JUDGMENT : The appellant -Mrs. R. Jaya @ Jeyalakshmi is the sole accused in S.C.No.159 of 2006, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. Final report was filed by the respondent against the two accused, including the appellant herein. The second accused, as per the final report, was one Mr. S. Prakash. The Trial Court framed charges against the both the accused under Sections 294(b), 324 [two counts] and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After the evidence was fully recorded, the other accused -Mr. S. Prakash raised a plea that he was a juvenile in conflict with law as on the date of the occurrence. After holding necessary enquiry, the learned Sessions Judge found him a juvenile. Accordingly, the case against Mr. S. Prakash was split up and the same was forwarded to the Juvenile Justice Board, under the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. The Trial Court proceeded against the appellant/accused. 2. By Judgment dated 07.04.2010, the Trial Court has convicted the appellant/accused under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code [two counts] and acquitted her from the charges under Sections 302 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code [two counts], the Trial Court has sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for each count. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused has come up with Crl.A(MD).No.134 of 2010. 3. The de facto complainant -Mr. K. Rajagopal, aggrieved over the acquittal of the appellant -Mrs. R. Jaya @ Jayalakshmi from the charges under Sections 302 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code, has come up with Crl.A(MD).No.213 of 2010. Since both the Criminal Appeals have arisen out of the same Judgment, they were heard together and they are disposed of by means of this Common Judgment. 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The deceased, in this case, was one Mr. Kandasamy. PW-4 -Mrs. Sawaswathy and the appellant/accused -Mrs. R. Jaya @ Jayalakshmi are neighbours. They were all residing at Kalainagar, Kottar. There was a public tap in front of their house. 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The deceased, in this case, was one Mr. Kandasamy. PW-4 -Mrs. Sawaswathy and the appellant/accused -Mrs. R. Jaya @ Jayalakshmi are neighbours. They were all residing at Kalainagar, Kottar. There was a public tap in front of their house. On 01.02.2006, at 08.00 AM, while taking drinking water from the said public tap, there arose quarrel between the appellant/accused and PW-4. The deceased was also a resident of the said locality. On noticing PW-4 and the appellant/accused quarreling each other, he intervened and tried to separate them. The appellant/accused got infuriated by the said act of the deceased. She scolded him in abusive language and attacked him with a stick on his left wrist. PW-2, the wife of the deceased, ran towards the place of occurrence from her house. The accused attacked her on her head and caused a simple hurt. PW-1 the appellant in Crl.A.(MD).No.213 of 2010, came there and tried to save his mother. The appellant/accused bit her on his hand and caused a simple hurt. Thus, for having caused a simple hurt on PW-1 and PW-2, the appellant/accused stood charged for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Code [two counts]. At that time, the son of the appellant/accused, viz., the juvenile accused -Mr. S. Prakash attacked the deceased with iron rod on his head. They all raised alarm. The neighbours gathered. On hearing the alarm, both the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. Then, the villagers took the deceased, PW-1 and PW-2 to the hospital run by PW-8. 4.1. PW-8 -Dr. C. Manohar examined him at his private hospital on 01.02.2006, at 11.00 AM. The deceased was brought by PW-1. Since it was a medico logo case, he immediately advised PW-1 to take him to the Government Hospital at Aasaripallam. 4.2. PW-7 -Dr. P. Kaleeswaramoorthy examined PW-1 at 11.55 AM, on 01.02.2006. He found a bite mark in the left wrist of PW-1. EXP4 is the Accident Register. 4.3. On the same day, at 12.00 noon, he found the following injury on PW-2:- "Swelling and tenderness on Right frontal region 1 cm X 1 cm" EX-P5 is the Accident Register. Then, PW-7 gave intimation to the police. 4.4. He found a bite mark in the left wrist of PW-1. EXP4 is the Accident Register. 4.3. On the same day, at 12.00 noon, he found the following injury on PW-2:- "Swelling and tenderness on Right frontal region 1 cm X 1 cm" EX-P5 is the Accident Register. Then, PW-7 gave intimation to the police. 4.4. PW-13, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to the Kottar Police Station, on getting intimation from the hospital, went to the Government Medical College Hospital at Aasaripallam, at 03.30 PM. At that time, he came to know that the deceased had already died. Therefore, he recorded the statement of PW-1 at 03.30 PM, returned to the Police Station, at 05.00 PM and registered a case in Crime No.185 of 2006, under Sections 323 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Then, he forwarded the complaint and the First Information Report [EX-P1] to the Court and handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. 4.5. Taking up the case for investigation, PW-15 proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared an Observation Mahazer and a Rough Sketch, at 06.00 AM, on 02.02.2006, showing the place of occurrence. Then, he recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence. He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased. EX-P17 is the inquest report. Then, he forwarded the dead body for postmortem. 4.6. PW-10 -Dr. C. Velmurugan conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, at 10.10 AM, on 02.02.2006. He noticed the following injuries:- "1. 4 cm long transverse sutured wound seen over the back of right parietal region. 2. 8 X 3 cm contused abrasion seen over the mid occipital region. 3. 3 X 4 cm abrasion over the outer aspect of left wrist". EX-P11 is the postmortem certificate. He gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of head injury. 