JUDGMENT : S. NAGAMUTHU, J. The appellants are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C. No. 4 of 2012 on the file of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Namakkal. Including these appellants, totally, there were five accused. The Trial Court had framed as many as 8 charges against the accused Nos.1 to 5, as detailed below :- Sl.No. Charge Number Rank of Accused Penal Provision 1 Charge No.1 Accused No. 1 Section 148 IPC 2 Charge No.2 Accused Nos. 2 to 5 Section 147 IPC 3 Charge No.3 Accused No. 1 Section 302 IPC 4 Charge No.4 Accused Nos. 2 to 5 Section 302 r/w. 149 IPC 5 Charge No.5 Accused No.1 Section 307 IPC (2 counts) 6 Charge No.6 Accused Nos. 2 to 5 Section 307 r/w. 149 IPC (2 counts) 7 Charge No.7 Accused No.1 Section 324 IPC 8 Charge No.8 Accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 Section 352 IPC (3 counts) The Trial Court, by judgment, dated 30.10.2012, acquitted the accused Nos.3 to 5 from all the charges levelled against them. The Trial Court convicted the accused Nos.1 and 2 under the following charges and accordingly, punished them as detailed below:- Sl. No. Charge No. Rank of Accused Convicted under the Penal Provision Sentenced to undergo the following imprisonment 1. Charge No.3 Accused No.1 Section 302 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. Charge No.4 Accused No.2 Section 302 r/w. 149 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 3. Charge No.5 Accused No.1 Section 307 IPC (2 counts) To undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment for each count and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 4. Charge No.6 Accused No.2 Section 307 r/w.149 IPC (2 counts) To undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for each count and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 5. Charge No.7 Accused No.1 Section 324 IPC To pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 30.07.2012, the appellants are before this Court with these Criminal Appeals. 2. 5. Charge No.7 Accused No.1 Section 324 IPC To pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 30.07.2012, the appellants are before this Court with these Criminal Appeals. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :- (i) The accused Nos.3 and 4 are the father and mother respectively of the accused Nos.1 and 2. The 5th accused is the wife of the 1st accused. The 2nd accused had married P.W.9-Selvi. The marriage between the 2nd accused and P.W.9 was celebrated in the year 2008. At the time of marriage, from the family of P.W.9, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was deposited in the name of P.W.9. The 2nd accused was demanding P.W.9 to encash the deposit and to give the money to him. This resulted in frequent quarrels between the 2nd accused and P.W.9. Later on, the 2nd accused demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- from P.W.9 and wanted her to go and get the same from her parents. In the mean while, P.W.9 gave birth to two children. Because of the above quarrels, leaving behind the children at the house of the 2nd accused, P.W.9 had gone to her parental home. (ii) On 24.11.2010, P.W.9-Selvi, her father P.W.6-Subramani, her mother P.W.1-Sarasu and her brothers, viz., P.W.8-Mahendran and Chinnathambi, had gone to the house of the 2nd accused, to sort out the matrimonial dispute between the 2nd accused and P.W.9. It is alleged that when they were nearing the house of the accused, all these five accused suddenly emerged there and quarreled with them, as to why they had come to their house. In the said quarrel, it is alleged that the 1st accused stabbed the deceased Chinnathambi, with soori-knife at his chest once. In the same transaction, the 1st accused stabbed P.W.6, the father of the deceased, on the left side of his hip. Then, the 1st accused stabbed P.W.8, who is the brother of the deceased, on his left shoulder with soori-knife. It is further alleged that the accused Nos.2 to 5, facilitated the 1st accused to cause injuries on the deceased and P.Ws. 6, 7 and 8. The 1st accused stabbed P.W.8 with soori-knife near her nose. Then, the 1st accused stabbed P.W.8, who is the brother of the deceased, on his left shoulder with soori-knife. It is further alleged that the accused Nos.2 to 5, facilitated the 1st accused to cause injuries on the deceased and P.Ws. 6, 7 and 8. The 1st accused stabbed P.W.8 with soori-knife near her nose. So far as the accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 are concerned, it is alleged that they attacked P.Ws.1 and 7 with hands and sticks. It is further alleged that they attacked P.W.9 with hands and legs. After attacking the prosecution party as detailed above, the accused Nos.1 to 5 ran away from the scene of occurrence. (iii) Immediately, P.W.1-Sarasu and her husband P.W.6-Subramani, took the deceased Chinnathambi in an auto to the Government Hospital at Tiruchengode. But, the Doctor declared him dead. Thereafter, P.W.1 proceeded to Tiruchengode Police Station and made a complaint to the police. (iv) P.W.16-Karunanidhi, the then Inspector of Police, on receipt of the complaint-Ex.P.1, registered a case in Crime No.1357 of 2010 under Sections 147, 302, 307, 324, 323 IPC, against all the five accused on 24.11.2010, at 10.00 