JUDGMENT : Jobin Sebastian, J. The accused in S.C.No.8/2013 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court-V, Kottayam, have preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed against them for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code . 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The 1st accused is the son of the 2nd accused and both of them were harbouring animosity towards one Shaji, the deceased in this case. Owing to the said animosity, on 10.08.2011 at 9.30 p.m., on the panchayat road in front of the house of CW4 at Thonippara, the 1st accused, with an intention to kill Shaji, struck him on his abdomen with a stick. Due to the blow when Shaji fell down, the 1st accused repeatedly beat Shaji using the said stick and stamped him. Upon seeing the same, when CW2, the wife of Shaji, intervened to rescue her husband, the 1st accused beat on her head with the stick, thereby causing hurt. In the meantime, the 2nd accused, the 1st accused’s father, who rushed to the scene, grabbed the stick from the hands of the 1st accused and beat Shaji on his head repeatedly, uttering that he would kill him, while Shaji lay on the ground. Both the accused then together caught hold on both the hands of Shaji and dragged him through a mud road that originates from the panchayat road and leads towards the house of the accused and further assaulted him. Due to the severity of the injuries sustained, Shaji succumbed to the same. Hence, the accused are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 302 r/w 34 IPC. 3. Upon completion of the investigation, the final report was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kanjirappalli. Being satisfied that the case is one triable exclusively by a Court of Session, the learned Magistrate, after complying with all the necessary formalities, committed the case to the Court of Session, Kottayam, under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, having taken cognizance, made over the case for trial and disposal to the Additional Sessions Court-V, Kottayam. Being satisfied that the case is one triable exclusively by a Court of Session, the learned Magistrate, after complying with all the necessary formalities, committed the case to the Court of Session, Kottayam, under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, having taken cognizance, made over the case for trial and disposal to the Additional Sessions Court-V, Kottayam. On the appearance of the accused before the trial court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and upon a perusal of the records, framed a written charge against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 302 r/w 34 of IPC. When the charge was read over and explained to the accused, both of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. During the trial, from the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW15 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P20. MO1 to MO12 were exhibited and identified. After the completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., during which they denied all the incriminating materials brought out in evidence against them. Thereafter, both sides were heard under Section 232 of Cr.P.C., and since it was not a fit case to acquit the accused under the said provision, both the accused were directed to enter on their defence and to adduce any evidence that they may have in support thereof. Thereupon, from the side of the accused, DW1 to DW4 were examined and marked Exts.D1 to D5. Thereafter, both sides were heard in detail, and finally, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found both the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC, and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each. In default of payment of the fine, the accused were ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each. The 1st accused was also found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC, and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the said offence. In default of payment of the fine, the accused were ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each. The 1st accused was also found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC, and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the said offence. Fine amount, if realised or paid, was ordered to be given to PW2, the wife of the deceased, as compensation under Section 357 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the said finding of guilt, conviction, and the order of sentence passed, the accused have come up with this appeal. 5. I heard Sri. S. Rajeev, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. T.R. Renjith, the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. The law was set in motion in this case on the strength of the FIS given by a common neighbour of the accused and deceased in this case. However, when the said first informant was examined as PW1, apart from admitting his signature in the FIS, he turned hostile to the prosecution case. According to him, on the alleged date of the incident, he heard a commotion in front of the house of CW4, and upon hearing the same when he reached there, he saw Shaji, the deceased in this case, pelting stones at the house of the accused. He further deposed that at around 10 p.m., the Police came there, and by that time, several people had already gathered. PW1 admitted that he had given a statement to the Police and identified his signature in Ext.P1 FIS. Though the learned Public Prosecutor, with the permission of the court, put some questions to PW1 in terms of Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act , nothing could be elicited to support the charge levelled against the accused It is pertinent to note that during cross-examination, PW1 deposed that the deceased was a drunkard and a problem maker in that locality. Furthermore, he deposed that on the alleged date of the incident, the deceased Shaji was also under the influence of alcohol and was incapable of taking care of himself. According to PW1, he saw Shaji pelting stones at the house of the accused, and in the course of doing so, Shaji fell down. PW1 further stated that he then called the wife of Shaji and asked her to take him back home. According to PW1, he saw Shaji pelting stones at the house of the accused, and in the course of doing so, Shaji fell down. PW1 further stated that he then called the wife of Shaji and asked her to take him back home. Thereupon, the wife of Shaji came with a headlight. Thereafter, Shaji stumbled down as his legs struck against the root of a tree. According to PW1, he also saw Shaji approach the house of the accused and smash the window glass panes of the said house using a stick. When the wife of Shaji attempted to catch hold of the stick, it hit on her head and she sustained injury. Thereafter, Shaji fell onto a granite stone, and by that time, Shaji was completely exhausted. Subsequently, the Police arrived at the scene and took Shaji to the hospital. 