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham, who took the same on file as PRC No.2/2012 and on appearance of the appellant, provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. (e) Before the Sessions Court, two charges, namely u/s 294(b) and 302 IPC were framed against the appellant and since the appellant pleaded ‘not guilty’, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses, marked 18 Exhibits and 4 Material Objects. When the appellant was questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C about the incriminating circumstances in the evidence, he denied the same. No witness was examined on his behalf. After hearing either side and considering the evidence on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid and hence, the appeal. 3. The entire case of the prosecution revolves around the eye witness account of Meganathan (P.W.1), Uma Rani (P.W.2) and Jayshankar (P.W.3). Meganathan (P.W.1) in his evidence stated that he is doing finance business and that his elder brother was Devendran, who was married to Uma Rani (P.W.2) and they have two children. 3. The entire case of the prosecution revolves around the eye witness account of Meganathan (P.W.1), Uma Rani (P.W.2) and Jayshankar (P.W.3). Meganathan (P.W.1) in his evidence stated that he is doing finance business and that his elder brother was Devendran, who was married to Uma Rani (P.W.2) and they have two children. On 09.07.2011 while they were on their way to the shandy, they found the appellant, who was known to them previously, standing opposite a limekiln of one RK Anbu. While the three were discussing amongst themselves as to what to purchase in the shandy, the appellant, who according to Meganathan (P.W.1) is a ruffian, came to them and asked the deceased as to what they were talking. When the deceased did not choose to give any reply, he got enraged and he picked up a casuarina stick and gave a blow on the head of the deceased. The deceased fell down and there was profuse bleeding on his head. He further deposed that the deceased was carried in a autorickshaw to Gudiyatham Hospital, where he was given immediate treatment. Thereafter, he was referred to Government Medical College Hospital, where further treatment was given. (a) Meganathan (P.W.1) further stated that he went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint and the complaint that was given by him was marked as Ex.P1. On the third day, his brother succumbed to his injuries around 12.30 in the noon. His examination-in-chief was conducted on 07.01.2013 and he was recalled and cross examined only on 04.06.2013. It was suggested to the witness that, prior to the incident, on account of difference of opinion between the deceased and his wife, a quarrel ensued and in that, the son of the deceased, by name Baskaran, threw a stone on his head and caused injuries, which suggestion was of course denied by the witness. It was further suggested to him that Devendran was selling illicit liquor near the shandy and was frequently quarrelling with people around. Apart from generally suggesting to the witness that the deceased was assaulted by his rivals in the illicit business, nothing substantial was elicited in the cross examination of this witness. It was further suggested to him that Devendran was selling illicit liquor near the shandy and was frequently quarrelling with people around. Apart from generally suggesting to the witness that the deceased was assaulted by his rivals in the illicit business, nothing substantial was elicited in the cross examination of this witness. (b) Similarly, Uma Rani (P.W.2), wife of the deceased in her evidence stated that, on 09.07.2011 she was going to the shandy along with her husband and brother-in-law, and at that time, near RK Anbu limekiln, they saw the appellant standing and that the appellant picked up a quarrel with her husband and assaulted her husband with a stick (M.O.1). She also further stated that she carried her husband to the hospital and they were later referred to the Gudiyatham Medical College Hospital, where her husband succumbed to his injuries. She was also examined-in-chief on 07.01.2013 and was cross examined on 04.06.2013. To her also it was suggested that, the injury was caused on account of quarrel between her and her husband and that the injury was caused by their son, Baskar, during a quarrel with her husband. It was also suggested that the deceased was selling illicit liquor in the area and on account of which he had lot of enemies and that it was not the appellant who had hit him, but someone else. (c) Jayshankar (P.W.3) is an independent witness, who was known to the deceased. In his evidence he stated that, on 09.07.2011 around 3.00 in the afternoon, while he was talking to his friend near RK Anbu limekiln, he saw the deceased with his wife and bother coming there and he also saw the appellant taking a stick and giving a blow on the head of the deceased. He was also examined-in-chief on 07.01.2013 and was recalled on 04.06.2013 and cross examined. In the cross examination he stated that he did not know the appellant prior to the incident. As Jayshankar (P.W.3) has stated that he did not know the appellant prior to the incident, his testimony on the aspect of the appellant beating the accused becomes suspect. Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus (False is one, false is all) does not apply to Indian conditions and so we cannot entirely reject the evidence of Jayshankar (P.W.3). As Jayshankar (P.W.3) has stated that he did not know the appellant prior to the incident, his testimony on the aspect of the appellant beating the accused becomes suspect. Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus (False is one, false is all) does not apply to Indian conditions and so we cannot entirely reject the evidence of Jayshankar (P.W.3). Jayshankar (P.W.3) clearly stated that he knows the deceased, Meganathan (P.W.1) and Uma Rani (P.W.2) and that he saw them around 3 o’clock on 09.07.2011 near RK Anbu limekiln and that an incident wherein the deceased Devendran sustained injuries occurred. Therefore, the presence of Meganathan (P.W.1.) and Uma Rani (P.W.2) along with the deceased is corroborated by the evidence of Jayshankar (P.W.3). To that extent, we can use the evidence of Jayshankar (P.W.3). 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that Dr. Venkateshwaran (P.W.9) has stated in his evidence and recorded in the Accident Register (Ex.P11) as follows: “Alleged to have been assaulted by an unknown person using stick on 09.07.2011 at 3.00 p.m..” 5. It is true that the Doctor has made such an entry in the Register, but can that by itself be enough to disbelieve the testimony of two eye witnesses, namely Meganathan (P.W.1) and Uma Rani (P.W.2)? The value that can be attached to entry in the Accident Register has been discussed by the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments, wherein it has been held that “A statement found therein has no great significance.” 1. P. Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1994) SCC Crl. 424 : LNIND 1993 SC 837 2. P. Badrayya v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1995) SCC Crl. 370 3. Venkayya v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1985 SC 1715 : (1985) 4 SCC 80 : (1986) 1 MLJ (Crl) 23 6. Even according to the Doctor, he was brought with profuse bleeding on his head and he further stated that, he became unconscious after the incident. The Doctor has not clearly stated either in his evidence or in the Accident Register (Ex.P11) as to who gave this information, whether the deceased himself or Uma Rani (P.W.2) who had brought him to the hospital. Relying upon the aforesaid judgments and in the teeth of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, we do not propose to attach any significance to the entry in the Accident Register (Ex.P11). 7. Relying upon the aforesaid judgments and in the teeth of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, we do not propose to attach any significance to the entry in the Accident Register (Ex.P11). 7. The learned counsel further contended that there is a discrepancy in the injuries noted by Dr. Venkateshwaran (P.W.9) in the Accident Register (Ex.P11) and the Post-mortem Certificate issued by Dr. Selvaraj (P.W.10), inasmuch as in the Accident Register only two injuries have been referred to, but, whereas there are three injuries in the Post-mortem Certificate, of which the second injury is in the chest. It was contended by the learned counsel that, after the deceased was admitted in the Government Medical College Hospital, Vellore, he went out of the hospital and he sustained injuries in the chest somewhere else and that had resulted in his death. It is true that the injury no.2 has not been noted in the Accident Register (Ex.P11), but the Post-mortem Doctor in his opinion has clearly stated that the death was due to injury no.3, which was sutured incised wound on the forehead. Had the Doctor opined that the cause of death was on account of injury no.2, then there may be some force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. There is no evidence to show as to whether injury no.2 was a recent one or an old one. But, whereas injury no.3 is a sutured incised wound, which tallies with injury no.1 in the Accident Register (Ex.P11). Hence, we are unable to be persuaded by the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the deceased had gone out of the hospital and had sustained injuries elsewhere. 8. In the result, we hold that the prosecution has proved that the appellant had assaulted the deceased with stick (M.O.1), as spoken to by Meganathan (P.W.1) and Uma Rani (P.W.2). The prosecution has also proved through the evidence of Meganathan (P.W.1) that the appellant abused the deceased by calling him a bastard along with other vulgar vernacular expressions and hence, the charge u/s 294(b) stands established. 9. Now coming to the charge u/s 302 IPC we find that the deceased, Meganathan (P.W.1) and Uma Rani (P.W.2) were going towards the shandy and at that time, en route they saw the appellant. 9. Now coming to the charge u/s 302 IPC we find that the deceased, Meganathan (P.W.1) and Uma Rani (P.W.2) were going towards the shandy and at that time, en route they saw the appellant. As they were talking amongst themselves, the appellant came towards them and asked them as to what they were talking. Perhaps, the appellant thought that they were talking about him. When the deceased did not give any reply, Meganathan (P.W.1) and Uma Rani (P.W.2) have stated that he took a stick that was lying nearby and gave a blow on the head of the deceased. Death was also not instantaneous and Devendran died three days later. Therefore, it is clear to us that there was no pre- meditation or intention to cause death. The act of the appellant is culpable Homicide, but it does not fall under any of the clauses of Section 300 IPC. Even to bring it under the third clause of Section 300 IPC, there is no evidence to show that the bodily injury intended to be caused is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. At the most, the act of the appellant will come within the meaning of the last clause of Section 299 IPC and thereby, punishable u/s 304(ii) IPC. Therefore the conviction and sentence of the appellant u/s 302 IPC is set aside. The appellant is convicted for the offence u/s 304(ii) IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 yrs R.I and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo 2 years Simple Imprisonment. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed with the above modification. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Appeal dismissed.