JUDGMENT : C. Praveen Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri. G. Vijaya Saradhi, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Sri. S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, through BlueJeans video conferencing APP. 2. Accused No. 1 and 2 in Sessions Case No. 65 of 2013 on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, are the Appellants herein. Originally the accused were tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 Indian Penal Code [‘I.P.C.’]. By its Judgment, dated 23.07.2014, the learned Sessions Judge convicted both the accused under the said count and sentenced each of them to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. 3. The gravamen of the charge against the accused is that, on 19.11.2012 at the house of one Vanjari Appala Naidu, both the accused caused the death of one Dongabanti Satyanarayana [‘Deceased’] by beating him with a stick on his head and also pressing his neck with pressure, which lead to his death on the intervening night of 19th/20th November, 2012, at 2.00 a.m. 4. The facts, as culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, are as under : i. The deceased is the husband of PW1 and Nephew of PW2. All the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Godugurayi Village and are eking out their livelihood by doing cultivation. A1 and A2 are also residents of Godugurayi Village. A1 was working as Vidya Volunteer in Kuneti School of the same village. ii. While things stood thus, on the fateful day, the deceased went to the house of one Vanjari Appala Naidu on coming to know that the Works Inspector was at his house to collect installment amounts for allotment of Government Houses under Indiramma Pathakam. When the deceased and PW1 reached the house of said Vanjari Appala Naidu, A1 and A2 were also present at his house. At that time, the deceased questioned A1 as to why he is distributing mango saplings supplied by the I.T.D.A. to his own people. A wordy quarrel ensued between them. Then A1 is said to have attacked the deceased with a stick and beat him on the head while A2 is said to have pressed the neck of the deceased. At that time, the deceased questioned A1 as to why he is distributing mango saplings supplied by the I.T.D.A. to his own people. A wordy quarrel ensued between them. Then A1 is said to have attacked the deceased with a stick and beat him on the head while A2 is said to have pressed the neck of the deceased. Seeing the incident, PW3 intervened and tried to separate them, but could not do so. However, after the attack, he separated them and took the deceased to his house. The deceased is said to have complained of pain and burning sensation due to head injury. But, however, he was not taken to hospital, instead they tied a wet cloth around the head of the deceased in order to prevent burning sensation. Since, there were no medical facilities available, the deceased was not taken to hospital and, as such, at about 2.00 A.M., on the intervening night of 19/20-11-2012 the injured died in the house. Thereafter, PW1 is said to have gone to the police station and lodged a report before PW8, who on receipt of instructions from the Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.32 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. of GMadugula Police Station. Further investigation, in this case, was taken up by PW9 – Inspector of Police. iii. It is said that, on receipt of a copy of First Information Report from PW8, he along with PW8 and PW4 reached the scene of offence and noticed the dead body in the house. He took photographs of the body with his camera and thereafter proceeded to the scene of offence. At the house of the deceased, he conducted inquest over the dead body. Ex.P3 is the inquest report. After completing the inquest proceedings, the body was sent for postmortem examination. iv. PW7 – the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Paderu, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P16 – post-mortem certificate. The Doctor noticed two contusions and one fracture to thyroid cartilage and hyoid bone on the body of the deceased. He also noticed dislocation of the cervical vertebrae C5 and C6 present and fracture at the vertex region. The Doctor opined that, injury Nos. 1, 2 and 5 are possible with M.O.1 – stick, while injury Nos.3 and 4 are possible if pressure is applied. He also noticed dislocation of the cervical vertebrae C5 and C6 present and fracture at the vertex region. The Doctor opined that, injury Nos. 1, 2 and 5 are possible with M.O.1 – stick, while injury Nos.3 and 4 are possible if pressure is applied. According to him, the cause of death was due to cardio respiratory arrest secondary to haemorrhagic shock due to multiple injuries. v. PW9, who continued with the investigation, prepared a rough sketch, which was marked as Ex.P18 and, thereafter, on 23.11.2012, he arrested A2. On 19.02.2013, he arrested A1 in the presence of PW6 and his confession statement was reduced into writing. The relevant portion is marked as Ex.P14. Pursuant to Ex.P14, they proceeded to the house of A1, from where they claim to have discovered M.O.1 – stick. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed, which was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 4 of 2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Paderu. 5. On appearance of the accused, copies of the documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were furnished and since the case is triable by a Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Court of sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. On appearance of the accused, charges, as referred to above, came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P18, besides marking M.O.1. After completing the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which they denied, but, however, no defence evidence was adduced. 7. Relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3, who were examined as eye witness to the incident, which gets corroboration from the medical evidence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed. 8. Sri. G. Vijaya Saradhi, learned counsel for the Appellants would submit that there is any amount of doubt as to whether really PW1 and PW2 have witnessed the incident. He further submits that the evidence of the doctor [PW7] does not corroborate the oral evidence. 8. Sri. G. Vijaya Saradhi, learned counsel for the Appellants would submit that there is any amount of doubt as to whether really PW1 and PW2 have witnessed the incident. He further submits that the evidence of the doctor [PW7] does not corroborate the oral evidence. In other words, his argument appears to be that when pressure is applied on the neck with hands, the possibility of dislocation of C5 and C6 vertebra or a fracture to vertex is highly impossible. According to him, the incident must have occurred in different circumstance and only with a view to implicate the accused this false case is foisted against the accused. 9. Sri. S. Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the same contending that when the evidence of PW1 and PW3 inspires confidence, which gets corroboration from the evidence of the medical evidence, there is no reason to disbelieve the same and, as such, the conviction and sentence imposed on accused requires no interference. 10. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of I.P.C.? 11. In order to appreciate the rival stand, it would be just and proper to refer to the evidence of PW1 to PW3. 12. PW1 is none other than the wife of the deceased, who in her evidence deposed that, on one day at about 4.00 p.m. in the evening, herself and deceased went to the house of one Vanjari Appala Naidu, on coming to know that the Works Inspector has come to his house to collect installment amounts for allotment of Government Houses under Indiramma Pathakam. When she along with the deceased reached the said house, A1 and A2 were present by then. At that time, the deceased questioned A1 as to why he is distributing mango saplings supplied by the I.T.D.A. to his own people. Then A1 is said to have attacked the deceased with a stick and beat him on the head while A2 pressed the neck of the deceased with hands, as a result of which, the deceased fell down unconsciously. When PW1 raised cries, PW3 and PW6 separated the accused from the deceased. Thereafter, LW5 [Bonji Naidu] sprinkled water on the injured/deceased, who in turn gained conscious and drank water. When PW1 raised cries, PW3 and PW6 separated the accused from the deceased. Thereafter, LW5 [Bonji Naidu] sprinkled water on the injured/deceased, who in turn gained conscious and drank water. Thereafter the injured was taken to his house. Though, he complained of pain, no effort was made to shift him to the hospital. On the other hand, a wet cloth was tied around the neck of the deceased. On the intervening night at about 2.00 a.m., the deceased is said to have succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, the law was set into motion. 13. In the cross-examination of PW1, it was elicited that immediately after the incident, the deceased took a glass of water and, thereafter, talked with PW1. Both of them i.e., PW1 and deceased reached their house on foot and the distance they covered was about half a kilometer. PW1 in his cross-examination also admits that they reached PW1’s house within one hour from the scene of offence. On that day, the deceased also had food and, thereafter, went to sleep, though, complained of pain. It was further elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 that A1 is an educated person, working as Teacher in a school and that he used to hold a stick whenever he used to go for agricultural fields for cultivation. All other suggestions given to PW1 were denied. 14. PW2 is not an eye witness to the incident. He came to know about the same when information about the incident was furnished to him. 15. PW3 was examined as an eye witness to the incident. His evidence toes in line with the evidence of PW1 in all material aspects, but, one circumstance which he deposed in the evidence-in-chief is that prior to the attack, there was a wordy altercation between A1 and the deceased. On seeing the same, he intervened and separate them, but, in the meanwhile, A1 attacked the deceased and beat him with M.O.1 and A2 holding the neck of the deceased. Thereafter, he claims to have separated and took the deceased to his house. He also speaks about the deceased being not taken to the hospital and that the deceased dying in the house at about 4.00 A.M. 16. The evidence of other witness may not be of much relevance except the evidence of the Doctor [PW7], which we will deal a little later. 