7. A perusal of the deposition given by PW1 shows that during cross-examination, he gave evidence totally contrary to the prosecution case. Though the learned Public Prosecutor sought permission for further examination, the learned Sessions Judge declined the permission, citing the reason that the said witness was already cross-examined. However, the action of the learned Sessions Judge in this regard is not legally justifiable. When a prosecution witness turns hostile to the prosecution, the Prosecutor, with the permission of the court, is entitled under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act to put questions which could ordinarily be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. The same is seen done in this case. However, putting questions in terms of Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act does not amount to cross-examination, but only enables the party who calls the witness to put questions in the nature of cross-examination. Therefore, the reason stated by the trial court that the prosecution had already cross-examined PW1 and hence further cross-examination cannot be allowed is not legally sustained. In this case, the evidence of PW1 reveals that during cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, he had deposed totally against the prosecution version of the incident. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the trial court to permit the learned Public Prosecutor to re-examine PW1, so as to afford him an opportunity to contradict the witness with his earlier statement given under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. if any contradictions existed. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the trial court to permit the learned Public Prosecutor to re-examine PW1, so as to afford him an opportunity to contradict the witness with his earlier statement given under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. if any contradictions existed. We do agree that a statement given under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence. Therefore, if contradictions are found between the previous statement and the testimony given in court, the Prosecutor is entitled to confront the witness with earlier statements as provided under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act and thereafter to prove the same through the officer who recorded the FIS. However, such an opportunity was not given to the Public Prosecutor by the learned Sessions Judge. 8. Now, reverting to the other evidence adduced in this case, it can be seen that the main evidence relied upon by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused is the ocular evidence of the wife and son of the deceased, who were allegedly present at the scene of occurrence at the time of commission of the offence. When the wife of the deceased was examined as PW2, she deposed as follows: Shaji, the deceased in this case, was her husband. During the relevant period, she was working as a bookbinder in a press at Kanjirappally. She was residing with her husband and their two children at a place called Thonippara. Her husband was a rubber tapper. On 10.08.2011, as usual, she left for her work at 8.30 am, and at that time her husband and children were at home. Thereafter, at 1.00 p.m., her husband called her on her mobile phone and informed her that he was at his workplace. By around 6.00 p.m., she returned to her house and both her children were present there. By 8.00 p.m., her husband telephoned her again and told her that he was at the house of one Kochurani and asked her to send their children with a torchlight so that he could return. At about 8.30 p.m., she, along with her younger son Shalumon, went to the house of Kochurani carrying a headlight, and at that time her husband was talking with Kochurani and her parents. After spending some time there, she, along with her husband and son, started walking back to their house. At about 8.30 p.m., she, along with her younger son Shalumon, went to the house of Kochurani carrying a headlight, and at that time her husband was talking with Kochurani and her parents. After spending some time there, she, along with her husband and son, started walking back to their house. On the way, when they reached on the road in front of the house of one Chellappan, the 1st accused Arun(A1) rushed towards her husband uttering that I was waiting to get you on the way). Immediately thereafter, the 1st accused beat forcefully on the abdomen of her husband with a stick. Due to the said blow when her husband fell down, the 1st accused again beat on the head and body of her husband with the stick. Moreover, the 1st accused stamped on the chest of her husband 3 to 4 times. When she pleaded not to stamp on her husband, the 1st accused beat her on the left side of her head with a stick, thereby causing injury. Then her son (PW3), who was an 8th standard student at that time, cried aloud. By then, Mohanan (A2), the father of the 1st accused, rushed to the spot from his house. Then the 2nd accused grabbed the stick from the hands of the 1st accused and beat on the body and the head of her husband, uttering that I will do away with you). When her son again cried aloud, 1st accused snatched the umbrella from the hands of her son and beat her husband with the same, and threw it on the road. Thereafter, both the accused caught hold of both the hands of her husband and dragged him towards the accused’s house through the road that leads to their house. Scared of the accused, she and her son stood away. Thereafter, both the accused together kicked and beat him. Thereafter, the accused themselves pelted stones towards their house, saying that Thereupon she contacted the Police over the phone and went to the house and informed the matter to parents of her husband. The incident occurred at around 9.30 p.m. After