JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Mahila Court (Session Fast Track) Theni, made in S.C.No.50 of 2014 dated 15.12.2020.) R. Subramanian, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants / A1 to A3 as against the conviction and sentence, dated 15.12.2020, made in S.C.No.50 of 2014, by the Mahila Court (Session Fast Track) Theni. 2. The appellants / A1 to A3 stood convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as detailed hereunder: Conviction U/s. Sentence Fine amount A-1 & A-2 302 IPC To undergo life imprisonment To pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default, to undergo two years simple imprisonment. 307 r/w 34 IPC To undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment To pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment. A-3 302 r/w 34 IPC To undergo life imprisonment To pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to undergo two years simple imprisonment. 307 IPC To undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment To pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to undergo one year simple imprisonment. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution is as follows: (i) The deceased is the mother of P.W.1. P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.1. P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the daughters of P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.5 is the son of P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.7 is the brother of P.W.1. A1 and A2 are brothers and A3 is their father. The accused and the deceased are residing in the same village in the opposite houses. In the year 2011, when P.W.3 went to the school, A1 eve-teased her. Hence, a police complaint was given against A1 and he was arrested for allegation of molesting P.W.3. Due to such arrest, the accused developed enmity against the deceased's family. In the meanwhile, P.W.1 and P.W.2 arranged marriage for P.W.3 and prior to the marriage, when they were about to put up a panthal in front of their house, the accused heaped crushed stone and sand in front of the deceased's house. When the same was questioned by the deceased, A1 came with aruval-M.O. 1 and cut the deceased on the right hand and also chest, A2 came with crowbar-M.O.3 and caused injury on the back of the deceased and A3 carried aruval-M.O.2 and attacked P.W.2 on the forehead and left shoulder. When the same was questioned by the deceased, A1 came with aruval-M.O. 1 and cut the deceased on the right hand and also chest, A2 came with crowbar-M.O.3 and caused injury on the back of the deceased and A3 carried aruval-M.O.2 and attacked P.W.2 on the forehead and left shoulder. As a result, the deceased succumbed to the injuries in the house itself. P.W.1 to P.W.7 are the eyewitness to the occurrence. Immediately, P.W.1 with the help of P.W.15, lodged a complaint-Ex.P1 to P.W.21-Sub Inspector of Police, who registered a case in Crime No.322 of 2012 under Sections 302 and 307 IPC under Ex.P20-FIR and forwarded the FIR to the Court and copy to the superior officer. (ii) P.W.19-Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital, Sivagangai, admitted P.W.2 and noted 6 x 3 x 2 cm laceration on the left forehead and 10 x 10 x 6 cm laceration on the left shoulder and he issued Ex.P.19. Before P.W.19, P.W.2 stated that she was attacked by a known person. (iii) P.W.23, after receipt of FIR, commenced investigation, went to the place of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar-Ex.P14 in the presence of P.W.14, drew a rough sketch-Ex.P23, collected blood stained cement concrete and ordinary cement concrete from the place of occurrence, conducted inquest over the dead body, prepared inquest report-Ex.P.24 and forwarded the dead body to the hospital for autopsy. P.W.22- Doctor conducted autopsy and found the following injuries: “1. An oblique cut injury size 11 cms x 6 cms x cavity depth. seen over the right chest 1cm above right nipple. Margins were regular. Both end were pointed with the surrounding bruise injuring the underlying muscles, vessels and nerves. On dissection of the chest:- Fracture of ribs 3rd, 4th and 6th on right side was cut through and through with surrounding bruise injuring the underlying muscles, vessels and nerves, right lung. An oblique cut injury size 8 cms x 4 cms x 3 cms seen over the right lung in its lower aspect. Pleural cavity contained 1000ml of blood with clots. 2. An oblique cut injury size 3 cms x 2cms x 1 cm seen over the back of the right elbow joint. Margins were regular. Both end were pointed with the surrounding bruise injuring the underlying muscles, vessels and nerves. 3. Red coloured contusion of size 5cms x 3 cms seen over the centre of the back. 4. 2. An oblique cut injury size 3 cms x 2cms x 1 cm seen over the back of the right elbow joint. Margins were regular. Both end were pointed with the surrounding bruise injuring the underlying muscles, vessels and nerves. 