R. Banumathi, J.
1. Criminal Appeal No. 846 of 1996 : Second Accused in S.C. No. 120 of 1996 on the file of First Additional Sessions Judge, Erode is the Appellant in this appeal.
2. Criminal Appeal No. 276 of 1997 : First accused in S.C. No. 120 of 1996 on the file of First Additional Sessions Judge. Erode is the appellant in this appeal.
3. By the Judgment dated 30-9-1996, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted A-1 and A-2 under Section 304, Part-I, I.P.C. for causing the death of Chinnasamy and A. 1 under Section 324, I.P.C. for causing injuries to P.W.2-Venkatesan.
4. Both the Appeals arise out of the Common Judgment. Since common points for determination are involved, both the Appeals were heard together and disposed of by this Common Judgment.
5. When the Appeals were taken up for hearing, learned Counsel appearing for appellant/A-1 represented that appellant/A-1 is dead. But, no Death Certificate was produced. Prosecution was directed to produce the Death Certificate. It was then reported that appellant/A-1 has left the Village for Kerala and that his whereabouts are not traceable. Further, the respondent/Police has reported that they are not in a position to secure the Death Certificate. Hence, the Appeal cannot be disposed of recording the statement by the Counsel for the appellant/ A-1 on the factum of death of appellant/A-1.
6. When the Appeal was taken up for hearing, learned Counsel for appellant/A-1 stated that he has no instructions. Hence, Mr. John Sathyan was appointed as the counsel through Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority. The Advocates are not attending the Court. However, the counsel Mr. John Sathyan appointed on behalf of the appellant/A-l has submitted 'Written Submissions', setting forth detailed arguments.
7. In the trial Court, four accused stood trial for various offences. A.3 and A.4 were acquitted of the charges. The gist of the charges against the accused and the findings and sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the accused are as noted below :
Charge Gist of the Offence Against which Finding Sentence
Number accused
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
1 Under Section 302, I. P. C. For causing the A-l Not guilty under
death of Section 302, I.P.C.
Chinnasamy Found guilty under
Section 304, Part I,
I.P.C. Sentenced to
undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for
seven years.
2 Under Section 302, I. P. C. For sharing the A-2, A-3 A-2 to A-4 found
r/w. 34, I. P. C. common intention and A-4 not guilty under
in causing the Section 302 r/w 34,
death of I.P.C. A-2 found
Chinnasamy guilty under
Section 304, Part I,
I. P. C. A-3 and A-4
acquitted Sen-
tenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprison-
ment for seven
years each.
3 Under Section 324, I. P. C. For causing injury A-l Found guilty under
to P. W. 2- Section 324, I.P.C.
Venkatesan Sentenced to un-
dergo One year
Rigorous Imprison-
ment.
8. Case of prosecution could briefly be stated thus :- On 11-5-1995- 01.00 hours, at Rajiv Nagar in Ganiravuthankulam, all the four accused misbehaved with loading lady Coolie labourers viz. P.W.3-Sampoornam, Selvl and Ayithal, while they were loading the sand in the lorry MSM 4239 along with the Load Men P.W.2-Venkatesan, Appusamy and Subramani. Lorry driver Palanichamy, P.W.2, Appusamy and Subramani went to their Lorry Owner Chinnasamy and informed him about the conduct of the accused.
9. Thereafter, on 11-5-1995-01.30 hours, deceased Chinnasamy, P.W. 1 -Kathirvel (who is the tenant of Chinnasamy), Kandasami-father of P.W. 1, Driver Palanichamy along with P.W.2 and Appusamy and Subramani went to Ganiravuthankulam. The accused were found standing near the Tea Shops of P.W.4-Sehar. Chinnasamy questioned the conduct of the accused. Angered over the same, A.3 and A.4 held Chinnasamy. A.1 caused stab injury on Chinnasamy with M.O.I.-Button Knife on his left upper arm and right chest. Sharing the common intention, A.2-Varathan caused stab injuries on the left abdomen and right thigh of Chinnasamy.