some time, the Police arrived and took her husband to the hospital in the police jeep. She saw the incident in the light emitted from the house of Chellpan as well as in the light in the house of the accused. The incident occurred at around 9.30 p.m. After some time, the Police arrived and took her husband to the hospital in the police jeep. She saw the incident in the light emitted from the house of Chellpan as well as in the light in the house of the accused. Immediately thereafter, she went to Sushalayam Hospital, Kuttikkattuvalavil, where she was treated as an inpatient. According to PW2, the cigarette lamp, diary, and other belongings of her husband have fallen in the road. The headlamp of her husband was also thrown down by the accused. She identified MO1 as the stick used by both the accused to beat her husband. MO3 is the cigarette lighter, and MO4 is the headlamp of her husband. MO5 is the pair of sandals of her husband. MO6 is the diary, MO7 is the comb, MO8 is the pen. MO9 is the shirt worn by her husband at the time of the incident. MO10 is the dhoti worn by the 1st accused, and MO11 is the dhoti worn by the 2nd accused at the time of the commission of the offence. PW2 identified both the accused in the dock. According to her, the accused were having previous enmity with her husband, and it was on account of such enmity that they attacked her husband. 9. Similarly, when the younger son of the deceased, who was aged only 13 years at the time of the occurrence, was examined as PW3, he deposed that the incident in this case took place on 10.08.2011. During that period, he was studying in St. George High School, Manimala, in the 8th standard. On 10.08.2011, at about 8 pm, his father telephoned his mother and told her to send the children with a light to the house of Kochurani, where he was sitting. Thereafter, he and his mother went to the house of Kochurani with the headlight used by his father for rubber tapping. After spending some time there, he, along with his parents, walked back to their house. When they reached the road in front of the house of Chellapan, the 1st accused came running from near his house, uttering the words I was waiting to get you on the way) and with a stick he beat on the abdomen of his father, and thereupon his father fell down. When they reached the road in front of the house of Chellapan, the 1st accused came running from near his house, uttering the words I was waiting to get you on the way) and with a stick he beat on the abdomen of his father, and thereupon his father fell down. The 1st accused again beat his father and kicked him on his chest. When his mother attempted to intervene, the 1st accused, struck her on the head with the stick. PW3 identified MO1 as the stick used by the 1st accused. According to PW3, the 2nd accused came running from near the house of the accused and, after snatching MO1 stick from the hands of the 1st accused, he also beat his father. When PW3 cried aloud, the 1st accused snatched the umbrella (MO2) from his hands and beat his father with it, and threw it away. Thereafter, both the accused caught hold of his father’s hand and dragged him towards their house through the road leading thereto. Thereafter, both the accused pelted stones towards their own house, saying that His mother, thereafter, telephoned the police, and they went to the house of his grandparents and informed the matter. Subsequently, the police arrived, and his father was taken in the police jeep to the hospital. PW3 identified both the accused in the dock. According to PW3, the incident occurred at around 9.30 p.m., and we saw the same in the light emitted from the house of Chellappan (DW1) and also in the light of the headlamp. 10. Apart from the above-discussed eyewitnesses’ account of the incident, the evidence which the prosecution relies on to prove that the death of Shaji, the deceased in this case, was a homicide is the evidence of the Doctor who conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased. When the Doctor who conducted the autopsy was examined as PW10, he deposed that on 11.08.2011, while working as a Police Surgeon at the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, he conducted the autopsy of Shaji and issued a postmortem certificate. The postmortem certificate issued by PW10 was marked as Ext.P6. According to PW10, he had noted the following antemortem injuries in the postmortem examination. 1. Abraded contusion on back of right shoulder 1.5 x 0.5 cme, veritical 5 cm below top of shoulder. 2. The postmortem certificate issued by PW10 was marked as Ext.P6. According to PW10, he had noted the following antemortem injuries in the postmortem examination. 1. Abraded contusion on back of right shoulder 1.5 x 0.5 cme, veritical 5 cm below top of shoulder. 2. Vertical graze abrasions seen on right side of back of chest 20 cm below top of shoulder, inner end at midline 26x15 cm, vertical with central abraded contusion on 8x5 cm. 3. Contusion on back of left shoulder 2x0.5 cm, vertical 7 cm below top of shoulder. 4. Abraded contusion on left side of back of chest 7x2.5 cm, transverse, 22 cm below top of shoulder with a central pale area of 4x1 cm. 5. Abraded contusion on left side of front of chest 11 x 2.5 cm transverse, 4 cm below nipple and the front and at midline region with central pal area of 6 x 1 cm. 6. Vertical graze abrasion on back of left side of chest 20 x 15 cm vertical lower end, 5 cm above top of hip bone. 7. Abraded contusion on outer aspect of right ankle 2 x 2 cm. 8. Abraded contusion on top of left shoulder 2 x 2 cm. 9. Abraded contusion on top of left shoulder 6 cm inner to injury No.7. 10. Abraded contusion on left deltoid dominance 2 x 2 cm. 11.Abraded contusion on inner aspect of left belbow 3 x 3 cm. 12. Abraded contusion on back of left hand 1 x 1 cm, 2 cm above left middle finger knuckle. 13. Abraded contusion onout aspect of left bflank 7 x 5 cm, vertical 12 cm above top of hip bone. 14. Lacerated wound on inner aspect of left side of upper lip 1 x 1 cm muscle deep. 15. Lacerated wound on inner aspect of right side of upper lip 0.5 x 0.5 muscle deep. 16. Abraded contusion on right frontal eminence 2 x 2 cm. 17. Abraded contusion on inner aspect of right eyebrow 1 x 1 cm. 18. Abraded contusion on right cheek 6 x 6 cm. 19. Lacerated wound on right parietal region 4 x 0.5 cm. Front to abc direction, 8 cm above top of right ear, bone deep. 20. Lacerated wound on right parietal region 4 x 0.5 cm, front to back direction 3 cm above injury No.18. 