JUDGMENT : N. Tukaramji, J. 1. This appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘CrPC’) against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.05.2016 in Sessions Case No.91 of 2011 passed by the XII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vikarabad, Ranga Reddy District. 2. We have heard Mr. T.Pradyumna Kumar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for appellant Nos.1 and 3/accused Nos.1 and 3, Ms. G.Jaya Reddy, learned counsel for appellant Nos.2 and 4/accused Nos.2 and 4 and Mr.C.Damodar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr.C.Ruthwik Reddy, learned counsel on record for appellant No.5/accused No.5 and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State. 3. In the impugned judgment the appellants/convicts/accused Nos.1 to 5 (hereinafter ‘accused’) were convicted for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘ IPC ’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default simple imprisonment for six months and also convicted for the offence under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs.500/- in default simple imprisonment for three months. 4.1. The prosecution’s case, in brief, is as follows: K. Ananthappa (PW-1) lodged a police report (Ex.P-1) stating that his father (the deceased) and mother (the injured/PW-2) were residents of Gottigakalan village. On 13.11.2010, while his father was at a shop near the house of PW-4 purchasing beedies, accused Nos. 4 and 5, who were intoxicated, confronted and assaulted his father. Frightened, his father returned home. However, at approximately 8 p.m. the same day, accused Nos. 1 to 5, harboring previous enmity and acting with a common intention to kill, entered their house and attacked his father with sticks and a pestle, inflicting bleeding injuries to his head and limbs, causing him to lose consciousness. When his mother (PW-2) tried to intervene and protect her husband, the accused also assaulted her with sticks. Subsequently, a neighbour (PW-3) transported the injured victims to the Government Hospital and informed PW-1 of the incident by telephone. Upon arriving at the hospital, PW-1 was advised by the doctor to shift his father to Osmania General Hospital for better treatment, where his father later succumbed to his injuries. 4.2. Subsequently, a neighbour (PW-3) transported the injured victims to the Government Hospital and informed PW-1 of the incident by telephone. Upon arriving at the hospital, PW-1 was advised by the doctor to shift his father to Osmania General Hospital for better treatment, where his father later succumbed to his injuries. 4.2. Further investigation revealed that the deceased had previously killed one Tallari Venkatappa, for which a case was registered and he was arrested but later released on bail. Against this backdrop, the accused allegedly conspired to eliminate the deceased. On the day of the incident, accused Nos. 4 and 5 picked a quarrel with the deceased near the house of Boya Chandrappa (PW-4) and assaulted him. PW-4 intervened, pacified the situation, and sent the deceased home. Later that evening, at about 8 p.m., accused Nos. 1 to 5 went to the deceased’s house and attacked him with a pestle, causing severe bleeding injuries that rendered him unconscious. The attempt by his wife (PW-2) to save him was unsuccessful, and she too was assaulted with sticks and a pestle. The victims were taken to the hospital for treatment, and on 20.11.2010, the deceased passed away. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the matter, framed charges under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34 of the IPC . During the trial, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 16, marked Exhibits P-1 to P-34, and produced Material Objects 1 to 3. Upon analyzing the evidence, the trial Court found the testimony of the eyewitness (PW-2) credible and relied on the recovery of weapons at the instance of the accused. The Court held that the charges were proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned above. 6. Learned counsel for the accused contended that the Sessions Judge failed to properly appreciate discrepancies in the evidence of PW-2 and other material evidence presented by the prosecution. It was argued that PWs. 3 to 6, PWs. 8 to 13, and the mediator for confession (PW-14) did not support the prosecution’s case. Therefore, relying solely on the interested and unreliable testimony of PW-2 would be improper. Counsel further emphasized that, according to PW-3, PW-2 was not present at the time of the incident near PW-4’s house, and that PW-2 had not witnessed all the accused, nor described any overt acts by them. Therefore, relying solely on the interested and unreliable testimony of PW-2 would be improper. Counsel further emphasized that, according to PW-3, PW-2 was not present at the time of the incident near PW-4’s house, and that PW-2 had not witnessed all the accused, nor described any overt acts by them. Notably, PW-3 clarified that there was no electricity in the village at the relevant time, casting doubt on the identification of the accused. Thus, it was argued, there is insufficient evidence to convict the accused, and no motive has been established, as the accused were not related to Tallari Venkatappa, the deceased in the previous case. Furthermore, the medical evidence does not corroborate the prosecution’s version, as the doctor testified that the injuries could have been caused by sticks, contradicting the alleged use of a pestle. Additionally, the doctor stated that none of the injuries were fatal in the ordinary course of nature. In the absence of any deadly weapon, conviction under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC cannot be sustained. Accordingly, counsel prayed for reconsideration and acquittal of the accused. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of PW-2, the injured eyewitness, clearly establishes the involvement of the accused and their intentional attack, resulting in the death of her husband/the deceased and injuries to herself/PW-2. As the offence is proved by direct evidence, motive becomes unnecessary. Moreover, the fact that the accused attacked the deceased twice on the same day demonstrates premeditation rather than sudden provocation. Therefore, the trial Court correctly analyzed the evidence in finding the accused guilty. The contentions raised by the accused in the appeal are insufficient to overturn the reliable evidence on record. 8. In this position the aspect falls for determination is whether the conviction of the accused under Sections 302 , 324 r/w 34 IPC is sustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The prosecution presented the wife of the deceased (PW-2) as a direct eyewitness and an injured participant in the incident. PW-2’s testimony confirms that she sustained injuries during the occurrence, which are substantiated by the medical evidence provided by the doctor (PW-12). Since the incident took place in the late evening at her residence, PW-2’s presence at the scene is both natural and credible. The injuries she sustained further corroborate her account. PW-2’s testimony confirms that she sustained injuries during the occurrence, which are substantiated by the medical evidence provided by the doctor (PW-12). Since the incident took place in the late evening at her residence, PW-2’s presence at the scene is both natural and credible. The injuries she sustained further corroborate her account. Additionally, PW-3, a neighbour, testified that he transported both the deceased and PW-2 to the hospital, thereby supporting and strengthening PW-2’s version of events. 10. The combined testimonies of PWs. 2 and 3 regarding the incident and the subsequent transportation of the victims to the hospital, along with the evidence from the deceased’s son (PW-1) and a friend (PW-9) who visited the injured parties, provide a consistent narrative. This is further supported by the medical testimony of PW-12, who treated PW-2, and the findings in the post-mortem examination report (Ex.P-28) prepared by PW-15, who conducted the autopsy. Collectively, this evidence establishes the occurrence of the assault at the home of PW-2 and the deceased, the immediate medical treatment provided, and the death of the deceased as a result of multiple injuries. 11. Based on the above evidence, it is clear that the prosecution has successfully established the occurrence of the crime, the injuries sustained by PW-2, and the transportation of the deceased to the hospital. 12. The next essential aspect for consideration is the involvement of the accused. According to the prosecution, the incident unfolded in two locations: first, near the house of PW-4, and subsequently, inside the residence of PW-2 and the deceased. To substantiate these events, PWs. 2 to 4 were examined. PW-3, a resident of the village, witnessed the incident and assisted in taking the injured to the hospital. PW-4, near whose house the first altercation occurred, testified that accused Nos. 4 and 5 assaulted the deceased, and upon his intervention, both parties dispersed. However, during the trial, the prosecution sought and was granted permission to cross-examine these witnesses as they deviated from certain earlier statement. 13. It is a well-established legal principle that the testimony of such witnesses should not be dismissed outright. Instead, the Court must exercise caution and seek corroboration to ensure reliability. However, during the trial, the prosecution sought and was granted permission to cross-examine these witnesses as they deviated from certain earlier statement. 13. It is a well-established legal principle that the testimony of such witnesses should not be dismissed outright. Instead, the Court must exercise caution and seek corroboration to ensure reliability. If the testimony of such witnesses remains unshaken under cross- examination and is found credible, it can be used to support the evidence of other witnesses (See Lella Srinivas Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh , AIR 2004 (9) SC 713 ; Y. Bai Prema Shanker Bai v. State of Gujarat , 2011 SCC Cri 1489 ). 14. Therefore, the evidence of PWs. 2 to 4 requires careful scrutiny. Notably, PW-4 did not provide any substantive facts or circumstances regarding the incidents. 