JUDGMENT : A1 to A3 in S.C.No.229 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.II, are the appellants. 2. Ultimately, after the trial, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as detailed below. A1 to A3 are convicted under Section 451 IPC and sentenced to 1 year R.I. and fined Rs.1,000/- i/d to 2 months S.I. A1 to A3 were also convicted under Section 294(b) IPC and sentenced to 1 month R.I. A1 is convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to 2 years R.I. and fined Rs.1000/- i/d to 3 months S.I. A2 and A3 were convicted under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to 6 months R.I. and fined Rs.500/- in default to 1 month S.I. each. 3. Their multiple sentences were directed to run concurrently. They have paid their fine amounts. 4. A1 to A3 and PW1 are residents of Vedakottaivilai Village in Thoothukudi District. PW1's daughter and son are PWs 2 and 3. Both sides are closely related. On 25.10.2006, at about 7 a.m, A1 wielding an Aruval, A2 wielding a stick, accompanied by A3, have trespassed into the house of PW1. A1 assaulted PW1 on her head with the aruval. She sustained injury. A2 assaulted PW1 with a stick on her legs. A3 pushed PW1 down. PW1 lodged Ex.P1, complaint with PW10, Inspector, Kulasekarapattinam Police Station. He registered this case (Ex.P8 FIR). He visited the seen place. Prepared Ex.P2 Observation Mahazer in the presence of PWs 6 & 7. Draw Ex.P7 rough sketch of the scene place. PW1 was treated by PW8. He noticed lacerated injury on her head(Ex.P.3 Accident Register copy). The accused were arrested by PW10. A3 gave Ex.P4, his confessional statement. Under Ex.P.5, Seizure Mahazer, PW10 seized M.O.1 Aruval and M.O.2, stick in the presence of PW9, VAO and another person. Concluding his investigation, PW10 filed the final report before the committal Court for offences under Sections 451, 294(b) and 307 r/w 34 IPC. 5. The learned Magistrate taken cognizance. Issued copies under 207 Cr.P.C., to the accused. Committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Thoothukudi. The learned Principal Sessions Judge made over the case to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court.No.II, Thoothukudi. 6. The Trial Court after perusing the case records and after hearing both sides, framed charges under Sections 451, 294(b), 307 r/w 34 IPC against the accused. Committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Thoothukudi. The learned Principal Sessions Judge made over the case to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court.No.II, Thoothukudi. 6. The Trial Court after perusing the case records and after hearing both sides, framed charges under Sections 451, 294(b), 307 r/w 34 IPC against the accused. They have pleaded not guilty to the charges. 7. To substantiate the charges, prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10, marked Ex.P1 to P8 and exhibited M.O.1 and 2. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they have denied their complicity in this case. A1 examined himself as DW1 and stated that they were implicated in this case. 8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, considering both side arguments and the evidence adduced, convicted and sentenced them as already stated. 9. According to the learned counsel for the appellants the appellants were implicated in this case by PW1. PW10 has admitted that he did not note any blood stains in M.O.1. PW1 is highly motivated. She is inimical towards the accused. PWs 2 & 3 are her children. They have been tutored to speak like parrots. Thus, PWs 1 to 3 does not inspire confidence in them. They cannot be believed. 10. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that there is clear cut evidence of PWs 1 to 3, who are eyewitness and the medical evidence of PW8 as to the injury found in the presence of PW1. The injury has been caused by A1. Further, A2 and A3 have also participated in the occurrence. Failure of PW10, to note down the presence of blood stains in M.O.1 is not fatal to the prosecution case. PWs.2 and 3 will not spare the assailants of their mother/PW1. 11. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the Trial Court's judgment and the entire materials on record. 12. Now, the question is whether prosecution has established the change under Sections 451, 294(b) and 324 IPC as against A1 and change under Sections 451, 294(b) and 323 IPC as against A2 and A3 beyond all reasonable doubts. 13. As per the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, the occurrence took place on 25.10.2006 at about 7 a.m. in the house of PW1. In her complaint Ex.P1, PW1 has stated that she has been assaulted on her head with an aruval by A1. 13. As per the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, the occurrence took place on 25.10.2006 at about 7 a.m. in the house of PW1. In her complaint Ex.P1, PW1 has stated that she has been assaulted on her head with an aruval by A1. A corresponding injury was noted by PW8, the doctor. The weapon of offence has been seized, based on the confession statement of the accused. In the facts and circumstances, the failure of Investigation Officer to note down the presence of blood stain in the Seizure Mahazer, will not be a material aspect shaking the veracity of evidence of PW1. She had also spoken about A2 having assaulted her on her leg with a stick (M.O.2). She had also stated about A3 having pushed her down. She has been corroborated by PWs 2 and 3. In this case, a close scrutiny of the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 corroborated by the medical evidence of PW8, would show that on the occurrence day A1 to A3 barged into the house of PW1 and assaulted her. 14. Now, we have to see what offences are made out. 15. The occurrence took place on 25.10.2006 at about 7 a.m. inside the house of PW1. It is not a public place, it is not even near a public place. So an offence under Section 294(b) IPC is not attracted. Thus, their conviction under Section 294(b) IPC is not correct. 16. A1 to A3 have entered the house with an intention to commit an offence. Thus, it will be a criminal tress pass. A1 voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 with a dangerous weapon M.O.1, Aruval. A2 has beaten on her legs with M.O.2, stick. A3 has pushed her down. Thus, as against A1 offence under Sections 451 and 324 IPC and as against A2 and A3 under Sections 451 and 323 IPC are made out. 17. Now let us see the punishment aspect. 18. A1 is the root cause for this occurrence. He led A2 and A3. Both sides are closely related. Quarrel arose because of a wall dispute between them. Already A1 has undergone sentence for 25 days. In the circumstances, their sentence of fine is enough. 19. In view of the foregoings, this criminal appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of A1 to A3 for offence under Section 294(b) IPC is set aside. Both sides are closely related. Quarrel arose because of a wall dispute between them. Already A1 has undergone sentence for 25 days. In the circumstances, their sentence of fine is enough. 19. In view of the foregoings, this criminal appeal is allowed in part. The conviction of A1 to A3 for offence under Section 294(b) IPC is set aside. A1 to A3 are acquitted from the charge under Section 294(b) IPC. The conviction of A1 under Sections 451 and 324 IPC are upheld. The conviction of A2 and A3 under Section 451 and 323 IPC are upheld. The sentence of fine imposed upon them is upheld. However, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to them is set aside.