a.m. Ex.P.16 is the First Information Report. He forwarded both the documents to Court, which were received by the learned Magistrate, at 12.00 noon, on 24.11.2010. (v) P.W.16 took up the case for investigation. On 24.11.2010, he proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.2-Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.17-Rough Sketch in the presence of P.W.10-Selvam and another witness at the place of occurrence. He then collected the bloodstained earth (vide M.O.6) and the sample earth (vide M.O.7) under a Mahazar-Ex.P.3, from the place of occurrence. Then, he went to the hospital and conducted inquest on the body of the deceased, prepared Ex.P.18-Inquest Report. Then, he forwarded the dead body for post-mortem. (vi) P.W.13-Dr.Thenmozhi of Government General Hospital, Erode, conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 24.11.2010 at 3.10 p.m. According to her, the approximate age of the deceased would have been 25 years. She found the following injuries on the body of the deceased :- "External Examination:- Incised wound 3/2 cm depth, 10 cm over left side of chest. Skull intact. Internal Examination:- Brain weight -1400 grams. Skull bones intact. Right lung weight -450 grams, intact. Left lung weight – 400 grams. Punctured wound over left lung with contusion is seen. Heart weight – 350 grams. Skull intact. Internal Examination:- Brain weight -1400 grams. Skull bones intact. Right lung weight -450 grams, intact. Left lung weight – 400 grams. Punctured wound over left lung with contusion is seen. Heart weight – 350 grams. Punctured wound seen over chambers of heart. (ventricular portion) Blood clots are seen in heart chambers Thoracic cavity. Right side ribs intact. Left side fracture of 3rd and 4th rib. About 1500 ml of blood is seen in thoracic cavity. Liver weight -1350 grams, intact. Kidneys-intact, each weighing 150 grams. Spleen weight 200 grams, intact. Cut section of all organs pale. Hyoid bone intact. Stomach consists of 100 ml of semisolid food particles. Bladder empty. Intestines intact." Ex.P.9 is the Post-Mortem Certificate. The Doctor opined that the said single stab injury found on the deceased would have been caused by a weapon like knife. He further opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to shock and haemorrhage, due to the stab injury to the vital organ. (vii) In the course of investigation, P.W.16 arrested the accused Nos.1 to 4 at 6.15 p.m., near Erode bus stand, in the presence of P.W.12-Arasu and another witness, by name, Suresh. On such arrest, the 1st accused gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden the soori-knife. In pursuance of the same, he took the police to the said place and produced the soori-knife (M.O.1), which was recovered under a Mahazar-Ex.P.5. Then, he recovered the blood-stained clothes (M.O. Nos. 3 to 5), which were found on the dead body of the deceased. On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand. On completing the investigation, he laid the charge-sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 5 on 28.01.2011. (viii) Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as detailed in the paragraph No.1 of this judgment. The accused Nos.1 to 5 denied the same. During the trial, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution as many as 16 witnesses were examined and 21 documents and 7 material objects were exhibited. Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws. 6 to 9 are the injured witnesses, who have elaborately spoken about the occurrence. P.W.1-Sarasu, who is the mother of the deceased, has also spoken about the entire occurrence. Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws. 6 to 9 are the injured witnesses, who have elaborately spoken about the occurrence. P.W.1-Sarasu, who is the mother of the deceased, has also spoken about the entire occurrence. P.W.2-Eswaran and P.W.5-Sekar have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.Ws. 3 and 4-Onkali and Sekar respectively have spoken about the entire occurrence. P.W.10-Selvam has spoken about the preparation of Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P.17). He has also spoken about the recovery of blood-stained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence. P.W.11-Suresh has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.12-Arasu has spoken about the arrest of accused Nos.1 to 4, the disclosure statement made by accused Nos.1 to 4, and the consequential recovery of soori-knife. P.W.13-Dr.Thenmozhi has spoken about the post-mortem conducted by her and her final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.14-Dr.Muthusamy of Narayani Hospital, Erode, has spoken about the treatment given to P.W.6-Subramani. P.W.15-Hasan, the then Head Constable, has stated that he carried the requisition letter and the dead body of the deceased to the Hospital and handed over the dead body to the Doctor for the purpose of post-mortem. P.W.16-Karunanidhi, the then Inspector of Police, has spoken about the registration of the case and the investigation done by him and the filing of the final report. (ix) When the accused Nos.1 to 5 were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied them as false. But, they have not chosen to examine any witness nor to mark any document. Their defence was a total denial. Having considered all the above, the Trial Court acquitted the accused Nos.3 to 5 from all the charges levelled against them and convicted the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 alone, as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this judgment. That is how, the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 are now before this Court with this appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. N. Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. M. Maharaja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully. 4. As we have already pointed out, P.Ws.1 to 9 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. Some of them are the injured eye witnesses. 3. We have heard Mr. N. Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. M. Maharaja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully. 4. As we have already pointed out, P.Ws.1 to 9 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. Some of them are the injured eye witnesses. Their presence cannot be doubted. But, the Trial Court has disbelieved their evidence, so far as they relate to the accused Nos.3 to 5. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that a close reading of the evidence of these witnesses would go to show that absolutely, there is no evidence available against the accused No.2. 5. We have carefully gone through the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 9, who are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. Of course, the accused No.2 happens to be the husband of P.W.9-Selvi. P.W.9 had gone back to her parental home, on account of the quarrel between the 2nd accused and P.W.9. There is no other evidence against him. Though, it is stated that the 2nd accused harassed and demanded dowry from P.W.9, there is no charge against him for the said allegations. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State is not in a position to show any evidence against the 2nd accused. Therefore, in our considered view, the 2nd accused is entitled for acquittal. 6. The Trial Court has convicted the 2nd accused only on surmises. The Trial Court has acquitted the accused Nos.3 to 5 on finding that there was no unlawful assembly. In this case, there is no evidence that the 2nd accused caused any injury either on the deceased or on any of the injured witnesses. Still, the Trial Court has invoked Section 149 IPC and convicted him for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 IPC and 307 r/w. 149 IPC (2 counts). This is something shocking for this Court. Having acquitted the rest of the accused viz., accused Nos.3 to 5 and having found that there was no unlawful assembly, it is not understood, as to how the Trial Court still invoked Section 149 IPC, to make the 2nd accused constructively liable for punishment for the offence committed by the 1st accused. This is something shocking for this Court. Having acquitted the rest of the accused viz., accused Nos.3 to 5 and having found that there was no unlawful assembly, it is not understood, as to how the Trial Court still invoked Section 149 IPC, to make the 2nd accused constructively liable for punishment for the offence committed by the 1st accused. That is the reason, why we have stated that the Trial Court by wrong application of law and on mere surmises has convicted the 2nd accused. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that so far as the 2nd accused is concerned, the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, he is entitled for acquittal. 7. Now, coming to the case against the 1st accused, all the eye witnesses including the injured eye witnesses have stated that it was this accused, who have caused a single stab on the chest of the deceased, which resulted in the death of the deceased. We do not find any reason to reject the evidence of these witnesses. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the First Information Report cannot be true, because, it is the evidence of some of the witnesses that the police arrived at the scene of occurrence even when the injured were still at the place of occurrence. It may be true that on some information, the police would have arrived at the scene of occurrence and therefore, Ex.P.1-complaint may not be given much weightage. We may even go to the extent of invoking the provisions under Section 162 Cr.P.C. Assuming that, we reject Ex.P.1, on that ground, we cannot reject the entire case of the prosecution. The occurrence had taken place near the house of the accused, where according to the prosecution party, they had come only to pacify the 2nd accused to take back P.W.9 into the matrimonial fold. The eye witnesses account is corroborated by the medical evidence also. We do not find any reason at all to reject the eye witnesses account, who have categorically stated that it was this accused, who caused the death of the deceased, by causing a single stab on the chest of the deceased. 8. Now, what was the offence the 1st accused had committed by causing the death of the deceased has to be examined. 