4.7. On 02.02.2006, at 08.30 AM, PW-15 arrested the appellant/accused at Anna Bus Stand in the presence of PW-9 and another witness. On such arrest, she gave a voluntary confession in which she disclosed the place, where she had hidden a stick. In pursuance of the same, she produced the stick from the hide out and the same was recovered under a mahazer. On such arrest, she gave a voluntary confession in which she disclosed the place, where she had hidden a stick. In pursuance of the same, she produced the stick from the hide out and the same was recovered under a mahazer. On returning to the Police Station, PW-15 forwarded the accused to the Court for the judicial remand and handed over the material objects to the Court with a request to forward the same for chemical examination. The report revealed that there was human blood on all the material objects, such as, shirt, towel, dhoti and underwear worn by the deceased. On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused, on 20.04.2006. 4.8. As we have already pointed out, after the examination of the witnesses was over, the juvenile accused raised the plea of juvenility and the same was found to be correct and therefore, his case was split up separately and now he is being dealt with by the Juvenile Justice Board. 4.9. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed appropriate charges, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment. When the accused was questioned in respect of the charges, she pleaded innocence. In order to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, 15 witnesses were examined, 22 documents and six material objects were marked. Out of the said 15 witnesses, PW-1 and PW-2 are the injured witnesses, who have spoken vividly about the entire occurrence. PW-3 is the wife of PW-1. She has also stated about the entire occurrence. PW-4 is the sister's daughter of PW-2. She has also stated about the entire occurrence. PW-5 is the Auto Driver, in whose auto, the deceased, PW-1 and PW-2 were taken to the hospital for treatment. PW-6 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazer and the rough sketch and the recovery of the material objects from the place of occurrence. 4.10. PW-7, an Assistant Surgeon at the Government Hospital at Aasaripallam, Nagercoil, has spoken about the injuries found on PW-1, PW-2 and the deceased and the treatment given by him. He has also stated that he declared the deceased dead and gave intimation to the police. PW-8 -Dr. C. Manohar has stated that at 11.00 AM, on 01.02.2006, the deceased was brought to his private hospital, but he did not treat him, as it was a medico logo case. He has also stated that he declared the deceased dead and gave intimation to the police. PW-8 -Dr. C. Manohar has stated that at 11.00 AM, on 01.02.2006, the deceased was brought to his private hospital, but he did not treat him, as it was a medico logo case. PW-9 is the car driver, who has stated that he took the deceased, PW-1 and PW-2 to the hospital. PW-10 has spoken about the autopsy conducted by him and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. PW-11, a Head Constable, attached to the Kottar Police Station, has stated that he handed over the First Information Report and the complaint to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate. PW-12 is yet another Head Constable, who has stated that he carried the dead body to the hospital for postmortem. PW-13 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kottar Police Station. He has stated that he received the complaint from PW-1 and registered the case. PW-14 is the Forensic Expert, who has stated that he examined the dress materials of the deceased and found human blood on the same. PW-15 has spoken about the investigation conducted by him and the filing of the final report. 4.11. When the Trial Court examined the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the incriminating evidences available against her, she denied the same as false. However, she did not choose to examine any witness nor to exhibit any document. Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court convicted the appellant/accused, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment and punished her accordingly. That is how, the appellant is now before this Court with Crl. A (MD) No.134 of 2010. As we have already stated, aggrieved over the acquittal of the appellant/accused from the charges under Sections 302 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code, the de facto complainant has come up with Crl. A (MD) No.213 of 2010. 5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and also perused the records carefully. 6. PW-1 to PW-4 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Of course, they are closely related to each other. On that score, their evidences cannot be rejected. Their evidences only require close scrutiny. 6. PW-1 to PW-4 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Of course, they are closely related to each other. On that score, their evidences cannot be rejected. Their evidences only require close scrutiny. If they pass the test of close scrutiny, there can be no impediment either legal or factual to act upon their evidences. 7. PW-1 and PW-2 are injured witnesses and therefore, their presence cannot be doubted at all. Their evidences are duly corroborated by the evidences of PW-3 and PW-4. They have categorically stated that when the quarrel was going on between PW-4 and the appellant/accused, the deceased intervened, out of good intention to separate them. At that time, it is stated that the accused attacked PW-1 with a stick and also attacked PW-2 with a stick on her head. So far as PW-1 and PW-2 are concerned, they had sustained simple injuries. The evidences of PW-3 and PW-4 are corroborated by the evidences of PW-1 and PW-2. The medical evidence also duly corroborates the same. Thus, in our considered view, the Trial Court was right in holding that the accused had caused a simple hurt on PW-1 and PW-2. 