10. When P.Ws. 1 and 2 tried to prevent the attack, A. 1 inflicted injuries on P.W.2-Venkatesan on the left elbow. Thereafter, the accused ran away with the weapons. Injured Chinnasamy and P.W.2-Venkatesan were taken to Bhavani Hospital in Lorry bearing Registration No. MSM 4239. Chinnasamy was examined by P.W.5-Dr. Krishnasamy and he was dedared dead. Death Intimation was sent.
11. P.W.1-Kathirvel lodged Ex.P.1 - Complaint in Erode North Police Station on 11-5-1995-7.30 a.m. On the basis of Ex.P1-Complaint, P.W. 11 -Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No. 408 of 1995 under Ex.P. 17-First Information Report under Sections 341, 324 and 302, I.P.C.
12. Investigation : P.W. 12-Inspector of Police had taken up the investigation. The scene of occurrence before the Tea Stall of P.W.4-Sekar was inspected in the presence of P.W.8-Muthusamy and one Nallasamy. Ex.P.7-Observation Mahazar and Ex.P. 18-Rough Plan were prepared on the scene of occurrence. M.O.6-Blood Stained Mud and M.O.7-Sample Mud were seized under Ex.P.S-Seizure Mahazar. From 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., witnesses were examined in the presence of Panchayatdars and inquest was held on the body of deceased Chinnasamy. Ex.P. 19 is the Inquest Report. After inquest, body was sent to Autopsy. P.W.6-Dr. Sathiavathy conducted the Postmortem. She has noted the varying sizes of incised wounds on the body of Chinnasamy. Opining that the death was due to 'injury to vital organs - Liver, Lungs, Intestine and Aorta', P.W.6 issued Ex.P.5-Post-Mortem Certificate.
13. Injured P.W.2-Venkatesan was sent to Hospital with Police Memo, P.W.7-Dr. Vasudevan has examined P.W.2. Nothing the penetrating injury over the left elbow and opining that the injury was simple in nature, P.W.7 issued Ex.P.6 - Wound Certificate.
14. A.3 and A.4 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate No. V, Salem on 15-5-1995. A. 1 and A. 2 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Karur on 22-5-1995. On application before the Committal Court, A. 1 to A.4 were taken to Police Custody. While In Police Custody, A. 1 and A.2 were interrogated by P.W. 12-1.0. A. 1 and A.2 have given Confession Statements, which led to the recovery of M.O.I-Knife and Blood Stained Clothes-M.Os.8 and 9 (Relating to A. 1); M.O.2-Knife and Blood Stained Clothes-M.Os.10 and 11 (Relating to A.2). Confession Statements of A.3 and A.4 also led to the recovery of other incriminating objects. All the accused were sent back to Judicial Custody. Seized Material Objects were sent for Chemical Analysis. On completion of investigation, Accused 1 to 4 were charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 302, 341, r/w 34 and 324, I.P.C.
15. To substantiate the charges against the accused, in the trial Court, prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 12. Exs.P.1 to P.24 are examined; M.Os.1 to 22 are produced. The accused were questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances and evidence. Denying all of them, the accused had stated that a false case is foisted against them.
16. Rejecting the contentious points urged by the accused, the learned Sessions Judge found that the appellants/A. 1 and A.2 caused the fatal injuries to Chinnasamy and caused his death. Further finding that there was no pre-plan or design to cause the murder, appellants/A. 1 and A.2 were convicted for the offence under Section 304, Part I, I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment as aforesaid in Para No. (7).
17. Assailing the Conviction and the findings of the trial Court, learned Senior Counsel Mr. S. Ashok Kumar appearing for ap-pellant/A-2 inter alia raised the following contentions :
i. P.W. 1 being a Tenant of Chinnasamy, P.W.-2-Load Man of Chinnasamy are suborned to depose falsehood on behalf of the Prosecution;
li. Only the Prosecution witnesses party gathered in number and went to Ganiravuthankulam in aggressive mood and that only the Deceased-Chinnasamy and his party were the aggressors, which aspect was not properly investigated;
iii. Absence of explanation (in Ex.P. 1) for going to Bhavani Hospital instead of Erode Government Hospital, which is very near to the place of occurrence.
