The facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal canbe stated thus:-(a) The accused/appellants and the deceased one Ramalingam werenatives of Semangalam village.The deceased was cultivating six silk cottontrees for which there was a quarrel and dispute between the parties.P.W.1 isthe daughter of the deceased.Due to enmity that arose on the cultivation ofthose trees, on 27.3.1996 at about 9.30 a.m. A1 to A4 came to the house ofthe deceased.At that time, A1 pulled down a thatched shed in front of hishouse and took a bamboo stick M.O.1 , while A2 took kattamani stick and A3 and A4 also took bamboo sticks, and they attacked the deceased.In that course,P.W.1 interfered, and she was also attacked.P.W.1 took her father to AnnaiHospital, Thevur, through a bullock cart brought by P.W.3, Duraisamy, andthere, he was declared dead by the doctor.Then she went to P.W.2 the VillageAdministrative Officer, at about 3.30 p.m. The Village AdministrativeOfficer, who enquired P.W.1, did not write any statement, but prepared areport, which is marked as Ex.P1, and she was sent to Keevalur Police Stationalong with his menial with Ex.P1 report.The menial accompanied by P.W.1 went to Keevalur Police Station where P.W.7, Head Constable was available.Onreceipt of Ex.P1 receipt, he registered a case in Crime No.182/96 undersections 302 and 324 IPC.The printed First Information Report Ex.P6, wasdespatched to the Court.(b) Mr.Subbiah the Inspector of Police, took up investigation in thecase, proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar and prepared a rough sketch.It is reported that the appellants are on bail.The learnedSessions Judge shall take steps to commit the accused/A1 to prison to undergothe remaining period of sentence.The bail bonds executed by A-2 to A-4,shall stand cancelled.The Additional Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam2. --do-- through the Principal Sessions Judge,Nagapattinam.The District Collector, Nagapattinam.The DGP, ChennaiThe Public Prosecutor, Chennai.6.The Superintendent of Police,Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli.[The Judgment of the Court was delivered byM.CHOCKALINGAM,J] Aggrieved over the judgment of the Additional Sessions Court,Nagapattinam, made in SC.No.40/98 wherein the appellants stood charged, triedand found guilty for an offence under section 302 read with 34 IPC andsentenced to undergo life imprisonment, and the first appellant/A1 alone stoodfound guilty for an offence under section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo sixmonths rigorous imprisonment, the appellants have brought forth this appeal.The imprisonment for life and the rigorous imprisonment for six months imposedon the accused No.1 is ordered to be run concurrently.Due to his demise, P.W.13 the Inspector ofPolice, took up further investigation and went to the scene of occurrenceagain, and it was found correct.He examined the Inquest Report, Ex.P10prepared by the said Mr.Subbiah again.A requisition was sent to theGovernment Hospital along with dead body of the deceased Ramalingam forconduct of autopsy.(c) P.W.9 the Civil Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital,Thiruvarur, on receipt of the requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead bodyand found the following injuries:-"(1)Contusion over most of the upper part of scalp with fluctuations present.(2)Multiple small abrasions with contusion over right side neck.(3)Multiple small abrasion with contusion over middle of the right side back."The Doctor has issued a postmortem certificate Ex.P8 and has opined that thedeceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage prior to 24 hoursdue to injuries sustained.(d) P.W.1 who was found with injuries, was sent to the hospital.Shewas given treatment by P.W.8 the Doctor, and the wound certificate is markedas Ex.During investigation, the accused were arrested, and they were alsosent for judicial custody.All the material objects were despatched to theCourt with a requisition to send them for chemical analysis.Accordingly,they were subjected to chemical analysis.On completion of investigation, thefinal report was filed by the Investigation Officer.The case was committed to Court of Sessions.Necessary chargeswere framed against the appellants/ accused.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused,the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and relied on 10 exhibits and 6 materialobjects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, theaccused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P. C. as to the incriminatingcircumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which theyflatly denied as false.On the side of defence, D.W.1 was examined and nodocument was marked on their side.After hearing the arguments advanced by both sides, and onscrutiny of the materials available on record, the trial Court found theaccused guilty as per the charge and awarded punishment as referred to above,which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants inter alia wouldmake the following submissions:(ii).So far P.W.1 was concerned, she was not a witness at the timeof inquest, and thus, her evidence cannot be given any credence.A perusal ofEx.P1 would clearly reveal that it did not contain necessary particulars tocall it as a complaint.Even after Ex.P1 report was placed in the hands ofthe police, no report of P.W.1 was obtained, and thus, a case came to beregistered on the strength of the report of the Village Administrative OfficerEx.P1, which is so bald in nature.