JUDGMENT : P.N. PRAKASH, J. 1. The Appellants herein/accused were tried in S.C. No. 45 of 2010 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC No. I), Coimbatore and were convicted and sentenced as follows:- Accused Conviction u/s. Sentence A-1 302 IPC Life Imprisonment and Fine of Rs. 1,000/- i/d Six months R.I. A-2 to A-4 302 r/w 109 IPC Life Imprisonment and Fine of Rs. 1,000/- i/d Six months R.I. A-3 506(ii) IPC One year R.I. 2. The case of the Prosecution in short is as follows:- (a) The Public Toilet in the Village in which the accused and the victims hail was being maintained by Mother Theresa Self-Help Group, in which Kavitha (PW-6) was an active Member. On 3.8.2009 around 3.00 p.m., Madhaiyan (A-1) used the toilet and found it to be ill-maintained. He abused Kavitha (PW-6) and the other women-folk -Sonia (PW-1), Mallika and Sumathy, who were there in choicest epithets. When the women questioned him, he started further abusing them and called Kavitha (PW-6) a whore in vernacular, which escalated the altercation. Nothing happened immediately thereafter. (b) Around 8.00 p.m. on 3.8.2009 when Sonia (PW-1), her father Vijayan (PW-2), her uncle Vaiyapuri (PW-3), sister Kirthika (PW-4) were there in a group in front of their house, Madhaiyan (A-1), whose house is one house next to that of Sonia (PW-1), came to her house and exhorted Vaiyapuri (PW-3) to control the tongue of Sonia, lest they should face the consequences. (c) According to the Prosecution, a wordy duel ensued, in which Madhaiyan (A-1) pushed Vaiyapuri (PW-3) on the ground, seeing which the deceased Kanagaraj, brother of Sonia (PW-1) and Son of Vijayan (PW2) intervened and questioned Madhaiyan (A-1). At that juncture, Jagadeesh (A-2), brother of Madhaiyan (A-1), Saminathan (A-3), son of Jagadeesh and their relative Saravanan (A-4) also joined the fray and when tempers ran high, it is alleged that A-1 to A-4 pulled Kanagaraj towards the house of Madhaiyan (A-1) and Madhaiyan rushed into his house and returned with a knife, seeing which A-2 to A-4 instigated A-1 to kill Kanagaraj, pursuant to which Madhaiyan (A-1) stabbed Kanagaraj on his chest, and thereafter all the four accused ran away. (d) At 8.30 p.m. on 3.8.2009, deceased Kanagaraj was taken to the Government Hospital, Mettupalayam in the Auto-rickshaw of Nizamudeen (PW-7), where Dr. (d) At 8.30 p.m. on 3.8.2009, deceased Kanagaraj was taken to the Government Hospital, Mettupalayam in the Auto-rickshaw of Nizamudeen (PW-7), where Dr. Seralathan (PW-12) examined him and made necessary entries in the Accident Register, copy of which is marked as Ex.P-4. Kanagaraj was alive at the time of admission in the Hospital and within a few minutes he succumbed to the injury and was declared dead, and the body was sent to the mortuary. (e) On the complaint (Ex.P-1) lodged by Sonia (PW-1), Manoharan (PW-16), Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Mettupalayam Police Station Crime No. 1051 of 2009 at 9.30 p.m. on 3.8.2009 under Sections 302 and 506(ii) IPC against all the four accused. The printed FIR (Ex.P-9) and the complaint (Ex.P-1) were received by the jurisdictional Magistrate at 11.00 p.m. on the same day. It appears that around that time the house of the Madhaiyan (A-1) was attacked by the deceased party. (f) Mani (PW-20), Inspector of Police took up investigation of the case and went to the scene of occurrence. With the help of Prakash (PW-11), Photographer, the Investigating Officer (PW-20) took photographs of the scene of occurrence and the photos and C.Ds were marked as MO-4 and MO-5. Investigating Officer (PW-20) prepared the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P-27) in the presence of Rengaraj (PW-8) and Suresh (not examined). From the place of occurrence, the Investigating Officer (PW-20) seized Soil with and without blood stains (MO-2 and MO-3 respectively) under the cover of Mahazar (Ex.P-3). He went to the Government Hospital, Mettupalayam and conducted inquest over the body of Kanagaraj and the Inquest report was marked as Ex.P-28. (g) On request, Dr.Narayanasamy (PW-14) conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased Kanagaraj and in his evidence and Post Mortem report (Ex.P-7), PW-14 has noted one stab injury in the lower chest measuring 5x2x7 cm. As to the cause of death he opined that the deceased would have died of shock and heamorrhage due to injury to vital organ, namely the heart, 12-24 hours before autopsy. (h) After postmortem, the body was