Further, attacking the case of the Prosecution, learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the light of hostility of P.W.4-an independent witness, the trial Court ought not to have convicted the appellant/A-2 relying on the interested version of P.Ws. 1 and 2. In any event, it Is submitted that the injury caused by appellant/A-2 was only on the Left Abdomen which would at the most would attract only Section 326, I.P.C. and the Conviction under Section 304{I), I.P.C. is unsustainable.
18. C.A. No. 296/1997 : In the elaborate Written Memo of Submissions, after meticulously setting forth the Prosecution case, the learned counsel for the appellant/A-1 assailing the Prosecution case inter alia raised the following contentions :
i. The prosecution has suppressed the earliest information that when the admitted case being that P.W.2-Venkatesan and deceased-Chinnasamy were taken to Bhavani Government Hospital, where the statement of P.W.2 is said to have been recorded and that statement is deliberately suppressed by the prosecution.
ii. The deceased-Chinnasamy is said to have been admitted in Bhavani Government Hospital by one Kandasamy; none of the material witnesses speak the presence of the said Kandasamy and non-examination of Kandasamy fatally affects the prosecution case.
iii. Ex.P.2-Death Intimation to Police and Ex.P.S-Accident Register of the deceased-Chinnasamy does not contain any details as to the scene of occurrence nor as to the description of weapons.
Submitting that there is patent ambiguity in the case of prosecution, it is urged that the conviction on the strength of untrustworthy evidence cannot be sustained.
19. I have carefully considered the contentions advanced on behalf of the Second Appellant/A-2 and the points urged in the elaborate Written Memo of Submissions made on behalf of the appellant/A-1. On consideration of the same in my view, the points that arise for determination are :-
i. Whether case of prosecution suffers from suppression of material facts?;
ii. Whether the Conviction of the appellants under Section 304(I), I.P.C. suffers from any infirmity warranting interference?
20. The deceased-Chinnasamy sustained :
(1) An incised wound over the Left Iliac fossa 3' in length with the (Torn) at 5' length of small intestine through the wound present.
(2) An incised wound 2' x 1/4' x 1/2 over the Left Upper Arm 5' above the Left Elbow over lateral aspect.
(3) An incised wound 2' x 1/4' upto the deeper of Lung and acrta over the right Medical subclavicular fossa incision towards foot aspect.
(4) An incised wound 1' x 1/4' over the Right Side Chest over 8th intercostal space depth upto liver piercing of Liver present.
(5) Incised wound 2' x 1/4' over Right Lateral aspect 2' below the iliac crest over the hip present.
Injuries No. (1) and (5) are attributed to appellant/A-2. Injuries No. (2) to (4) are attributed to appellant/A-1. P.W.6-Dr. Sathyavathy opined that the death was due to Shock and Haemorrhage due to injury to vital organs - Liver, Lungs, Intestine and Aorta. Thus, death is proved to be due to cumulative effect of all the injuries. Neither the overt act of appellant/A-1 nor the overt act of appellant/A-2 could be dissociated and considered separately whether they are guilty for any lesser offence. When death is due to the cumulative effect of all the injuries, It is to be seen whether prosecution has established that the accused are responsible for causing injuries 1 to 5 and whether they acted in concert in causing the death of Chinnasamy.
21. Deceased-Chinnasamy is the owner of Lorry-MSM 4239. On the night of 10/11-5-1995 - 1.00 a.m. Chinnasamy was sleeping in his house, P.W. 1-Kadhirvel is the tenant of Chinnasamy. In the mid night, P.W.2-Venkatesan, Appusamy and Subramanian came to the house of deceased, awakening him and complaining about the conduct of the accused in teasing the Load women. On hearing about the same, Chinnasamy along with the above persons proceeded to Ganiravuthankulam where the accused were standing near the Tea Shop of P.W.4-Sekar. From the consistent evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, prosecution has clearly brought forth :
i. that the Loading women were teased by the accused;
ii. that in the mid night, deceased-Chinnasamy was being informed of the same by P.W.2-Venkatesan, Appusamy and Subramanian;
iii. that they proceeded to Ganiravuthankulam to question the accused and the accused 1 and 2 retalised.
22. The occurrence was near the Tea Shop of P.W.4-Sekar. Evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 on the overt act of appellant/A-1 and appellant/A-2 is cogent and consistent. The recalling of the occurrence and narrating the overt act of appellant/A-1 and appellants/ A-2 is cogent and convincing. By careful analysis, it is clear that their evidence Is unimpeachable in character. Despite lengthy cross-examination, their evidence remains unshaken.