8. Now, what was the offence the 1st accused had committed by causing the death of the deceased has to be examined. Certainly, there was no motive for the 1st accused to commit the murder of the deceased. Even the deceased had only a cardial relationship with all the accused. All of them had come to the house only to persuade the 2nd accused to take back P.W.9 into the matrimonial fold. It is in evidence that there was quarrel between two families and the quarrel went on for a considerable time. Only in that quarrel, it is stated that the 1st accused took the soori-knife and caused single stab on the chest of the deceased. Thus, it is crystal clear that it was not a pre-meditated act on the part of the 1st accused. It was only done out of provocation, which in our considered view is sudden as well as grave. The 1st accused had taken the soori-knife and caused single stab on the deceased. Of course, the act of the 1st accused in causing the death of the deceased would squarely fall within the third limb of Section 300 IPC, but, still, the same would fall under the Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC and therefore, the 1st accused is liable for punishment for the said act under Section 304 (i) IPC. The 1st accused has simultaneously caused injuries with soori-knife on P.Ws. 6 and 8. The Trial Court has convicted the 1st accused under Section 307 IPC (2 counts) for the said act. In our considered view, the Trial Court was not right in doing so, as we have already pointed out, the 1st accused would not have intended to cause the death of P.Ws. 6 and 8 at all. It was only in the above quarrel, due to sudden provocation, the 1st accused had caused simple hurt on these two witnesses, for which, he can be punished only Section 324 IPC. The Trial Court already convicted the 1st accused under Section 324 IPC for having caused simple hurt on P.W.7, which is liable to be confirmed. 9. It was only in the above quarrel, due to sudden provocation, the 1st accused had caused simple hurt on these two witnesses, for which, he can be punished only Section 324 IPC. The Trial Court already convicted the 1st accused under Section 324 IPC for having caused simple hurt on P.W.7, which is liable to be confirmed. 9. Now, turning to the quantum of punishment, the 1st accused is a young man, the occurrence was not pre-meditated one and it was only out of a sudden quarrel, in a heat of passion, the occurrence has taken place, and there are lot of chances for reformation; he had no bad antecedents; even after this occurrence, he has not shown any deviance from law. Having regard to these mitigating circumstances as well as the aggravating circumstances, we are of the view that convicting the 1st accused for the offence under Section 304 (i) IPC, instead of Section 302 IPC, and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight weeks, would meet the ends of justice. Similarly, for having caused hurt voluntarily on P.Ws. 6 and 8, we are of the considered view that convicting the 1st accused under Section 324 IPC (2 counts), instead of Section 307 IPC (2 counts) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for each count and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each count, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four weeks, would meet the ends of justice. In our considered view, for having caused hurt voluntarily on P.W.7, the conviction of the 1st accused for the offence under Section 324 IPC and sentence to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, imposed by the Trial Court is liable to be confirmed. 10. In the result, i. this Appeal is partly allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the 2nd appellant/2nd accused by the Trial Court in S.C.No.4 of 2012, dated 30.10.2012, are set aside and the 2nd appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him; ii. The fine amount, if any paid by the 2nd accused, shall be refunded to him. iii. The bail bond, if any executed by the 2nd appellant/2nd accused, shall stand discharged. iv. The fine amount, if any paid by the 2nd accused, shall be refunded to him. iii. The bail bond, if any executed by the 2nd appellant/2nd accused, shall stand discharged. iv. The conviction of the 1st accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC is set aside, instead, he is convicted for the offence under Section 304(i) IPC, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight weeks. v. Similarly, for having caused hurt voluntarily on P.Ws. 6 and 8, the conviction and sentence imposed on the 1st accused under Section 307 IPC (2 counts) are set aside and instead, he is convicted under Section 324 IPC (2 counts) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for each count and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each count, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four weeks. vi. For having caused hurt voluntarily on P.W.7, the conviction of the 1st accused for the offence under Section 324 IPC and sentence to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, imposed by the Trial Court are confirmed. vii. Since, the 1st appellant/1st accused is on bail, the Sessions Court is directed to take steps to secure his custody to commit him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence. viii. The period of imprisonment already undergone by the 1st appellant/1st accused shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.