18. Abraded contusion on right cheek 6 x 6 cm. 19. Lacerated wound on right parietal region 4 x 0.5 cm. Front to abc direction, 8 cm above top of right ear, bone deep. 20. Lacerated wound on right parietal region 4 x 0.5 cm, front to back direction 3 cm above injury No.18. Bone deep scalp contusion underneath over an area of 6 x 6 cm, skull intact. The brain congested. 21. Laceration of apex of left side of heart 2 x 2 cm, through and through entered the left ventricle with the intact pericardium contained 220 gm of blood clot. 11. Referring to Ext.P6 Postmortem certificate, PW10 opined that death was due to blunt injuries sustained to the heart. Similarly, when PW10 was confronted with MO1 stick, he deposed that injury Nos.4 and 5 can be caused by a weapon like that. He further deposed that injury No.6 was possible by dragging a body through the ground while in a living state, and that all other injuries could be caused by stamping and fisting. During re- examination PW10 stated that on a forcible stamping even without fracture of ribs, rupture of heart is possible. A conjoint reading of the evidence of PW10, the Doctor, and the postmortem certificate prepared by him establishes beyond doubt that the death of Shaji, the deceased in this case, was homicidal in nature. 12. The Circle Inspector of Police, Manimala, who conducted the major part of the investigation in this case, was examined as PW15. According to him, it was on 11.08.2011, he took over the investigation in this case. According to PW15, as part of the investigation, he reached the mortuary of Taluk Hospital Kanjirappally, where the dead body of the deceased was kept, and conducted an inquest in the presence of independent witnesses. Thereafter, he forwarded the dead body for autopsy examination to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. Subsequently, he visited the crime scene and prepared Ext.P3 scene mahazar. A pair of chappals, pen, umbrella, pocket diary, comb, and other artcles which were found at the crime scene, were also seized after describing in Ext.P3 scene mahazar. Thereafter, PW15 got an information that both the accused in this case had appeared before the SHO, Manimala Police Station. Accordingly, he proceeded to the Police Station and interrogated both the accused. A pair of chappals, pen, umbrella, pocket diary, comb, and other artcles which were found at the crime scene, were also seized after describing in Ext.P3 scene mahazar. Thereafter, PW15 got an information that both the accused in this case had appeared before the SHO, Manimala Police Station. Accordingly, he proceeded to the Police Station and interrogated both the accused. Being convinced of the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence, both were arrested. Thereafter, he interrogated both the accused, and during interrogation, the 1st accused made a disclosure that On the basis of the said disclosure made by the accused, and as led by the accused, he reached the house of the accused. Thereafter, the 1st accused took a key from inside a heap of bricks and using it he opened the front door of his house. Thereafter, the 1st accused took a stick which was kept under a cot in the bedroom of the said house. According to PW15, the stick so taken and handed over to him by the 1st accused was recovered by him after describing in Ext.P4 recovery mahazar. According to PW15, the further part of the investigation of this case was conducted by his successor in office. 13. The prosecution is having a definite case that prior to the incident in this case, the accused were at loggerheads with the deceased, and that such animosity impelled them to commit the present offence. While considering whether the prosecution succeeded in proving the motive alleged, it is to be noted that when the wife of the deceased was examined as PW2 she categorically deposed that the accused were in a feud with the deceased, and it was due to such enmity, they murdered her husband. Notably, during cross-examination, to a definite question put by the learned defence counsel, PW2 deposed that prior to the incident in this case, the accused had, on one occasion, filed a complaint against her husband at Manimala Police Station. She further stated that the complaint was filed on 01.05.2008, pursuant to which the Police summoned her husband to the Police Station, where she also accompanied him. According to PW2, apart from the said case on 05.08.2014, the wife of the 2nd accused lodged a complaint against PW2’s husband. PW2 deposed that she came to know about this complaint when the Police informed her over the Phone. According to PW2, apart from the said case on 05.08.2014, the wife of the 2nd accused lodged a complaint against PW2’s husband. PW2 deposed that she came to know about this complaint when the Police informed her over the Phone. The above evidence of PW2 clearly indicates that on two different occasions, the accused had lodged complaint against the deceased at Manimala Police Station. Therefore, it is apparent that there existed animosity and disputes between the deceased and the accused. In essence, it is liable to be held that no further proof is required to establish the motive alleged by the prosecution. However, it is equally pertinent to note that this case is essentially built upon direct ocular evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. In such circumstances, proof of motive is not sin qua non. When there is a direct eyewitness account of the occurrence, proof of motive assumes little significance. 14. The crucial evidence that the prosecution relies upon to prove the occurrence is the evidence of PW2 and PW3, who are the wife and son of the deceased, respectively. A perusal of the evidence given by PW2 reveals that she gave a vivid account of the incident that culminated in the death of her husband. Although she was subjected to piercing cross-examination, she withstood it successfully. Her testimony is free from contradictions and omissions of even minor nature. More importantly, while considering the reliability of the evidence of PW2, first of all, it is to be noted that she is having a case that, in the incident, she also sustained injuries. Her evidence reveals that when she saw her husband being brutally attacked by the 1st accused, she pleaded not to attack her husband. But the 1st accused beat her on the left side of her head, causing serious injuries. Moreover, she deposed that immediately after the incident, she went to Sushalayam Hospital at Kuttikkattuvalavu, where she was treated as an inpatient. 