JUDGMENT : Heard Mr.S.Palanipackiam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms.J.Ananda Devi, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal has been filed to set aside the Judgment dated 28.09.2007 in S.C.No.89 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Theni. The appellant was convicted under Section 304(ii) of IPC and was sentenced to undergo four years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) in default to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment. 3. The case against the accused is that on 19.11.2005, at about 02.00 p.m., when the complainant and others went to Pandiyan Hotel near Koodalur Old Bus stand, the accused and others were already taking food there. When the deceased found a vacant chair near the accused, he tried to pull the chair. The chair slightly hit against the accused. The accused got irritated and arose a wordy quarrel. Due to the wordy quarrel, the accused assaulted the victim with fire wood. The accused dragged the victim infront of the hotel and assaulted him with fire wood and committed murder. The charge sheet was filed under Section 302 of IPC. After the trial, the Sessions Court found the accused guilty under Section 304(ii) of IPC and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo four years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) in default to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment. 4. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that as per the charge sheet, one Chellapandian and Murugan were the eyewitness. In the FIR, it is stated that one known and three or four unknown persons assaulted the deceased. 5. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that eye witnesses examined were not real eye witnesses and they are friends and relatives of the deceased and they are interested witnesses. It is further stated that P.W.3 has deposed that there is a cardborad infront of the hotel which prevented the view and the persons inside the hotel could not know what is happening outside the hotel and the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 regarding the occurrence is false as there is no chance for them to see what is happening infront side of the hotel. 6. 6. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that originally the complaint was given by P.W.1, which was suppressed by the appellant. P.W.1 has deposed that the injured was taken to Kambam and then he was taken to Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai. P.W.14 deposed that the deceased was given treatment in Intensive Care Unit and he went to record the complaint. It is stated that the statement was recorded on 20.11.2005 at about 00.30 hours. P.W.1 has deposed that the statement was recorded at 12 midnight. In Ex.P1, it is stated that the complaint was recorded on 20.11.2005 at 10.00 hours. There is a contradiction regarding the time of recording of the complaint. 7. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the time when the complaint was actually recorded is not proved by the prosecution and the actual complaint was suppressed and this contradiction in times was not considered by the learned Sessions Judge. P.Ws.1 and 2 admitted that they were friends of the deceased and P.W.3 is not an eye witness. P.Ws.4 and 5 are the relative of the deceased. 8. On the side of the respondent, it is stated that though P.Ws.1 and 2 are friends of the deceased, there is no necessity for them to give false evidence against the accused. P.W.3 is not either a friend nor a relative to the deceased. In the evidence of P.W.3 clearly it is stated that there was some wordy quarrel and there was a fight between the deceased and the accused. P.W.6 is not a relative to the deceased. He is a friend to the deceased. He has deposed that there was the fight between the deceased and the accused and the accused assaulted the deceased with wooden log. The occurrence was clearly narrated by P.W.6. The evidence of P.W.15 co-relates the evidence of P.W.6 and the occurrence was proved by the prosecution. 9. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that P.W.10 has deposed that the deceased was attacked by one known and three or four unknown persons. AIR copy reveals that the deceased was attacked by one known and three or four unknown persons. A case is registered only against the appellant and there is contradiction between the evidence of P.W.10 and P.Ws.1 and 6. 10. The statement recorded by P.W.14 reached only on 07.12.2005. AIR copy reveals that the deceased was attacked by one known and three or four unknown persons. A case is registered only against the appellant and there is contradiction between the evidence of P.W.10 and P.Ws.1 and 6. 