23. Assailing the credibility of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, learned Senior Counsel for appellant/A-2 contended that P.W. 1 being the tenant and P.W.2-Load man under Chinnasamy are highly interested in the prosecution case and that conviction cannot be based upon their interested, testimony. It is the further contention that P.Ws.l and 2 are highly Interested in deposing falsehood and that P.W. 1 has not at all explained the reason for going to Bhavanl Hospital, instead of Erode Hospital, which raises serious doubts upon the prosecution case. No doubt, P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the tenant and the Load man of Chinnasamy. But, they being the natural witnesses, their evidence cannot be doubted on the ground of interestedness.
24. In his chief-examination, P.W. 1 has stated that the accused party have restrained the Lorry with an Auto and prevented them from going towards Erode Hospital and hence, they have turned the Lorry and taken Chinnasamy to Bhavani Hospital. This explanation of P.W. 1 is assailed on the ground that it is an after thought and that he has not explained the same in Ex. P. 1. On that ground, the reliability of P.W. 1 Is seriously assailed that he has a tendency to exaggerate which was not taken note of by the trial Court. Evidence of P.W. 1 cannot be doubted on the ground of certain omissions in Ex.P1. Having witnessed the occurrence, when Chinnasamy was attacked and murdered, P.W. 1 must have been under severe mental strain and in that condition, P.W. 1 cannot be expected to exhaustively explain everything in Ex.P1. Omission to explain the reason in Ex.P1 in proceeding to Bhavani does not in any way undermine the veracity of P.W. 1.
25. Likewise much arguments are advanced assailing the credibility of P.W.2-Load man-Venkatesan. It Is contended that the Injury on his Left Elbow could have been self-inflicted, so as to make it appear as if P.W. 2 was present at the time of occurrence. This contention is not reasonably grounded. P.W.2 was present along with P.W.3 and other loading women even in the first instance when the accused teased the Loading women. P.W.2 along with others had gone to Chinnasamy in the mid night to complain about the conduct of the accused. His version that he had gone to Chinnasamy to complain about the teasing of the accused and later his conduct in accompanying his employer is quite natural and probable. It is all the more probable that P.W.2 would have intervened to rescue his employer when he was attacked by the accused. A-1 caused injuries to P.W.2 on his Left Elbow.
26. P.W.2 being injured witness, his evidence is amply corroborated by Medical Evidence (Ex.P.-6 Wound Certificate). The fact that P.W.2 sustained injuries lends assur- ance to his presence to the prosecution case. P.W.2 being injured witness, his evidence stands on higher footing. His evidence cannot be doubted unless there are cogent and convincing grounds. No such grounds are made out by the appellants to discard the version of P.W.2.
27. In the elaborate Memo of Written Submissions, learned counsel for the First Accused/A-1 has seriously attacked the prosecution case on the ground of suppression of material facts. As noted earlier, de-ceased-Chinnasamy was taken to Bhavani Government Hospital where he was examined by P.W.5-Dr. Krishnasamy. Noting the injuries on the person of deceased-Chinnasamy, P.W.5 issued Ex.P-3-Accident Register. Ex.P2 is the Death Intimation sent. Both in Exs.P.3 and P.2, the manner in which - Deceased-Chinnasamy sustained the Injuries - i.e., number of assailants, place of occurrence and nature of weapons are not stated. Pointing out the same as clear suppression of the actual occurrence, on behalf of the First Accused /A-1, it is submitted that the prosecution was gaining time only to deliberate upon in manipulating the case against the accused. When considered in the light of explanation given by P.W. 5-Dr. Krishnasamy, attached to Bhavani Government Hospital, the above contention has force. P.W.5 has clearly explained since de-ceased-Chinnasamy was brought dead, he could not ascertain the manner of occurrence, number of assailants and other details. The explanation of P.W.5 is reasonably probable and acceptable. No doubt, in his cross-examination P.W.2 has stated that he explained to the Doctor-Bhavani Government Hospital as to the manner of assault. P.W.2 himself then injured and after having witnessed the gruesome attack on his employer he must have been under shock at that time. P.W.2 then in condition may or may not have detailed the manner of occurrence to P.W.5. Even if P.W.2 had stated anything about the occurrence, P.W.5 may not have written the same since the occurrence relates to Erode North Police Jurisdiction and in that way might have omitted to refer the manner of occurrence. This minor contradiction does not in any way affect the prosecution case nor does it suggest suppression of material facts.