3. Red coloured contusion of size 5cms x 3 cms seen over the centre of the back. 4. Red coloured contusion of size 3 cms x 2 cms seen over the back of the left elbow.” She issued Ex.P.21-postmortem certificate opining that the deceased would appear to have died of injury No.1 and its complication thereof. (iv) P.W.23, in continuation of investigation, on 16.11.2012 arrested all the accused and recorded the confession of the accused, in the presence of P.W.9 and P.W.10 and the admissible portion of confession statement of accused 1 to 3 were marked as Ex.25, Ex.27 and Ex.29 respectively. Pursuant to the same, material objects M.O.1 to M.O.3 were recovered under Ex.26, Ex.30 and Ex.28 respectively. The accused was sent to judicial custody and the material objects were forwarded the to the Court. (v) P.W.25, after examining the witnesses, laid a final report against the accused. (vi) The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined as many as 25 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.25, marked 31 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.31 and 7 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.7. After analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has found the accused guilty and convicted the accused as referred above. Assailing the same, the present Criminal Appeal is filed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the entire family members of the accused were roped due to previous enmity. It is his contention that the prosecution suppressed the earlier version and has not explained the delay in despatching the FIR to the Court, that itself clearly indicates that A1 to A3 have been implicated due to the previous motive. The evidence of the witnesses also clearly shows that the occurrence took place in some other manner not as alleged by the prosecution. There was no explanation from the prosecution side as to the place where the occurrence took place, whereas the dead body was found inside the house. P.Ws.1, 3 4, 5, 6 and 7 could not have been eyewitnesses to the occurrence. There was no explanation from the prosecution side as to the place where the occurrence took place, whereas the dead body was found inside the house. P.Ws.1, 3 4, 5, 6 and 7 could not have been eyewitnesses to the occurrence. The evidence of P.W.2-injured, as against A2 and A3, is highly exaggerated and totally unbelievable. He further submitted that only because of previous motive, as A1 had an affair with P.W.3, the entire family members of A1 have been implicated. Hence, he submitted that the entire prosecution is highly doubtful in this case and prays for allowing of the appeal. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that the occurrence took place in front of P.W.1's house and accused were residing in the same street in the opposite house. All the witnesses have clearly deposed in one voice about the weapons carried by the accused and the injuries caused by them on the deceased. A3 also attacked P.W.2. The evidence of P.W.2-injured proves the complicity of the accused. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that merely because, dead body was found inside the house, it cannot be said that the entire occurrence is false. It is his further contention that the evidence itself clearly shows that after causing injury, they pushed the body into the house. Therefore, he submitted that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and hence, prays for dismissal of this appeal. 6. We have given our anxious consideration to the entire materials available on record, and also the rival contentions made by the respective counsel. 7. The motive attributed against the accused is that A1 had followed and eve-teased P.W.3, while she was studying in 10th standard, which resulted in lodging a criminal complaint and thereby he was arrested. Thereafter, when the marriage of P.W.3 was arranged and was about to be celebrated in a week before the incident, in order to prevent P.W.1's family from putting up a panthal, the family of the accused has heaped the building materials before the house of the deceased. When the same was questioned by the deceased, all the accused came with deadly weapons and caused injuries. When the same was questioned by the deceased, all the accused came with deadly weapons and caused injuries. P.W.1 is none other than the son of the deceased has spoken that accused 1 and 2 caused injury on the deceased and pushed her inside the house. P.W.2 injured not spoken about this aspect. 8. The evidence of P.W.2 shows that the accused attacked the deceased in front of the house and at that time, P.W.1 took P.W.3 inside the house Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 that the accused pushed the dead body into the house after causing injury is highly improbable. Though the motive has been spoken by the prosecution, the motive is a double edged weapon, it may be used either to implicate the entire family members or also may be the reason for eliminating the deceased. Admittedly, in this case, enmity developed between the two families. Scanning of the entire evidence shows that the entire dispute is only between P.W.3 and A1. The evidence of P.W.2 shows that on the date of occurrence, on hearing the sound, P.W.1 immediately came there and took P.W.3 inside the house. This evidence clearly indicates that the entire occurrence is centered around P.W.3. 