JUDGMENT S. NAGAMUTHU, J. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.495 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. He stood charged for offences under Sections 294(b), 302 and 307 IPC. By judgment dated 28.03.2011, the trial Court convicted him under Sections 302 and 307 IPC and acquitted him from the charge under Section 294(b) IPC. The trial Court sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 307 IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The deceased in this case was one Thirumalai. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. The appellant is the first son born to them. P.W.2 -Mr. Velmurugan is yet another son of the deceased and P.W.1. The accused married a poor girl without the consent of the deceased and P.W.1. The said marriage was not liked by them. Therefore, the entire family including P.Ws.1 and 2 and others sent the accused out of his parental home. Therefore, he was living separately with his wife. He has got children also. While so, on 25.06.2009, Valaikappu function was celebrated for the wife of P.W.2. The accused, however, managed to participate in the same. After the function, he returned to his house. P.W.1 and the deceased had gone to their field. When they were engaged in some work, the accused came there. It was 5.00 p.m. The accused questioned the deceased as to why he did not participate in any of the family functions. The deceased told that the reason is that the accused was not in cordial terms with him and that he was always fighting. This resulted in a quarrel. At that time, the accused had a stick in his hand. With that stick, he attacked the deceased. He sustained as many as five injuries. P.W.1 tried to rescue him. The accused attacked her on both her legs. She suffered fracture of bones on both the legs. The deceased fell unconscious. This resulted in a quarrel. At that time, the accused had a stick in his hand. With that stick, he attacked the deceased. He sustained as many as five injuries. P.W.1 tried to rescue him. The accused attacked her on both her legs. She suffered fracture of bones on both the legs. The deceased fell unconscious. Leaving them there, the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. P.W.1 was not able to move. Though she cried for help, the same could not be heard by anybody. Thus, from 5.00 p.m. on 25.06.2009, P.W.1 and the deceased were lying in their field. 2.1. On 26.06.2009, P.W.2 went in search of them. He found the deceased dead and P.W.1 seriously injured. P.W.2 took P.W.1 to the Sankarankoil Police Station, where at 11.00 p.m., P.W.1 made a complaint. P.W.9, the then Sub Inspector of Police received the said complaint and registered a case in Crime No.240 of 2009 under Sections 294(b), 307 and 302 IPC. Ex.P14 is the FIR. Then, he forwarded the complaint and the FIR to the Court, which were received by the learned Magistrate at 4.30 a.m. on 27.06.2009. He forwarded P.W.1 to the hospital along with a police memo. Immediately, P.W.2 took P.W.1 to the Government hospital, Puliangudi. 2.2. P.W.6 – Dr. A. Karpagaraj examined her and found the following injuries: (1) A fracture of both the bones lower and upper right leg (swelling was present) (2) A lacerated wound measuring 3 x 2 x 1 cm over lower and upper right leg. (3) A lacerated wound 2 x 1 x 1 cm over the left leg. (4) A contusion measuring 4 x 2 cm over the left side of frontal region. According to P.W.6, the injuries 1 and 2 were grievous in nature and the others were simple. 2.3. P.W.12 is the then Inspector of Police attached to the Puliyangudi Police Station took up the case for investigation, proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar in the presence of witnesses and also a rough sketch. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and prepared Ex.P19 – Inquest Report. Then, he forwarded the body to the hospital for postmortem. 2.4. P.W.8 – Dr. R.S. Pradeep conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 27.06.2009. He found the following injuries: 1. Cut injury in the left leg approx 3 cm 2. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and prepared Ex.P19 – Inquest Report. Then, he forwarded the body to the hospital for postmortem. 2.4. P.W.8 – Dr. R.S. Pradeep conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 27.06.2009. He found the following injuries: 1. Cut injury in the left leg approx 3 cm 2. Cut injury in the right leg approx 3 cm 3. Contusion in the right knee and thigh 4. Cut injury in the right side of chin approx 1 cm 5. Multiple contusion and abrasion in the chest. According to him, these injuries would have been caused by a weapon like M.O.1. He gave opinion that the death was due to the cumulative effect of all the injuries. 2.5. Continuing the investigation, P.W.12 arrested the accused on 29.06.2009 at 11.00 a.m. at Ilandhaikulam Karuppasamy Koil in the presence of P.W.5 and another witness. On such arrest, he made a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place, where he had hidden the stick. In pursuance of the same, he took P.W.12 and the witnesses to the said place and produced M.O.1 stick from the cattle shed. P.W.12 recovered the same under a mahazar. On returning to the police station, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand and produced M.O.1 to the Court. Earlier, while preparing the observation mahazar, he recovered the dress materials of the deceased. All the above materials were subjected to chemical examination, which revealed that there was human blood on the stick and the underwear of the deceased, but the grouping was inconclusive. On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused. 2.6. Based on the above materials, the trial Court has framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 12 witnesses were examined, 23 documents were exhibited and 4 material objects were marked. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 is the injured eye witness. She has vividly spoken about the entire occurrence including overt acts. P.W.2 is the son of the deceased. He has spoken about the earlier misunderstanding between the two families and also the fact that on 26.06.2009, he found the deceased dead in his field and P.W.1 with injuries. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 is the injured eye witness. She has vividly spoken about the entire occurrence including overt acts. P.W.2 is the son of the deceased. He has spoken about the earlier misunderstanding between the two families and also the fact that on 26.06.2009, he found the deceased dead in his field and P.W.1 with injuries. He has further stated that he took P.W.1 to the police station, where P.W.1 gave a complaint. Then, she was taken to the hospital. P.W.3 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.4 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar. P.W.5, who is the Village Administrative Officer, has stated that in her presence on 29.06.2009, the accused was arrested and on such arrest, he made a confession. Out of which, a stick was recovered. P.W.6 – Dr. A. Karpagaraj has spoken about the treatment given to P.W.1. P.W.7 yet another Doctor, who took X-ray on both legs of P.W.1 and had opined that P.W.1 had sustained fractures on both the legs. P.W.8 – Dr. Pradeep has spoken about the autopsy conducted by him and his opinion. P.W.9 has spoken about the registration of the case. P.W.10 is a Constable, who handed over the FIR to the learned Magistrate at 4.30 a.m. on 27.06.2009. P.W.11 is the Constable, who carried the body to the hospital for postmortem. P.W. 12 is the Inspector, who has vividly spoken about the investigation. 2.7. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same. However, he did not choose to examine any witnesses nor marked any documents on his side. Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted the accused/appellant and accordingly, punished him as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment. That is how, he is before this Court with this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and we have also perused the records carefully. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there was inordinate delay in preferring the complaint and on that score, the entire case of the prosecution should be rejected. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and we have also perused the records carefully. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there was inordinate delay in preferring the complaint and on that score, the entire case of the prosecution should be rejected. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that P.W.1 is an interested as well as inimical witness and therefore, the same should not be the foundation for conviction in the absence of any corroboration from any independent source. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the medical evidence does not corroborate the eye witness account in respect of the injuries found on the deceased. Finally, the learned counsel would submit that assuming that the accused has caused the death of the deceased, the offence would not fall under Section 302 IPC, however, it would fall only under Section 304(ii) IPC. For the injuries caused on P.W.1, the learned counsel for the appellant, are concerned, the said offence would only fall under Section 325 IPC. 5. But the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently oppose this appeal. According to him, the delay in preferring the complaint has been duly explained away by P.W.1. He would further submit that the medical evidence fully corroborates the eye witness account. There is no contradiction at all, he contended. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has taken us through the oral evidence of the Doctor, who conducted autopsy. He would next contend that since the accused had gone with premeditation to kill the deceased and also to kill P.W.1, the offences said to have been committed by him would squarely fall within the ambit of Sections 302 and 307 IPC. Thus, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant do not warrant interference at all at the hands of this Court. 6. We have considered the above submissions. 7. The alleged occurrence was on 25.06.2009 at 5.00 p.m. in a lonely place. The occurrence was not witnessed by anybody else. The deceased fell unconscious, after receiving the blows. P.W.1 also sustained injuries and she also fell after the blows. Admittedly, her both the legs were broken and therefore, she was not in a position to move. She has stated that she cried for help. The occurrence was not witnessed by anybody else. The deceased fell unconscious, after receiving the blows. P.W.1 also sustained injuries and she also fell after the blows. Admittedly, her both the legs were broken and therefore, she was not in a position to move. She has stated that she cried for help. Since the place, where the occurrence had occurred is a lonely place, the same could not be heard by anybody. P.W.2 yet another son of the deceased had gone to the field in search of the deceased, at that time, he