handed over to Manikandan (PW-15), Head Constable, who also collected the blood stained clothes worn by the deceased viz., blood stained Shirt and Lungi (MO-6 and MO7 respectively). Thereafter the body was handed over to relatives. (h) After postmortem, the body was handed over to Manikandan (PW-15), Head Constable, who also collected the blood stained clothes worn by the deceased viz., blood stained Shirt and Lungi (MO-6 and MO7 respectively). Thereafter the body was handed over to relatives. (i) On 6.8.2009 around 7.00 a.m., the Investigating Officer (PW20) arrested Madhaiyan (A-1), Jagdeesh (A-2), Saminathan (A-3) and Saravanan (A-4) and recorded the confession statements of A-1, A-2 and A-4 in the presence of Manivannan (PW-17) and Basha @ Sikandar Basha (PW-19). Based on the disclosure made by Madhaiyan (A-1), the Investigating Officer (PW-20) recovered the knife (MO-1) and the clothes said to have been worn by A-1 at the time of occurrence viz., Blood stained half-hand Shirt (MO-9) and blood stained Lungi (MO-10) and also a nylon bag (MO-8), in which the said items were kept, under the cover of Mahazar (Ex.P-24) in the presence of Manivannan (PW-17) and Basha @ Sikandar Basha (PW-19). On the information provided by Jagadeesh (A-2), PW-20 recovered the clothes worn by him viz., blood stained blue colour Lungi (MO-11) and blood stained full-hand Shirt (MO-12) in the presence of the same witnesses under the cover of Mahazar (Ex.P-25). On showing of A-4, PW-20 recovered the cloths said to have been worn by him viz., blood stained full-hand shirt (MO-13) and green colour Lungi (MO-14) in the presence of the same witnesses under the cover of Mahazar (Ex.P-26). (j) The clothes worn by the deceased, knife, clothes worn by the accused and the soil samples were despatched to the Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Department through Court for examination and report. (k) Saminathan (A-3) had an injury on his head and therefore he was referred under Police Escort to the Government Hospital, Mettupalayam, where Dr.Vishnupriya (PW-13) examined him and noted a cut injury measuring 2 x 1 cm on the parietal region of the scalp. In her evidence and Accident Report (Ex.P-5), PW-13 has stated that:- "Alleged to have been hit in his home by the door on 3.8.2009 at about 9.00 p.m." (l) All the arrested accused were produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate for remand. (m) Munirajan (PW-18), Scientific Officer examined the articles that were sent by the Investigating Officer (PW-20) and submitted his report (Ex.P-17) dated 19.9.2009. The serology reports were also marked as Ex.P-18 and P-19. (m) Munirajan (PW-18), Scientific Officer examined the articles that were sent by the Investigating Officer (PW-20) and submitted his report (Ex.P-17) dated 19.9.2009. The serology reports were also marked as Ex.P-18 and P-19. The said reports disclose the presence of human blood in the knife (MO-1) and the clothes that were worn by the accused and in the clothes worn by the deceased. But the grouping test was inconclusive, except insofar as the shirt (MO-7) and Lungi (MO-8), that were allegedly worn by Saravanan (A-4), which shows the presence of human blood 'O' group. (n) The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of Velmurugan (PW-9), Municipality Electrician and Renganathan (PW-10), staff of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to show that the street lights were burning and there was no power cut at the time of the incident. (o) The Investigating Officer (PW-20) examined the experts and other witnesses and after completing the investigation, filed the Final Report against all the four accused for offences under Section 302, 302 r/w 109 and 506(ii) IPC, before the jurisdictional Magistrate. 3. On appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr. P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where the following charges were framed:- Charge No. 1 U/s 302 IPC against A-1 U/s 302 r/w 109 IPC against A-2 to A-4 Charge No. 2 U/s 506(ii) IPC against A-3 4. When questioned about the charges, the accused pleaded "Not Guilty". To prove the charges, Prosecution examined 20 witnesses; marked 28 exhibits; and produced 14 material objects. 