8. Now, the question is whether the said act of the appellant/accused would make out an offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Admittedly, the weapon used, in this case, is a stick. Going by the size of the stick, it cannot be concluded that it is a dangerous weapon. The injuries sustained by PW-1 and PW-2 are also simple in nature. Therefore, the accused is liable to be punished under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant in Crl. A. (MD) No.213 of 2010 [PW-1] is aggrieved by the acquittal of the appellant/accused from the charges under Section 302 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code. Before going into any further debate into the rival contentions, let us remind ourselves that the presumption of innocence has been recognized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Noor Aga Vs. State of Punjab, reported in 2008 (16) SCC 417, as the human rights. Such presumption of innocence, as per the settled law, is doubled, if once the Trial Court, on appreciating the evidence, acquits the accused. Therefore, in order to rebut the said presumption and to reverse the Judgment of the Trial Court, the prosecution should make out a very strong case. Such presumption of innocence, as per the settled law, is doubled, if once the Trial Court, on appreciating the evidence, acquits the accused. Therefore, in order to rebut the said presumption and to reverse the Judgment of the Trial Court, the prosecution should make out a very strong case. With this background, let us now go into the facts of the case. 9. The learned counsel for the de facto complainant would submit that the juvenile accused attacked the deceased with iron rod on his head, which was found to be fatal. But, according to the learned counsel, it is in evidence that he so attacked the deceased only on the instigation made by the appellant/accused. But, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would submit that at the earliest point of time, either in the First Information Report or during his examination by the police, PW-1 did not say that the juvenile accused was induced by the appellant/accused to attack the deceased. We find force in the said argument. A perusal of the records would go to show that PW-1 had not stated that the juvenile accused was induced by the appellant/accused to attack the deceased. For the first time, only during trial, PW-1 had improved his case to show that the juvenile accused attacked the deceased only on the instigation made by the appellant/accused. Of course, PW-2 to PW-4 have stated that the appellant/accused induced the juvenile accused to attack the deceased. The Trial Court has disbelieved this version of PW-2 to PW-4. 10. We find that the Trial Court was right in rejecting the evidences of PW-2 to PW-4 in this respect. The narration of the events would go to show that the occurrence was not a premeditated one. The quarrel between PW-4 and the appellant/accused was also not a premeditated one. Spontaneously, when they attempted to take water from the public tap, the quarrel arose. Thus, the initial quarrel was not a premeditated one. When the quarrel was going on, the deceased was nowhere in the place of occurrence. The deceased incidentally came to the place of occurrence and he intervened. It was only at that time, the appellant/accused attacked the deceased on his hand, but correspondingly, there was no injury found and thus, the Trial Court had disbelieved the evidences of PW-1 and PW-2. It was only thereafter, the juvenile accused attacked the deceased. The deceased incidentally came to the place of occurrence and he intervened. It was only at that time, the appellant/accused attacked the deceased on his hand, but correspondingly, there was no injury found and thus, the Trial Court had disbelieved the evidences of PW-1 and PW-2. It was only thereafter, the juvenile accused attacked the deceased. It is not as though they had any pre-meeting of mind so as to come to the conclusion that there was common intention on the part of the appellant/accused or the juvenile accused to do away with the deceased. The Trial Court has given cogent reasons for holding that there was no common intention between the appellant/accused and the juvenile accused. In the said conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court we do not find any infirmity. Further, the death of the deceased was not caused by the appellant/accused. Thus, the Trial Court was right in acquitting the appellant/accused from the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly, for the offence under Section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code, there is no acceptable evidence. Thus, in our considered view, the presumption of innocence, which stands doubled by the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court, has not been rebutted by the de facto complainant in this appeal against acquittal. Therefore, we do not find any merit at all in Crl. A. (MD) No.213 of 2010. 11. Now, turning to the punishment to be imposed on the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant/accused was in jail for more than 35 days. She is an old woman. The occurrence was not a premeditated one. The weapon used was an ordinary stick. The appellant/accused has got no bad antecedents. Having regard to all the above, we are of the considered view that reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period of sentence already undergone would meet the ends of justice. 12. In the result, ? Crl. A. (MD) No.213 of 2010 is dismissed. ? Crl. A. (MD) No.134 of 2010 is partly allowed in the following terms:- ? Having regard to all the above, we are of the considered view that reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period of sentence already undergone would meet the ends of justice. 12. In the result, ? Crl. A. (MD) No.213 of 2010 is dismissed. ? Crl. A. (MD) No.134 of 2010 is partly allowed in the following terms:- ? The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code [two counts] is set aside and instead, she is convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code [two counts] and the period of sentence is reduced to the period of sentence already undergone by her. The fine amount of Rs.1,000/- for each count and the default sentence imposed by the Trial Court are confirmed.