(iii).According to the prosecution, the weapons of crime viz.,bamboo sticks were recovered from the place of occurrence.It is pertinent tonote that A1 is alleged to have attacked the deceased with a bamboo stick of7+ of length which is humanly impossible in that one could not attack theother with such a weighty stick.(iv).Though the occurrence has taken place at about 9.30 a.m., thecase came to be registered after a long delay, at about 6.45 p.m. whichremained unexplained, and there is no evidence to indicate that the appellantsshared the common intention.(v).In so far as A1 was concerned, even assuming that the case wasproved by the prosecution, there is ample evidence to indicate that there wasa quarrel between the parties from the morning.Apart from that, Ex.P1 willalso indicate that there was a quarrel preceding the occurrence, and under thecircumstances, the act of A1, even assuming to be proved, would not attractthe penal provisions of section 302 IPC, and hence, all these things have gotto be considered by this Court.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the abovecontentions.9.In the instant case, there has been a quarrel between A1 and thedeceased from morning in respect of cultivation of six silk cotton trees, andthat has culminated in the occurrence.There is no controversy that thefather of P.W.1, by name Ramalingam, was taken to the hospital from the sceneof occurrence and was declared dead.Following the inquest by theInvestigating Officer, the postmortem was also conducted by Dr.Sridharan, whowas examined as P.W.9, and the post mortem certificate was also marked asEx.P8, where from it would be quite evident that the deceased Ramalingam diedout of shock and haemorrhage.Apart from that, it is pertinent to point outthat the appellants either before the court below at the time of trial orbefore this Court, questioned the fact that Ramalingam died out of homicidalviolence.Thus, it could be safely concluded that Ramalingam died out ofhomicidal violence.10.In the instant case, P.W.1 was also injured at the time ofoccurrence.She was also treated by Dr.Vijayanthi, and the wound certificatewas also marked, wherein it is stated that she also sustained injuries at thetime of the occurrence.No circumstance or reason is brought to the notice ofthe Court why her evidence has got to be disbelieved.Itis true that she is the daughter of the deceased.Apart from that, herevidence remained uncorroborated.But a careful scrutiny of her evidencewould clearly reveal that it is trustworthy and has got to be accepted.Thus,the Court without any difficulty can accept her evidence to the extent that itwas A1 who attacked the deceased Ramalingam with bamboo stick on his head and caused the fatal injury.11.In so far as the second contention that Ex.P1 was only a report,given by Village Administrative Officer and it does not speak about thenarration of the incident, and no statement of P.W.1 was obtained by thepolice before the registration of the case, the court has to necessarilyreject the said contention since it does not stand in the way of scrutiny oflaw.It is true that P.W.1 went to P.W.2, the Village Administrative Officer,and reported the incident.P.W.2 had categorically stated that he did notrecord her statement, but only wrote her report which is marked as Ex.From the evidence of the HeadConstable, who registered the case, it could be seen that he did not get theindependent report from P.W.1 before registering the case.Thus it would bequite clear that an independent report was neither obtained by the VillageAdministrative Officer, P.W.2, or by the Head Constable, who registered thecase.But, her statement was recorded by the police officer under section 161Cr.P.C. A perusal of Ex.P1 report would clearly indicate that on thestatement made by P.W.1, P.W.2 has given the said report.Accordingly, it became the basis for registration of the case againstthe appellants.Thus, that contention has got to be rejected.But, there is suffice evidenceto hold that it was the act of A1 attacking the deceased with bamboo stickagain and caused the fatal injury, resulting in death also.There arematerials to indicate that it was the result of a quarrel between the parties.Even in Ex.P1 report by the Village Administrative Officer which came intoexistence at the instance of P.W.1, it is stated that there was a quarrelbetween the two families, as a result of which, Ramalingam was killed.At the same time, A1 committed the act with knowledge thatit would likely to cause death.Under such circumstances, the court is of theview that the offence committed by the first appellant, would fall within theprovisions of Sec.304 (Part II) IPC, and accordingly, awarding punishment offive years rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice.14.So far as the appellants 2 to 4 are concerned, as the chargelevelled against them is not proved, they are not found guilty.Hence, theappellants 2 to 4 are acquitted of the charge.The charge levelled againstthe first appellant is modified from one under Sec.302 read with 34 I.P.C. toone under section 304 (Part II) IPC as stated above and he is directed toundergo five years rigorous imprisonment.

Cited provisions: Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code