5. When the accused were questioned about the incriminating circumstances against them, they took a specific stand that A-2 and A-4 were not in the scene of occurrence, and A-1 and A-3 were assaulted by the family members of the deceased in the fight that ensued in and around the said date and time and at that time, Vinod (PW-5) attempted to stab Madhaiyan (A-1), but unfortunately Kanagaraj (deceased) intervened and bore the brunt of the attack. On the side of the accused, two witnesses were examined; 9 exhibits were marked; and two material objects were produced. 6. After hearing both sides and analyzing the materials on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid, challenging which the accused have preferred this appeal. 7. We have heard Mr. On the side of the accused, two witnesses were examined; 9 exhibits were marked; and two material objects were produced. 6. After hearing both sides and analyzing the materials on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid, challenging which the accused have preferred this appeal. 7. We have heard Mr. N. Manoharan, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants/ accused and Mr. V.M.R. Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 8. From the evidence on record it is limpid that the members of two families in the same street were pitted against each other and each have given their own version of the incident. The interse relationship of PW-1 to PW-5 and A-1 to A-4 has already been set out above. The evidence of PWs.1 to 5 appears to be cogent and almost parrot-like, which does raise little suspicion in our mind, which we will discuss later. 9. Sonia (PW-1) has spoken to about the incident that took place near the toilet in the afternoon of the fateful day, in which Madhaiyan (A-1) foul-mouthed Kavitha (PW-6) and the other women in cuss words. Kavitha (PW-6), who was called an harlot in vernacular by Madhaiyan (A-1), corroborated the evidence of Sonia (PW-1) in respect of the afternoon incident. It is but natural that the women-folk did not take it lying low, and they retaliated in the same vein. This incident must have been simmering in the mind of both parties, leading to its external manifestation in the evening. 10. Coming to the incident that allegedly took place at 8.15 p.m., Sonia (PW-1) stated that while they were all standing near the house and talking, Madhaiyan (A-1) came to the place and warned Vaiyapuri (PW-3) and asked him to rein-in Sonia (PW-1). This evidence of Sonia was corroborated by her father Vijayan (PW-2), her uncle Vaiyapuri (PW-3), her sister Kirthika (PW-4) and her brother Vinod (PW-5). In the cross-examination of Vijayan (PW-2) and Vaiyapuri (PW-3), they candidly admitted that a scuffle ensued between both sides. 11. It is also the evidence of PW-1 to 4 that A-2 to A-4 joined the fray. It is their further evidence that Kanagaraj, the deceased intervened as a Pacifist, but was pulled by A-1 to A-4 towards the house of A-1, which fact is seriously disputed by the accused. 11. It is also the evidence of PW-1 to 4 that A-2 to A-4 joined the fray. It is their further evidence that Kanagaraj, the deceased intervened as a Pacifist, but was pulled by A-1 to A-4 towards the house of A-1, which fact is seriously disputed by the accused. According to the accused, the deceased and his cohorts forcibly pulled Madhaiyan out of his house and attacked him. At that time when Vinod (PW-5) attempted to stab Madhaiyan (A-1), Kanagaraj intervened and suffered the stab injury. This is the line of cross-examination adopted by the accused to all the ocular witnesses, as well in the written submissions given under section 313 of Cr. P.C. The defence also examined Shanmugam (DW-2) to support this version. 12. Mr. N. Manoharan, learned Counsel appearing for the accused submitted that Shanmugam (DW-2) also lives in the same area and his presence has been spoken to by Nizamudeen (PW-7), Auto Driver, who has deposed that Kanagaraj was taken to the hospital in his auto-rickshaw, accompanied by Prakash (PW-11) and Shanmugam (DW-2). But Dr. Seralathan (PW-12) in his evidence before the Court and in the noting in the Accident Register (Ex.P-4) has stated that Kanagaraj was brought by a mob. There is no reference to Shanmugam (DW-2) anywhere. 13. Shanmugam (DW-2) has stated that he was an eye witness to the incident and around 8 p.m. PWs-1 to 5 were abusing Madhaiyan (A-1). After saying so, in the next breath Shanmugam (DW-2) has stated that Vinod (PW-5), Prathap and Vaiyapuri (PW-3) went inside Madhaiyan's house and physically pulled him out and attacked. Thus, even in the chief examination there appears to be an inherent contradiction in the evidence of Shanmugam (DW-2). He further stated that when Vinod (PW-5) went to stab Madhaiyan (A-1), Kanagaraj (deceased) tried to prevent and suffered injury. 