JUDGMENT S.NAGAMUTHU, J. The appellants are the accused 2 and 3 in S.C.No.43 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Pudukottai. The first accused in the case was one Mr. Ramachandran. The 2nd accused stood charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC and the accused 1 and 3 stood charged for offences under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC. By judgment dated 25.03.2011, the trial Court convicted the first accused under Section 323 IPC and sentenced him to undergo till raising of Court and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. (The first accused has not made any appeal). The trial Court convicted the 2nd accused under Section 302 IPC and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and convicted the third accused under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with this appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The deceased in this case was one Mr.Manickam. P.W.1 is the son of the deceased. P.W.2 is the neighbour of the deceased. They were all residing at Panangulam Village. All the three accused also belonged to Panangulam Village. The first accused is the husband of the 2nd accused and the third accused is the son of the accused 1 and 2. There was a Tamarind tree in the village, for which, the accused as well as the deceased made rival claims. 2.1. It is stated that on 28.04.2008, at about 6.00 a.m., the deceased had gone to the said Tamarind tree along with P.W.1 and he was collecting Tamarind fruits. At that time, it is alleged that all the three accused objected to the deceased collecting Tamarind fruits. This resulted in a quarrel. The deceased told that he had every right to collect Tamarind fruits, whereas, the accused claimed that they only had the right and therefore, the deceased cannot have any such right. At that time, it is alleged that all the three accused objected to the deceased collecting Tamarind fruits. This resulted in a quarrel. The deceased told that he had every right to collect Tamarind fruits, whereas, the accused claimed that they only had the right and therefore, the deceased cannot have any such right. During the quarrel, it is alleged that the accused 2 and 3 caught hold the deceased and the first accused fisted him on the chest and other parts of the body with his hands. It is also alleged in the course of the same transaction, suddenly, the 2nd accused using her hands, squeezed the testicles of the deceased. The deceased fell down unable to bear the pain. The occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.1 and 2. After the deceased had fallen down, all the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. P.Ws.1 and 2 went near the deceased and found that there was still life. But shortly, thereafter, he breathed his last. Then, P.W.1 proceeded to the police station and made a complaint at Keeramangalam Police Station. 2.2. P.W.8 – the then Sub Inspector of Police, Keeramangalam Police Station, received the said complaint at 10 a.m. and registered a case in Crime No.106 of 2008 under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P1 is the complaint and Ex.P6 is the FIR. She forwarded both the documents to Court and handed over the investigation to the Inspector of Police. 2.3. P.W.9 took up the case for investigation. He proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of P.W.4 and another witness. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased, during which, he examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and two more witnesses. He forwarded the body for postmortem. 2.4. P.W.5 – Dr.Sureshkumar had conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased at 4.00 p.m., on 28.04.2008. He found the following injuries: Abrasion over (Rt) side of neck 3 cm x 0.25 cm. No froth/dutarge in mouth/nostril. Dentition 5/5-3/3. Scrotum No achynosis / bruise. Abdomen uniform. No free fluid. Heart congested. c/s. Ooze dark blood. Lungs congested. Hyoid bone sent for MPE. Stomach pale and empty. Liver congested 1.4 kg. Spleen congested wt 150 gm. Kidney congested wt 150 gm. Small intestine and large intestine collapsed empty. Bladder empty. Skull no external injuries. Membrance intact. Brain matter intact. Scrotum No achynosis / bruise. Abdomen uniform. No free fluid. Heart congested. c/s. Ooze dark blood. Lungs congested. Hyoid bone sent for MPE. Stomach pale and empty. Liver congested 1.4 kg. Spleen congested wt 150 gm. Kidney congested wt 150 gm. Small intestine and large intestine collapsed empty. Bladder empty. Skull no external injuries. Membrance intact. Brain matter intact. Ex.P5 is the postmortem certificate. He was not able to find out the actual cause of death. But from the history of the occurrence narrated to him, he gave the following opinion: “Patient might have died probably as per the history due to pain shock because of squeezing the testis.” 2.5. Continuing the investigation, P.W.9 arrested the accused 1 and 2 at 4.30 p.m. on 28.04.2008 and sent them for judicial remand. P.W.10 continued the investigation and filed the final report. The final report was filed against three accused and one Mr. Ashokkumar, yet another son of the accused 1 and 2. Since, Mr. Ashokkumar was found to be a juvenile, his case has been referred to the Juvenile Justice Board. Thus, these three accused alone faced the trial. 2.6. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the charges against the accused 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 10 witnesses were examined and 9 documents were exhibited. 2.7. Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. 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 observation mahazar and the rough sketch. P.W.5 – Dr.Sureshkumar, who has spoken about the postmortem conducted by him and his final opinion. P.W.6 is the Constable, who carried the FIR from the police Station to the Court and P.W.7 has spoken about the fact that he carried the dead body from the place of occurrence to the hospital for postmortem. P.W.8 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who has registered the case. She has spoken about the same. P.Ws.9 and 10 are the Investigating Officer, who have spoken about the investigation done by them. 2.8. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the same as false. P.W.8 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who has registered the case. She has spoken about the same. P.Ws.9 and 10 are the Investigating Officer, who have spoken about the investigation done by them. 2.8. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the same as false. However, they did not choose to examine any witnesses on their side nor marked any documents. Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted them as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment. That is how, they are before this Court with this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and we have also perused the records carefully. 4. In this case, P.Ws.1 and 2 claim to be the eye witnesses. According to their evidences, the accused 2 to 4 caught hold the deceased and the first accused fisted him repeatedly on the chest and other parts of the body. So far as the first appellant/2nd accused is concerned, both have stated that she squeezed the testis of the deceased. But correspondingly, there was no injury either internally or externally found on the testis. Therefore, it is difficult to believe the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 so far as the said allegation that the 2nd accused squeezed the testis of the deceased. Further, the Doctor, during cross examination, has stated that the actual cause of death could not be ascertained. The Doctor has given a general opinion that if testis is squeezed, a person may die due to the pain and shock. This evidence is so general in character. But, in this case, when there is no acceptable evidence that the testis was squeezed by the 2nd accused, the said opinion of the Doctor becomes irrelevant. In our considered view, in the absence of any internal or external injury to the testis, it is too difficult to believe that the 2nd accused squeezed the testis of the deceased. 5. Assuming that the death was due to the pain shock, the pain may be due to even the attack made by the first accused on the chest. It is common knowledge that if a sudden blow is made on the chest of a person, he may immediately develop vagal shock, which may result in his death. 5. Assuming that the death was due to the pain shock, the pain may be due to even the attack made by the first accused on the chest. It is common knowledge that if a sudden blow is made on the chest of a person, he may immediately develop vagal shock, which may result in his death. In this case, the possibility of death due to vagal shock has not been examined by the Doctor. Assuming that the 2nd accused had squeezed the testis, it cannot be held that the pain out of the same alone had caused the death as the pain shock due to the attack made on the chest cannot be ruled out. At any rate, it is crystal clear that the cause of death has not been proved beyond doubt. The Doctor has categorically stated that the cause of death could not be ascertained. Therefore, it cannot be said that the 2nd accused caused the death of the deceased. At the same time, it is clear that the 2nd accused had manhandled the deceased, for which, she can be punished only under Section 323 IPC. 6. So far as the third accused/2nd appellant is concerned, P.W.2 alone has stated that he caught hold the deceased. P.W.1 has not stated about his presence. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that the third accused caught hold the deceased. Above all, A1 has not been convicted by the trial Court invoking Section 34 IPC. Absolutely, there is no evidence that they had common intention to commit any crime. Therefore, the 2nd accused is liable for her individual overt act, which makes out an offence under Section 323 IPC. So far as the third accused is concerned, since there is no reliable evidence against him, he is entitled for acquittal. 7. Now, turning to the quantum of punishment. The 2nd accused was in jail for more than 90 days. In our considered view, that itself is a sufficient punishment. 8. In view of all the above, the appeal is partly allowed in the following terms: (i) the conviction and sentence imposed on the third accused is set aside and he is acquitted of all the charges. Fine amount, if any paid by him, shall be refunded to him. Bail bond shall stand terminated. 8. In view of all the above, the appeal is partly allowed in the following terms: (i) the conviction and sentence imposed on the third accused is set aside and he is acquitted of all the charges. Fine amount, if any paid by him, shall be refunded to him. Bail bond shall stand terminated. (ii) The conviction and sentence imposed on the 2nd accused under Section 302 IPC is set aside, instead, she is convicted under Section 323 IPC and we impose the period of sentence already undergone by her as sufficient punishment. The fine amount, if any paid by the 2nd accused/1st appellant shall be refunded to her.