15. When the Doctor who examined PW2 at Sushalayam Hospital was examined as PW14, he deposed that on 10.08.2011 at 11.00 p.m., he examined one Beena Shaji (PW2) and on examination, a lacerated wound 6x1x1cm over the left side of the scalp parieto-occipital region was noted. According to PW14, the alleged history furnished was that assault with a stick by neighbours. When the Doctor who examined PW2 at Sushalayam Hospital was examined as PW14, he deposed that on 10.08.2011 at 11.00 p.m., he examined one Beena Shaji (PW2) and on examination, a lacerated wound 6x1x1cm over the left side of the scalp parieto-occipital region was noted. According to PW14, the alleged history furnished was that assault with a stick by neighbours. The wound certificate prepared by PW14 relating to the examination of PW2 was marked as Ext.P9. When PW14 was confronted with MO1 stick, he opined that injury noted by him on the examination of PW2 can be caused by a weapon like MO1. During cross examination, referring to Ext.P9 wound certificate, PW14 deposed that the alleged history was that However, PW14 deposed that he did not remember who exactly had furnished that history to him. 16. The above-discussed evidence of PW14, together with Ext P9 wound certificate, lends sufficient corroboration to the evidence of PW2 that she too sustained injury during the same incident. Similarly, the medical evidence reveals that immediately after the occurrence, PW2 was taken to the hospital and on examination, injuries corresponding to the overt act attributed to the 1st accused were noted in the medical examination. The serious nature of the injuries and the part of the body on which the same was inflicted clearly shows that the injuries sustained by PW2 was not a self-inflicted one. 17. While analyzing the evidence of PW2, it is important to note that it is well settled through a catena of judicial pronouncements that the testimony of injured witnesses carries special evidentiary value. Ordinarily, such a witness would not falsely implicate an innocent person, thereby letting the actual assailant go unpunished. In Brahm Swaroop and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 2011 SC 280 , the Supreme Court held that: “The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, and this lends support to his testimony that he was present at the time of occurrence. The testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. Such a witness comes with a built in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone. Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness. The testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. Such a witness comes with a built in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone. Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness. Thus, the evidence of an injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.” 18. In essence, there is no illegality in convicting an accused in a criminal case on the basis of the evidence of injured witnesses, provided such evidence is convincing and reliable. The evidence that the injured witnesses guarantee is primarily with respect to their presence at the scene of occurrence and the fact that they sustained injuries during the incident. However, it can not be laid as an inflexible rule that the testimony of an injured witness must be considered as gospel truth in every circumstance. If there is a reasonable possibility of false implication or if contradictions and material discrepancies are apparent in their evidence, such testimony must be viewed with care and circumspection. In the present case, the evidence of PW2, the injured witness, is convincing and reliable. She withstood the cross-examination successfully, and her evidence is free from material contradictions and omissions. More pertinently, her evidence is amply corroborated by the testimony of PW3, who is her minor son, who was also allegedly present at the time of the commission of the offence and had no apparent motive to falsely implicate the accused. 19. The evidence of PW2 is mainly assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant on the ground of the relationship of PW2 with the deceased. According to the learned counsel, PW2 being the wife of the deceased, she is a partisan witness and her interested testimony cannot form a basis for a conviction in this case. It was urged that it is unsafe to rely on the evidence of a relative witness to enter upon a conclusion of guilt against the accused. While considering the appellant’s contention in the above regard, it should not be forgotten that there is no rigid or inflexible rule that the evidence of a related witness should be viewed with suspicion under all circumstances. While considering the appellant’s contention in the above regard, it should not be forgotten that there is no rigid or inflexible rule that the evidence of a related witness should be viewed with suspicion under all circumstances. However, while considering the reliability of the evidence of a relative witness, the court must be very cautious and must act with discerning circumspection. Therefore, we are of the strong view that the contention of the appellant that the evidence of PW2 is liable to be discarded at the threshold solely on the ground that she is a relative of the deceased cannot be accepted. 20. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Rayappa and others [ (2006) 4 SCC 512 ], the Supreme Court observed as under: “Testimony of a witness otherwise inspiring confidence cannot be discarded on the ground that he being a relation of the deceased is an interested witness. A close relative who is a very natural witness cannot be termed as an interested witness. The term interested postulates that the person concerned must have some direct interest in seeing the accused person being convicted somehow or the other either because of animosity or some other reasons. On the contrary, it has now almost become a fashion that the public is reluctant to appear and depose before the court especially in criminal cases because of varied reasons. Criminal cases are kept dragging on for years to come and the witnesses are harassed a lot. They have been threatened, intimidated and at the top of all they are subjected to lengthy cross-examination. In such a situation the only natural witness available to the prosecution would be the relative witness. The relative witness is not necessarily an interested witness. On the other hand, being a close relation to the deceased they will try to prosecute the real culprit by stating the truth. There is no reason as to why a close relative will implicate and depose falsely against somebody and screen the real culprit to escape unpunished. The only requirement is that the testimony of the relative witness should be examined cautiously.” 