14. We are aware of the legal proposition that the evidence of a defence witness requires equal treatment as that of the Prosecution witness during appraisal by the Court (State of U.P. vs. Babu Ram, 2000 AIR SCW 1798). What defies credulity in the defence version is the manner in which Kanagaraj was allegedly stabbed by his own brother Vinod (PW-5), if seen in the light of the injury suffered by him. 15. What defies credulity in the defence version is the manner in which Kanagaraj was allegedly stabbed by his own brother Vinod (PW-5), if seen in the light of the injury suffered by him. 15. In this case, the deceased suffered one piercing stab injury measuring 5x2x7 cms on his chest and the weapon has caused an injury measuring 2x1x2 cm in the heart. It is too large a pill for us to swallow that an intervenor in a scuffle, will receive such a massive injury, and therefore we are not able to accept the defence version predicated via cross examination suggestions, written submission under Section 313 Cr. P.C. and evidence of Shanmugam (DW-2). 16. Now we have to analyze the evidence of the alleged ocular witnesses viz., PW-1 to PW-5 bearing in mind that falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus will not apply to our jurisprudence. According to these witnesses, the quarrel started near their house and after Vaiyapuri (PW3) was pushed down, Kanagaraj intervened and he was pulled by A-1 to A-4 upto the house of Madhaiyan (A-1). Until then, admittedly none of the accused were armed. It is the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 that Madhaiyan (A-1) suddenly rushed into his house, returned with a knife and attacked Kanagaraj, at which time A-2 to A-4 incited A-1 to stab him. 17. Mr. N. Manoharan, learned Counsel brought a very clinching piece of material to our notice to shake the veracity of the witnesses that the incident had taken place near the house of Madhaiyan (A-1). He pointed out to us that Dr. Seralathan (PW-12) who examined Kanagaraj and made entries in the Accident Register (Ex.P-4 -original Accident Register), has noted:- "Alleged to have stabbed by a known person with knife at Kanagaraj's residence at 8.15 p.m." Submitted that the occurrence took place near Kanagaraj's residence and not near the residence of A-1. Of course, a mere entry by the Doctor in the Accident Register by itself cannot have the effect of dislodging the evidence of eye witnesses. 18. It is seen that the defence has summoned Dr. Seralathan (PW-12) once again as defence witness and examined him as DW-1, which procedure, we are afraid, may not be correct, for, they could have summoned him by invoking Section 311 Cr. P.C. for further cross examination. 18. It is seen that the defence has summoned Dr. Seralathan (PW-12) once again as defence witness and examined him as DW-1, which procedure, we are afraid, may not be correct, for, they could have summoned him by invoking Section 311 Cr. P.C. for further cross examination. The defence had also summoned the accident register from the Hospital and through Dr.Seralathan (DW-1), marked the duplicate as Ex.D-2 and the triplicate as Ex.D-3. In the duplicate, the following endorsement is found, "alleged to have been stabbed by a known person with knife." The words, "at Kanagaraj's residence at 8.15 p.m." found in the original Accident Register (Ex.P-4) are missing in the duplicate copy of Accident Register (Ex.D-2). It is incumbent to prepare the accident register in triplicate by inserting carbon paper. Had that been done, all the three copies would have had the same wordings. 19. Bearing this in mind, we next proceed to analyze the injury sustained by Saminathan (A-3). According to the Prosecution, Saminathan (A-3) had suffered an injury on the head when he dashed against the door in his house on 3.8.2009 around 9.00 p.m. To prove this fact, the Prosecution examined Dr. Vishnupriya (PW-13) of the Government Hospital, Mettupalayam, before whom Saminathan (A-3) was produced by Rengasamy Head Constable (not examined) at 8.20 p.m. on 6.8.2009 after arrest. Dr. Vishnupriya (PW-13) has deposed that Saminathan (A-3) was brought by Head Constable Rengasamy and in his presence he told her that his head banged on to the door in his house around 9.00 p.m. on 3.8.2009. In the cross examination she admitted that the said injury could also be caused, had he been attacked with an iron pipe. It is the case of the defence that in the fracas that ensued, Saminathan (A-3) was assaulted by the other party with an iron pipe. To this extent, the defence has probablized their theory that there was a free fight on the fateful night between the two parties, in which Saminathan (A-3) was attacked by the opposite group. 