15. Upon a thorough analysis, the accounts of PWs. 2 and 3 are consistent regarding the sequence of events both near PW-4’s house and inside the residence of PW-2 and the deceased. Their testimonies align on the involvement of the accused and the manner in which the assaults occurred, despite some variations in detail. 16. Specifically, the allegation that accused No. 5 attacked PW-2 during the initial altercation is consistent. Furthermore, PW-2’s statement that accused No. 2 kicked her remains unchallenged during cross-examination. While PW-1 mentioned the presence of accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4 and PW-3 did not confirm their presence, at the first scene. Having said that, at the second scene, PW-2 identified accused Nos. 1 to 3, and PW-3 testified that he warned accused Nos. 1 to 5 not to enter the deceased’s house, and subsequently saw them entering. 17. Regarding the events inside the house, PW-2 testified that accused No. 1 struck her, accused No. 2 kicked her chest and hit her leg with a pestle, causing her to lose consciousness. After the initial altercation, she observed her husband bleeding from the ears, nose, and mouth, and stated that accused No. 1 hit her from behind on the neck and punched her back. PW-3 recalled that the deceased collapsed in the ‘Mori’ (drain), and he assisted him, but did not mention any specific injuries to the deceased. 18. After the initial altercation, she observed her husband bleeding from the ears, nose, and mouth, and stated that accused No. 1 hit her from behind on the neck and punched her back. PW-3 recalled that the deceased collapsed in the ‘Mori’ (drain), and he assisted him, but did not mention any specific injuries to the deceased. 18. According to the medical evidence, PW-12 documented an injury to PW-2’s left forearm, while PW-15, who performed the autopsy, noted ante-mortem injuries on the deceased, including a fracture of the left forearm, contusions on the scalp, and diffuse subdural and subarachnoid hemorrhages throughout the brain. The cause of death was recorded as “multiple injuries.” While there are some discrepancies between the medical and oral evidence, it is clear that the deceased sustained these injuries during the incidents before being taken to the hospital. Although the defense contests the lack of direct evidence, the collective facts and circumstances established by the witnesses confirm the presence and involvement of the accused in both episodes, resulting in injuries to PW-2 and the deceased. Therefore, the trial Court’s conclusion that the accused inflicted these injuries is justified and deserves affirmation. 19. The remaining issue is whether the acts committed by the accused meet the criteria for the charged offences. 20. From the above discussion, it is evident that the accused assaulted both the deceased and PW-2. There is no evidence of weapon used in the first incident; however, in the second, the use of sticks and a pestle was alleged. PW-15, the autopsy doctor, clarified that the injuries on the deceased could have been caused by sticks, and the injury to PW-2 did not necessarily involve a pestle. Additionally, the doctors did not identify any injury that would ordinarily cause death. 21. These factors lead to the conclusion that while the accused intended to cause grievous hurt, there is insufficient evidence to prove an intention to cause death. It is also established law that the manner in which a stick is used can render it a deadly weapon. Although the head injuries inflicted with sticks were fatal, in the absence of clear intent to cause death, and considering the nature of the injuries, the offence committed falls within the ambit of Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC . Although the head injuries inflicted with sticks were fatal, in the absence of clear intent to cause death, and considering the nature of the injuries, the offence committed falls within the ambit of Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC . PW-2’s injuries are simple, and the medical evidence does not support the use of any weapon in her case, making the offence one of voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323 IPC . 22 . For the afore-stated reasons, the conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 324 read with Section 34 IPC are set aside, and the accused are instead convicted under Sections 325 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC . 23. Given the modification of the conviction, the sentence must also be reconsidered. Taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offence, the accused are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for FIVE YEARS and a fine of Rs.2,000/- (in default, simple imprisonment for six months) for the offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC . Additionally, they are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ONE YEAR and a fine of Rs. 500/- (in default, simple imprisonment for three months) for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC . Both sentences shall run concurrently. The period already undergone by the accused and any fine paid shall be set off. 24. In the above terms, the appeal is allowed in part. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.