17. He also speaks about the deceased being not taken to the hospital and that the deceased dying in the house at about 4.00 A.M. 16. The evidence of other witness may not be of much relevance except the evidence of the Doctor [PW7], which we will deal a little later. 17. From the above, it is clear that, there was no prior enmity between the accused and deceased, at any point of time and only on the date of incident, they went to the house of one Vanjari Appala Naidu [not examined], in whose house the deceased questioned A1 alone as to why he is distributing mango saplings supplied by the I.T.D.A. to his own people. A wordy altercation took place and A1 is said to have attacked the deceased with the stick on his head. 18. At this stage, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that, there is no reason for A1 to carry stick unless he has intention to cause an injury. But, the evidence adduced by the prosecution itself would show that A1 was in the habit of carrying stick though he was working as a Teacher in a School and whenever he goes out for agricultural operations. Under those circumstances, it can be said that there is nothing unusual in A1 having a stick with him. 19. From the above, it stands establish that there was no enmity or ill-will between the Accused and the deceased and because of a wordy quarrel, that took place at that time, A1 is said to have beat on head, while A2 pressed the neck of the deceased. 20. At this stage, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that having regard to the nature of injuries sustained on the body, definitely, it has to be inferred that the accused had an intention to cause the death. It would be appropriate to refer to the injuries, on the body of the deceased, as spoken by Doctor [PW7], which are as under: “1. Contusion injury of size 6 x 4 cm present at the left front parietal region. On opening the scalp skin, severe hemorrhage present and fracture of the left frontal and parietal bones present. 2. Contusion injury of size 5 x 22 cm present at the right parietal region. On opening the scalp skin hemorrhage present and fracture of the right parietal bone also present. 3. On opening the scalp skin, severe hemorrhage present and fracture of the left frontal and parietal bones present. 2. Contusion injury of size 5 x 22 cm present at the right parietal region. On opening the scalp skin hemorrhage present and fracture of the right parietal bone also present. 3. Fracture of thyroid cartilage and hyoid bone also present. 4. Dislocation of the cervical vertebrae C5 and C6 also present. 5. Fracture at the Vertex region also present.” 21. It is well established law that it is the quality and not the quantity which determines the adequacy of evidence. Evidence has to be weighed not counted, as is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.Shaji v. State of Kerala, 2013 (2) ALD (Crl.) 153 SC 11. “22. In the matter of appreciation of evidence of witnesses, it is not the number of witnesses, but the quality of their evidence which is important, as there is no requirement in the law of evidence stating that a particular number of witnesses must be examined in order to prove/disprove a fact. It is a time-honoured principle, that evidence must be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise. The legal system has laid emphasis on the value provided by each witness, as opposed to the multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is thus, the quality and not quantity, which determines the adequacy of evidence, as has been provided by Section 134 of the Evidence Act.” 22. Taking into consideration the manner in which the incident in question took place and in the absence of any ill-will, motive or prior enmity between the accused and the deceased, we are of the view that the conviction of the Appellants/Accused No.1 and 2 has to be scaled down to one under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. Hence, the conviction under Section 302 IPC is set-aside and the Appellants/Accused No.1 and 2 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. Hence, the conviction under Section 302 IPC is set-aside and the Appellants/Accused No.1 and 2 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. Since the Appellants/Accused No. 1 and 2 are on bail in pursuance of the Order, dated 01.10.2019, passed by this Court in I.A. No.1 of 2019, the Appellants/Accused No.1 and 2 are directed to surrender themselves forthwith before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Paderu, Visakhapatnam, and on such surrender, the Magistrate shall, in turn, send the Appellants/Accused No. 1 and 2 to the jail concerned for serving the remaining sentence. In case of failure to surrender, the Magistrate shall take steps for securing the presence of the Appellants/Accused No. 1 and 2 and commit them to the prison. 23. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.