9. Be that as it may, now the fact in issue is whether all the accused have committed the offence, which resulted the death of the deceased and injury of P.W.2. As discussed above, P.W.1 witnessing the occurrence in its entirety is highly improbable. His evidence indicates that after causing injury on her mother, she was pushed inside the house. It is spoken by P.W.1 that A2 stabbed the deceased with crowbar on the back and pushed her inside the house. P.W.2 sustained some injuries at the hands of one of the accused. She never stated in her evidence that the accused have pushed the deceased inside the house. The cross examination of P.W.1 clearly shows that in front of his house, there is a open drainage and there are two steps about 2 feet height. It is also admitted that the drainage is open. There was no slab on the drainage system. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 that the accused pushed the deceased inside the house creates serious doubt. If really the accused pushed the deceased inside the house, particularly after causing such injury, the deceased would have fallen into the drainage or before the steps. There was no slab on the drainage system. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 that the accused pushed the deceased inside the house creates serious doubt. If really the accused pushed the deceased inside the house, particularly after causing such injury, the deceased would have fallen into the drainage or before the steps. P.W.2's evidence on the contrary shows that the deceased fell down immediately after she sustained injury. According to the prosecution, the occurrence took place in front of the house, where the building materials were heaped. However, the dead body was found inside the house. These facts create serious doubt about the entire prosecution theory. The same clearly indicates that the prosecution has not placed true set of facts and there is some exaggeration in the entire case. 10. From the evidence of P.W.3, who is one of the eyewitness, it is seen that at the time of occurrence, the deceased was standing in the varanda of the house and further her evidence also shows that as if A2 has repeatedly caused stab injury with crowbar on the back of the deceased. P.W.2, the so called eyewitness, in her evidence has also stated that A2 repeatedly stabbed the deceased with M.O.3 on the back of the deceased. All the witnesses stated that A2 has repeatedly stabbed on the back of the deceased. Above version of the witnesses against A2 is falsified by the medical evidence. The postmortem certificate and the evidence of postmortem Doctor clearly show that there was no serious injuries on the back of the deceased except a contusion. It is the evidence of P.W.2 that the accused repeatedly stabbed the deceased with M.O.3-crowbar. If such repeated stabbing had taken place, there would have been a serious injuries on the back of the deceased. This creates only serious doubts about the credibility of the evidence of all the witnesses. No doubt, P.W.2 suffered some injury. It is her case that when the deceased questioned, A1 caused injury on the right hand and chest of the deceased and she has also stated that A3 cut her left shoulder and also forehead. This creates only serious doubts about the credibility of the evidence of all the witnesses. No doubt, P.W.2 suffered some injury. It is her case that when the deceased questioned, A1 caused injury on the right hand and chest of the deceased and she has also stated that A3 cut her left shoulder and also forehead. P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5, who are the daughters and son of P.W.1 and P.W.2, also supported their parents and in fact, P.W.4 has stated that the occurrence took place while the deceased was standing inside the house and she has also stated that the occurrence took place at 4.00 p.m., whereas P.W.5, in his evidence has stated that the occurrence took place outside the house and his mother was unconscious. 11. Further it is also stated by P.W.5 that only after the deceased fell in the supine position, A2 attacked the deceased with crow-bar-M.O.3. The manner in which the witnesses implicated all the accused creates serious doubt about the participation of all the accused. This is fortified by further fact that though the FIR was registered at 9.30 p.m. on the same day, the FIR reached the learned Judicial Magistrate on the next day i.e., on 16.11.2012 at 12.30 p.m. There was no explanation for such huge delay in despatching the FIR to the learned Judicial Magistrate. Such delay coupled with the parrot-like version of all the witnesses implicating the entire family members clearly indicates that the witnesses have not come with true facts. We find that there is serious exaggeration and improvements made only in order to implicate the entire family. The delay in despatching the FIR also probablises such inference. The so called eye witnesses, except P.W.2 claim to be eyewitnesses were inside the house, where the dead body was found. 