found P.W.1 with injuries and the deceased dead. P.W.2 has also clinchingly spoken about the said fact. It was, thereafter, she was taken to the police station and thus, the complaint was made. In that, absolutely, in our considered opinion, there is no delay. The FIR had reached the hands of the learned Judicial Magistrate, at 4.30 a.m. itself on 27.06.2009. Thus, we do not find any reason to doubt the FIR. 8. Now, turning to the evidence of P.W.1, she is the sole injured eye witness. She had suffered fractures on both the legs. After all the accused is her son. We do not find any reason to reject her evidence at all. She has vividly spoken about the attack made by the accused on the deceased as well as on her. But the learned counsel would submit that her evidence needs to be rejected, as the medical evidence does not corroborate her evidence. We do not find any force at all in this argument. The contention of the learned counsel is that the injury Nos.1 and 4 found on the body of the deceased were all cut injuries and therefore, those injuries would not have been caused by a stick which is a blunt weapon. The learned counsel would point out that P.W.8 – Dr. Pradeep, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, during cross examination, has admitted that these injuries would not have been caused by a blunt object. From this fact, the learned counsel tries to drive his point that the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be believed. But during the cross examination, P.W.8 has further stated that since the body had already started decomposing, the nature of the injury was not so visible. He has further opined that since M.O.1 has got split, these injuries would have been caused. But during the cross examination, P.W.8 has further stated that since the body had already started decomposing, the nature of the injury was not so visible. He has further opined that since M.O.1 has got split, these injuries would have been caused. At any rate, since the body was highly decomposed, one cannot be sure that these three injuries were cut injuries. When the eye witness account of P.W.1 is so strong, we are not prepared to accept the evidence of P.W.8 in respect of the nature of these three injuries. We hold that the injuries on the deceased were caused only by the accused and similarly the injuries on P.W.1 were caused only by the accused. According to the medical evidence, the death was due to these injuries. With this, we hold that the death of the deceased was caused only by the act of the accused. 9. Now, the next question is as to what is the offence committed by the accused by his act?. It is in the evidence of P.W.1 that the accused came there in a casual manner and enquired his father, namely, the deceased as to why he did not participate in his family functions. The deceased told him that since he was not in good terms with him, he did not attend. This quarrel would have gone for some time. Only during that quarrel, the accused, who was having a stick in his hand, started attacking the deceased. Thus, absolutely, there is no material to infer any premeditation. The occurrence was so sudden. Further, the accused did not take any undue advantage. Thus, the act of the accused would squarely fall within the ambit of exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. Since it falls under exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, it is only a culpable homicide not amounting to murder, for which, the accused is liable to be punished under Section 304(ii) IPC. Similarly for the injuries caused on P.W.1, he is liable to be punished under Section 325 IPC. 10. Now, turning to the quantum of punishment, the accused, at the time of occurrence, was hardly 35 years old. He was already married having three children and he is a coolie. He had no bad antecedents. After the occurrence also, he has not committed any crime. He hails from a poor family. The attack was not premeditated. 10. Now, turning to the quantum of punishment, the accused, at the time of occurrence, was hardly 35 years old. He was already married having three children and he is a coolie. He had no bad antecedents. After the occurrence also, he has not committed any crime. He hails from a poor family. The attack was not premeditated. The weapon used by the accused is only a stick. Having regard to these aggravating as well as mitigating circumstances, to strike the balance, we are of the view that sentencing the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- would meet the ends of justice for the offence under Section 304(ii) IPC. Similarly, for the offence under Section 325 IPC, sentencing the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- would meet the ends of justice. 11. In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed in the following terms: (1) The conviction and sentence imposed on the accused/appellant under Sections 302 and 307 IPC are set aside, instead, he is convicted for the offences under Sections 304(ii) and 325 IPC. (2) He is sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand only), in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four weeks for the offence under Section 304(ii) IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only), in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks for the offence under Section 325 IPC. (3) The sentences are to run concurrently. (4) The period of sentence already undergone by the accused/appellant is ordered to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.