21. In Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar [ (1996) 1 SCC 614 ], it was observed that a close relative who is a natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness. The only requirement is that the testimony of the relative witness should be examined cautiously.” 21. In Kartik Malhar v. State of Bihar [ (1996) 1 SCC 614 ], it was observed that a close relative who is a natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness. The term “interested” postulates that the witness must have some interest in having the accused somehow or the other convicted for some animosity or for some other reasons. 22. Keeping in mind the above-mentioned principles enumerated by a series of judicial pronouncements, while analyzing the evidence of PW9, it is significant to note that she testified about an incident in which her husband had tragically lost his life, allegedly at the hands of the accused. Even the accused did not have a case that PW2 had any animosity or grudge of such a nature towards the accused that would motivate her to falsely implicate them in a grave murder case like this. Therefore, it defies common sense to categorize PW2 as an interested witness and to doubt her testimony solely on the basis of her relationship with the deceased. 23. We are conscious of the fact that since PW2 is a close relative of the deceased, it is the duty of this Court to act with much care and circumspection while evaluating her evidence. In the present case, as already noted, the serious nature of the injuries sustained by PW2 itself guarantees her presence at the crime scene. The evidence of PW2, read along with that of PW3, her son, clearly establishes that on seeing her husband being brutally attacked by the 1st accused, PW2 attempted to intervene to rescue him. The 1st accused, however, did not spare her either, and the 1st accused struck her on the head with a stick. As already stated, there is ample medical evidence corroborating her version that she also sustained a serious lacerated injury on her head. Therefore, we find no reason to suspect the presence of PW2 at the crime scene or to doubt her testimony that she witnessed the incident. 24. Likewise, PW3, the son of the deceased, vividly portrayed the entire sequence of events before the court. He also deposed in a convincing manner as to how the incident commenced, developed, and ultimately ended. The evidence of PW2 and PW3 particularly regarding the material aspects of the incident, are mutually corroborative. 24. Likewise, PW3, the son of the deceased, vividly portrayed the entire sequence of events before the court. He also deposed in a convincing manner as to how the incident commenced, developed, and ultimately ended. The evidence of PW2 and PW3 particularly regarding the material aspects of the incident, are mutually corroborative. PW2 and PW3 are also eye witnesses to the incident. Their depositions while corroborating each other in material particulars are also consistent and have withstood cross examination. Their depositions would therefore qualify as of sterling quality within the meaning of that phrase as laid down by the Supreme Court in Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) – [ (2012) 8 SCC 21 ] as follows: “In our considered opinion, the “sterling witness” should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called a “sterling witness” whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to seive the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.” 25. From the outset of the argument, the consistent attempt of the learned counsel for the appellants was to establish that the acts attributed to the accused would not constitute culpable homicide. Relying on the evidence of the defence witness as well as that of PW1, it was submitted that it was the deceased who initially provoked the incident by pelting stones at the house of the accused, creating a horrendous situation in the vicinity of their house. It was further contended that the deceased, who had come in an inebriated mood after consuming liquor, was not in a position to control himself and fell down on several occasions, thereby sustaining the injuries in question. Although the learned counsel for the appellant, by relying on the evidence of PW1 and DW1 attempted to impress upon us that the injuries sustained by the deceased were the result of such an accidental fall, we cannot agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard for reasons more than one. The nature, gravity, and location of the injuries rule out such possibility. Moreover, the consistent evidence of PW2 and PW3 establishes that the injuries were the result of the overt acts of the accused. The nature, gravity, and location of the injuries rule out such possibility. Moreover, the consistent evidence of PW2 and PW3 establishes that the injuries were the result of the overt acts of the accused. In such circumstances, even a detailed discussion as to whether the injuries could have been sustained in fall is unnecessary. Moreover the evidence of the Doctor who conducted the autopsy, also leads to an irresistible conclusion that this case is a clear instance of culpable homicide. 26. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that all the main overt acts have been attributed to the 1st accused. It was he who, allegedly, on seeing the deceased, rushed to the scene and commenced the attack. The evidence of PW2 clearly establishes that it was the 1st accused who struck the deceased on the abdomen with a stick. Her testimony further reveals that when the deceased collapsed due to the said blow, the 1st accused stamped forcefully on his chest 3 or 4 times. It was thereafter, the 2nd accused, the father of the deceased, arrived at the scene. It is true that as per the evidence of PW2, after rushing to the scene, the 2nd accused allegedly snatched the stick, which was the weapon of offence in this case, from the hands of the 1st accused and beat the deceased. It is relevant to note that the evidence of PW10, the Doctor who conducted the autopsy of the deceased, opined that the death was due to the blunt injury sustained to the heart. It is relevant to note that neither PW2 nor PW3 had a case that any of the accused beat on the chest of the deceased using MO1 stick. On the contrary their consistent testimony is that it was on the abdomen of the deceased, the 1st accused struck hard. However, PW2 categorically deposed that due to the said blow on the abdomen, the deceased collapsed, and thereafter the 1st accused stamped on the deceased’s chest three or four times. Pertinently, during examination before court, PW10, the Doctor deposed that on a forceful stamping even without fracture of ribs, rupture or heart is possible. Therefore, it is evident that the fatal blunt injury to the heart, which, according to the Doctor, resulted in the death of the deceased, was due to the forceful stamping of the 1st accused on the chest of the deceased. Therefore, it is evident that the fatal blunt injury to the heart, which, according to the Doctor, resulted in the death of the deceased, was due to the forceful stamping of the 1st accused on the chest of the deceased. Notably, at the time when the said injury was inflicted by the 1st accused, the 2nd accused was not even present at the scene of occurrence. 27. In light of the above factual matrix, the next question that arose is whether the 2nd accused can be held liable for the overt acts of the 1st accused which culminated in the death of the deceased with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code . It is trite in criminal jurisprudence that only a person who actually commits the offence is liable to be punished. However, Section 34 lays down a principle of joint liability in a criminal act, the essence of it is to be found in a common intention. Even when separate acts are done by two or more persons in furtherance of such common intention, each person is liable for the result of all the acts, as if all every act had been done by all of them. Section 34 is only a rule of evidence which attracts the principle of joint criminal liability and does not create any distinct substantive offence. The distinctive feature of Section 34 is the element of participation in action and intention of each one of the accused should be known to the rest of the accused. Mere participation is not sufficient to attribute common intention. Common intention can be inferred from proved facts and circumstances and the same can develop during the course of an occurrence or at the spot. This section does not whittle down the liability of the principal offender committing the principal act but additionally makes all other offenders liable. The question whether the prosecution has established common intention in a given case has to be decided on the basis of the proved facts. In other words, the prosecution is required to prove a premeditated intention of all the accused. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code , is really intended to meet a case in which it is difficult to distinguish between the acts of individual members of a group and prove exactly what part was played by each of them. In other words, the prosecution is required to prove a premeditated intention of all the accused. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code , is really intended to meet a case in which it is difficult to distinguish between the acts of individual members of a group and prove exactly what part was played by each of them. To attract Section 34 of IPC, no overt act is needed on the part of the accused if they share common intention with others in respect of the ultimate criminal act, which may be done by any one of the accused sharing such intention. Common intention implies acting in concert. Existence of a prearranged plan has to be proved either from the conduct of the accused, or from circumstances or from any incriminating facts. It is not enough to have the same intention independently of each other [see Chhota Ahirwar v. State of M.P. (2020) 4 SCC 126 ]. 28. Now, while reverting to the facts of the present case, it can be seen that when the fatal injury was inflicted on the chest by the 1st accused, the 2nd accused was not even present at the scene of occurrence. It was only thereafter that he rushed to the spot. We are not unmindful that a common intention may develop on the spur of moment. However, the proved facts in the said case reveals that there is nothing to show that there was a prior concert or existence of a pre-arranged plan. On the contrary, the sequence of events demonstrates that the 2nd accused arrived at the scene only after witnessing the first phase of the incident. Therefore, it is difficult to hold that he shared a common intention with the 1st accused to commit culpable homicide of the deceased. As already stated by the time when the 2nd accused reached the scene, the main overt act which led to the death of the deceased had already taken place. The evidence of PW2 and PW3 indicates that immediately upon his arrival, the 2nd accused snatched the stick from the hands of the 1st accused and assaulted the deceased on his head and body. However, during cross-examination PW2 admitted she had not stated before the Police that the 2nd accused had struck on the head. 29. The evidence of PW2 and PW3 indicates that immediately upon his arrival, the 2nd accused snatched the stick from the hands of the 1st accused and assaulted the deceased on his head and body. However, during cross-examination PW2 admitted she had not stated before the Police that the 2nd accused had struck on the head. 29. Likewise, both PW2 and PW3 deposed that thereafter both the accused together dragged the deceased near their house and again assaulted him. Nevertheless, the evidence makes it clear that none of the acts attributed to the 2nd accused led to the death of the deceased, instead it was the overt acts of the 1st accused resulted in the death of the deceased. 