12. As we discussed above, there are lot of contradictions with regard to the place where the occurrence took place. P.W.2 said to have received injury and it is also substantially proved by the medical evidence by P.W.19. P.W.19's evidence also clearly indicates that while she was admitted P.W.2 in the hospital, P.W.2 stated before P.W.19 that she was attacked by one known person. If really all the three accused were participated in the occurrence, the spontaneous reaction of P.W.2 before the Medical Officer is to say that she was attacked by three persons. P.W.19's evidence also clearly indicates that while she was admitted P.W.2 in the hospital, P.W.2 stated before P.W.19 that she was attacked by one known person. If really all the three accused were participated in the occurrence, the spontaneous reaction of P.W.2 before the Medical Officer is to say that she was attacked by three persons. This also creates serious doubt about the participation of all the accused. In the AR copy-Ex.P.19, originally it is stated that she was attacked at 6.00 p.m., but it is corrected as 8.00 p.m. The correction is apparent in the document which has also remains unexplained by the prosecution. These facts coupled with the evidence of all the witnesses particularly the evidence of P.W.4 shows that the occurrence could not have taken place at the time as alleged by the prosecution and it has taken place prior to that. The evidence of P.W.4 is that occurrence took place at about 4.00 p.m. 13. Though the witnesses have spoken about the occurrence in a different manner, from the evidence of the witnesses particularly P.W.2, so called injured and others clearly indicates that at the time of occurrence, P.W.3 was very much present and she was immediately pulled inside the house by P.W.1, the same clearly proves that the entire occurrence centered around P.W.3 and A1. The evidence of P .W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 clearly indicates that on the basis of the complaint given against A1 for stalking P.W.3, A1 was arrested immediately. When the marriage of P.W.3 was arranged, at that stage only the entire occurrence took place. This fact clearly indicates that the witnesses have come with a different versions, as if there were some other motive for the offence. P.W.4's evidence clearly shows that immediately after arrest of A1, the marriage was fixed, thereafter the occurrence took place. These facts clearly indicates that the occurrence was a result of some love affair between A1 and P.W.3 and not as projected by the prosecution. 14. Be that as it may, now in the background of the above facts as noted by this Court it has to be seen whether all the accused were present at the time of occurrence and caused injuries. As already indicated that possibility of implicating the entire family members cannot be ruled out in this case particularly in view of the dispute and criminal cases lodged against A1. As already indicated that possibility of implicating the entire family members cannot be ruled out in this case particularly in view of the dispute and criminal cases lodged against A1. The evidence of P.W.1 creates serious doubt about him witnessing the occurrence. Further the very timing of the occurrence itself is doubtful. P.W.4 states that the occurrence started from 4.00 clock and continued, whereas the postmortem certificate clearly shows that 300 grams of cooked rice particles very much present in the stomach of the deceased. The same clearly indicates that the occurrence would have taken place much after the lunch hours. If the version of the witnesses particularly, P.W.4 is considered, there were frequent quarrel between the parties from 4.00 p.m and in such situation, the deceased taking food in the evening hours is highly improbable that is also one of the grounds to doubt the version of the eyewitnesses. Though all the eyewitnesses exaggerated in order to implicate all the family members, this Court discovered the truth by analyzing the entire evidence and found that only A1 had caused injuries on the deceased. 15. P.W.2's evidence indicates that A1 came there and caused injuries on the deceased. Her evidence indicates that A3 repeatedly caused injury on her left shoulder and A2 has caused stab injury. Though she sustained injury said to have been caused by A3, the evidence of P.W.2 that the accused has caused cut injury on her shoulder is totally contradictory to the medical evidence. P.W.19 in this regard has noted laceration in left shoulder 10 x 10 x 6 cm exposing shoulder and scapula in superomedial aspect. Further, the evidence of P.W.2 that A2 repeatedly stabbed on the back of the deceased is totally ruled out by the evidence of the postmortem doctor and also postmortem report. However, the fact remains that there were some quarrel between two families and it continued for more than 15 minutes. This fact clearly indicates that there was some dispute between A1 and the deceased's family members. This has been in fact fortified by the fact that the dead body was found inside the house and not outside the house. Therefore, we are of the view that the entire prosecution is totally unreliable. However, the fact remains that all the witnesses in one voice have stated that A1 caused injury on the deceased as well as P.W.2. This has been in fact fortified by the fact that the dead body was found inside the house and not outside the house. Therefore, we are of the view that the entire prosecution is totally unreliable. However, the fact remains that all the witnesses in one voice have