10. The statement recorded by P.W.14 reached only on 07.12.2005. It is further stated that the deceased was working in the telephone Department. He used to claim the telephone post. P.W.10 has deposed that “xxx” P.Ws.10 and 11 have deposed that there is possibility for getting injury while falling upside down. 11. On the side of the respondent, it is stated that there is no enmity between the deceased and the accused and there is no enmity between the accused and the witnesses. The contention of the appellant is that there is no necessity for the witnesses to depose against the accused when there is no enmity against him. 12. On the side of the appellant, in Ex.P1, it is stated that injury is on the right side of the head but whereas the injury is only on the left side of the head and the contradiction is fatal to the prosecution. 13. On the side of the respondent, it is stated that the statement was recorded by the Head Constable and the injury is admitted and whether the injury was on the right side or on the left side of the head is only a minor contradiction, which will not affected the prosecution case. 14. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that P.Ws.12 and 13 are also injured witness and their evidence is not reliable. 15. On the side of the respondent, it is stated that the evidence of P.Ws.12 and 13 co-relates the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6. It is stated that P.Ws.1, 12 and 13 were eye witnesses. Though P.Ws.1 and 2 were colleagues of the deceased, they have no motive to give false evidence against the accused. P.W.9 has deposed that the deceased was taken in his auto to the hospital. P.Ws.1 to 3 deposed that they took the deceased to Kambam Hosptial and then to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. In the evidence of P.Ws.2, 6 and 12 it is clearly stated that the accused assaulted the deceased and caused him head injury. This evidence co-relates the evidence of P.Ws.10 and 11 and there was fracture and hemorrhage on the head of the deceased. In the evidence of P.Ws.2, 6 and 12 it is clearly stated that the accused assaulted the deceased and caused him head injury. This evidence co-relates the evidence of P.Ws.10 and 11 and there was fracture and hemorrhage on the head of the deceased. When the eyewitness co-relates each other, other minor contradictions will not affect in the case of the prosecution. The appellant is in custody only for 83 days and prayed that the appeal to be dismissed. 16. On the side of the respondent, the learned counsel placed reliance on the Judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Pattipati Venkaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1985) 4 SCC 80 , which reads as follows: “A doctor is not at all concerned as to who committed the offence or whether the person brought to him is a criminal or an ordinary person, his primary effort is to save the life of the person brought to him and inform the police in medico-legal cases.” 17. On the side of the respondent, the learned counsel also placed reliance on the Judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of P.Babu and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1994) SCC (Crl) 424, which reads as follows: “At that stage the doctor was required to fill up that column in a normal manner and it was not the duty of the doctor to enquire from the injured patient about the actual assailants and that the inquiry would be confined as to how he received the injuries namely the weapons used etc.” 18. A perusal of the records reveals that P.Ws.1 to 6, 12 and 13 were eye witnesses. Though the appellant is claiming that they are interested witnesses, P.Ws.4 and 6 no way connected with the victim. They are independent witness. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 5, 6, 12 and 13 co-relates the evidence of P.W.9, who is the Auto Driver who took the deceased to the hospital. The evidence of P.Ws.10 and 12 reveals that there was injury on the head of the deceased. A mere statement in the AIR copy that the deceased was attacked by one known and three or four unknown person, is not sufficient enough to acquit the appellant. The words of a Doctor can be relied upon only regarding the the medical evidence. A mere statement in the AIR copy that the deceased was attacked by one known and three or four unknown person, is not sufficient enough to acquit the appellant. The words of a Doctor can be relied upon only regarding the the medical evidence. When the evidence of eye witness are strong enough, the minor contradiction in the evidence of the Doctor is immaterial. Other discrepancies regarding the time and regarding the statement is not sufficient enough to affect the prosecution case. Without any motive, the appellant attacked the deceased in such a manner so as to cause his death. There is absolutely no motive for P.Ws.1 to 6, 12 and 13 against the accused to give false statement against him. 19. Considering all these facts, this Court come to the conclusion that the Judgment of the lower Court is correct in every aspect and there is nothing to interfere with the Judgment of the lower Court. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed and thereby, confirming the order passed by the lower Court. If the appellants is not in duress, the trial Court is directed to take steps to secure him in prison to serve out the remaining period of sentence. The Registry is directed to send this order copy to the lower Court immediately.