30. As we have already stated, in the absence of any material to show prior concert or pre-arranged plan, it is difficult to hold that the 2nd accused shared a common intention with the 1st accused to commit culpable homicide. It is true that PW2 deposed that at the time of beating the deceased, the 2nd accused uttered that (I will do away with you). However, verbal exhortation of this nature, unaccompanied by any fatal overt act and unsupported by any common intention, cannot by itself fasten liability on the 2nd accused under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC. While engaging in a quarrel or assaults, it is not uncommon for participants to raise threats or exhortation in a heat of passions. Such utterances however by themselves, cannot be taken as conclusive proof that the accused actually intended to carry out the threat. 31. In short, the evidence establishes that the 2nd accused was not sharing a common intention with the 1st accused to cause the death of the deceased. Mere participation in assualt is not sufficient to attribute common intention. Consequently, the 2nd accused cannot be held liable for the fatal acts of the 1st accused with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code . Nonetheless, the proved facts and circumstances unmistakably show that the acts of the 2nd accused amount to an offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. 32. The question that remains to be considered is as to the offence committed by the 1st accused. Nonetheless, the proved facts and circumstances unmistakably show that the acts of the 2nd accused amount to an offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. 32. The question that remains to be considered is as to the offence committed by the 1st accused. Culpable homicide is murder only if the act by which the death is caused is one that must have been done by the accused with the intention of causing the death of the victim as provided for under the first limb of Section 300 IPC or with intention of causing a bodily injury to the victim as the accused knows to be likely to cause his death as provided under the second limb of Section 300 IPC or with the intention of causing a bodily injury to the victim, which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death, as provided under the third limb of Section 300 IPC or with the knowledge that that act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability, cause the death of the victim or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause the death of the victim and committed such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid, as provided under the fourth limb of Section 300 IPC [See Satheesh @ Kunchan v. State of Kerala – ( 2024 KHC 495 ) and Francis @ Sekofy v. State of Kerala ( 2024 KHC 506 ]. 33. Now, while considering the question of whether the 1st accused bore any intention to cause the death of the deceased, it is to be noted that intention is a state of mind. No one can directly perceive the mind of a person. Therefore, intention can only be inferred from the proved facts and circumstances of each case. Inference regarding intention may be drawn from the conduct of the accused at the crime scene, the nature of the weapon used, the part of the body where the injury was inflicted, the force used in such infliction etc. We are cognizant that the above list is, of course illustrative and not exhaustive. In the case at hand, it is evident that from the beginning of the incident, the 1st accused was holding a stick in his hand. We are cognizant that the above list is, of course illustrative and not exhaustive. In the case at hand, it is evident that from the beginning of the incident, the 1st accused was holding a stick in his hand. The evidence of PW2 and PW3 establishes that it was on the abdomen of the deceased that the 1st accused gave the first blow. Due to the said blow, when the deceased fell down the accused repeatedly stamped on his chest three or four times. None of the witnesses have stated that the 2nd accused inflicted any other fatal blows on any vital part of the body of the deceased, including the head, though he had an ample opportunity to do so while the deceased was lying on the ground. 34. The circumstances proved in the case are not sufficient to hold that the accused intended to cause the death of the victim or that he intended to cause a bodily injury on the victim which is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Likewise, the circumstances are also not sufficient to hold that the act was one committed by the accused with the knowledge that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death and committed such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury aforesaid. In essence, the act of the 1st accused also will not fall under the 4th limb of Section 300 of IPC. But at the same time, one who stamps on the chest of another three or four times must certainly be attributed with the knowledge that by such act he is likely to cause death. If that be so, the act committed by the 1st accused would fall under the 3rd limb of Section 299 of IPC, and he is liable to be convicted under Part of II of 304 of IPC. Moreover, the proved facts clearly establish the commission of an offence under Section 324 of the IPC by both the accused. If that be so, the act committed by the 1st accused would fall under the 3rd limb of Section 299 of IPC, and he is liable to be convicted under Part of II of 304 of IPC. Moreover, the proved facts clearly establish the commission of an offence under Section 324 of the IPC by both the accused. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed in part, altering the conviction of the 1st appellant/1st accused under Section 302 IPC to one under Section 304 Part II of IPC, and he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of eight years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the 1st accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. For offence punishable under Section 324 IPC, the 1st accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The substantive sentences imposed on the 1st accused shall run concurrently. The 2nd appellant/2nd accused is found not guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC, and he is acquitted on the said charge. However, he is found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, and he is convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the 2nd accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months. The fine amount, if realised or paid, the same shall be given to the wife of the deceased as compensation as provided under Section 357 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C.