stated that A1 caused injury on the deceased as well as P.W.2. The fact remains that such injury was caused only due to some altercation between two families. Only on the marriage issue, A1 become infuriated and caused injuries on the deceased. Though the place of occurrence has not been clearly established by the prosecution, the fact remains that the material objects seized from A1 contains the blood group of the deceased. Though the material objects seized from A2 also contains the blood group of the deceased, we are not in a position to accept the evidence of witnesses as against A2 for the simple reason that the evidence of all the witnesses that A2 repeatedly stabbed the deceased with crowbar is in fact negatived by the medical evidence. In such view of the matter, we are of the view that it is highly unsafe to convict A2 for the offence under Section 302 IPC and also for the offence under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC. There was a dispute between the two families with regard to love affair. Therefore, when some altercation took place, the mere presence of other family members cannot be a ground to convict them for the offence under Section 34 IPC. Further, the manner in which namely parrot-like version spoken to by all the witnesses and delay in despatching the FIR to the Court which remains unexplained, we are of the view that this is a clear case where all the family members have been roped in unnecessarily due to the previous motive. Accordingly, we acquit A2 and A3 from all the charges. 16. Now the fact remains that A1 has caused injury due to the fixation of marriage of P.W.3. On a perusal of the entire documents, it is seen that dead body was found inside the room not even in varanda, this fact clearly leads to the inference that the occurrence took place, when there were altercation between A1 and family members of the deceased, inside the house but not out side of the house, as projected by the prosecution. There is evidence to show that there were also quarrel between two families for more than 10 minutes as spoken by P.W.1, at that time, when the occurrence took place. Therefore, though the prosecution has suppressed the real fact, the facts placed before us indicate a different version. We are of the view that the occurrence took place in a quarrel between A1, deceased and P.W.2, as a result, the deceased sustained injury and succumbed to injury. P.W.2's evidence as against A3 is totally exaggerated, as she should have suffered injury only at the hands of A1 and not by A3. Further before the Doctor, she has stated that she was attacked by a known person and she never whispered about the presence of the other accused. These facts also cannot be ignored altogether. Therefore, we are of the view that as the entire occurrence took place in a quarrel between two families and there were heated arguments which lasted for some time, this Court has to hold that this occurrence is a result of sudden quarrel between the two families on the heat of passion and without any premeditation. Such being a position, as the prosecution has suppressed the true version and considering the nature of participation of A1, we are of the view that the Act of A1 has certainly fall within ambit of Section of 304(i) IPC. 17. Accordingly, we are inclined to convict A1 for the offence under Section 304(i) IPC instead of Section 302 IPC and set aside the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC. As far as A2 and A3 are concerned, charges against them is nothing but false implication. Therefore they are entitled to acquittal from all the charges. 18. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed in the following terms:- * The conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court on the first appellant/A1 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside and instead, the first appellant/A1 is convicted under Section 304(i) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- [Rupees Ten Thousand only], in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. *The conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court on the first appellant/A1 under ection 307 r/w 34 IPC is set aside. *The conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court on the first appellant/A1 under ection 307 r/w 34 IPC is set aside. *It is further directed that the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant/A1 shall be set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the fine amount already paid shall be adjusted towards the fine amount for the offence under Section 304(i) IPC. *As far as the appellants 2 and 3/A2 and A3 are concerned, the conviction and sentence imposed on them by the Trial Court are set aside and they are acquitted from all the charges. *Since the second appellant/A2 is confined in Central Prison, Madurai, in view of the judgment of acquittal, he is directed to be released forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. *Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants 2 and 3/A2 and A3 shall be refunded to them. Bail bond, if any, executed by third appellant/A3 and the sureties shall stand terminated. *In all other respects, the judgment of the trial Court is confirmed.