20. Mr. N. Manoharan, learned Counsel submitted that the respondent Police had not explained the injury sustained by Saminathan (A-3) and they have suppressed the genesis of the incident, and therefore relying upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Singh vs. State of Bihar, (1976) 4 SCC 394 , the accused are entitled to be acquitted. 21. 20. Mr. N. Manoharan, learned Counsel submitted that the respondent Police had not explained the injury sustained by Saminathan (A-3) and they have suppressed the genesis of the incident, and therefore relying upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Singh vs. State of Bihar, (1976) 4 SCC 394 , the accused are entitled to be acquitted. 21. We are afraid that we cannot extend the principle laid down in Lakshmi Singh's case to the facts in this case, because the Police have not completely suppressed the fact of Saminathan (A-3) suffering injury. The Police have admittedly produced him before Dr.Vishnupriya (PW-13) for treatment, and the records have also been filed. We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the version of the Police that Saminathan sustained head injury when he banged his head on the door of his house. It transpires that immediately after the attack on the deceased Kanagaraj, the Complainant party had ransacked the house of Madhaiyan (A-1) in connection with which the Police have registered a case in Cr. No. 1052 of 2009 against Vinod (PW-5) and others. This has been spoken to by the Investigating Officer (PW-20) himself. 22. By conflating and piecing together the facts proved by the Prosecution and the defence, we have no hesitation in our mind to infer that, pursuant to the altercation that took place between Madhaiyan (A1) and the women-folk in the afternoon of 3.8.2009, a quarrel appears to have ensued between the complainant and accused parties in the evening and at that time the accused were not armed. When the whole thing went beyond control, Madhaiyan (A-1) appears to have rushed to his house, fetched a knife and stabbed the deceased Kanagaraj. To come to this inference, we believe the evidence of PWs.1 to 5, who have all stated that during the fight, Madhaiyan (A-1) went inside the house and brought a knife. Though we are not able to agree with the version of the alleged ocular witnesses that all the accused had pulled Kanagaraj from the house of A-1 and while A-2 to A-4 were holding the deceased, Madhaiyan (A-1) stabbed him, yet we accept their evidence to the extent that Madhaiyan (A-1) was initially not armed and during the fight he went inside his house and fetched the knife. Similarly, the version of the defence that when Vinod (PW-5) came to attack Madhaiyan (A-1), Kanagaraj intervened and received the stab injury is little difficult for us to digest. 23. Mr. N. Manoharan, learned Counsel submitted that even according to the prosecution the deceased died because of single stab injury and the case will not fall under Section 302 IPC. In support of this he relied on the judgment in Tholan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (1984) 2 SCC 133 . Though it is not a thumb rule that in every case of single stab injury Section 302 IPC will not stand attracted, yet in the facts obtaining in this case, we are persuaded to concur with the submission of the learned Counsel. 24. We are not satisfied with the evidence of the prosecution for mulcting criminal liability against A-2 to A-4. The act of Madhaiyan (A1) will fall under third part of Section 299 IPC. There appears to be no pre-meditation and it was committed in a heat of passion amidst the free fight, thereby falling within the 4th exception of Section 300 IPC. 25. In fine, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed against Jagadeesh (A-2), Saminathan (A-3) and Saravanan (A-4) are set aside and they are all set at liberty, unless not required in any other case. The conviction and sentence imposed on Madhaiyan (A-1) are set aside and A-1 is convicted under Section 304(ii) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The sentence of fine imposed on A-1 to A-4 are set aside and they are entitled to refund.