28. P.W.5-Dr. Krishnasamy examined deceased-Chinnasamy at 2.15 a.m.-11.5. 1995 and declared him dead. In Ex.P.2-Death Intimation, it is stated 'Brought by Kandasamy .........'The said Kandasamy is not examined. Therefore, the main submission urged by the First Accused/A-1 is that none of the material witnesses speak to the presence of the said Kandasamy and that non-examination of Kandasamy seriously affects the prosecution case. This submission is not wall founded when we carefully analyse the evidence. The said Kandasamy is none other than the Father of P.W. 1. From the evidence, it Is well brought out on record that immediately after P.W.2 and others complained deceased-Chinnasamy about the conduct of the accused, P.W. 1 and his father and others accompanied Chinnasamy to Ganiravuthankulam. The said Kandasamy being father of P.W. 1 having accompanied Chinnasamy to the scene of occurrence-Ganiravuthankulam, quite naturally he would have taken deceased-Chinnasamy to the Hospital and admitting him in Bhavani Government Hospital. Since P.W. 1 was examined, non-examination of his father-Kandasamy no way affects the prosecution case.
29. Yet another submission is made by the First Accused/A-1 attacking the prosecution case on the ground of suppression of material facts and the earliest information that was available to the Prosecution. As noted earlier, after the occurrence, deceased-Chinnasamy and injured P.W.2-Venkatesan were taken to Bhavani Government Hospital. P.W.2 has stated that he was examined by the Doctor, who was attached to Government Hospital. But, whereas in Ex.P6-Wound Certificate it is stated that' ........P.W.2 was sent with a Medical Memo 10/ML B-3/95 on 11-5-1995 and he was examined by P.W.5-Dr. Krishnasamy on 11-5-1995-3.00 p.m.' On behalf of the First Accused/A-1, it is submitted that the treatment given to P.W.2 creates doubts on the prosecution case which are of two fold :
Firstly, that the earliest statement of P.W.2 in Bhavani Government Hospital is not produced.
Secondly, there is no Accident Register in respect of P.W.2. The main contention advanced is that if those two documents have been let in by the prosecution, the real version would have come to light and the prosecution case suffers from serious infirmity of suppression of material facts. No doubt, after the occurrence, P.W.2 was taken to Bhavani Government Hospital. Since the occurrence was within the Erode North Police Station limits, the treatment given to him may not have been entered in the Accident Register. Only on being sent with Police Memo, he was examined on 11-5-1995 at 3.00 p.m. As submitted by the First Appellant/A- 1, no serious doubts arise as to the treatment given to P.W.2 nor is there any suppression of material facts.
30. Ex. P. 2 is the Death Intimation of Chinnasamy and Ex.P.3 is the Accident Register. Both in Exs.P.3 and P.2, the scene of occurrence is not stated as 'Tea Shop of Sekar'; nor the nature of weapons wielded by the Assailants are indicated. The de-ceased-Chinnasamy was taken to Bhavani Government Hospital Immediately after the occurrence. The scene of occurrence being in Ganiravuthankulam, the witnesses may not have been in a position to state the exact place of occurrence viz., 'Tea Shop of P.W.4-Sekar' or with reference to any surrounding places. Omission to narrate the exact place of occurrence cannot materially affect the prosecution case. It is to be noted that when the Inspector of Police P.W. 12 inspected the scene of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar, the scene of occurrence was clearly narrated as 'in front of Tea Shop of Sekar' Absence of narration of the exact place of occurrence with reference to Tea Shop of P.W.4 or surrounding place and nature of weapons In Exs.P.2 and P.3 would not in any way affect the prosecution case.
31. When the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 are tested for its credibility and trustworthiness, this Court finds that their evidence is amply corroborated by the Medical Evidence. Learned Senior Counsel for A-2 contended that there is no corresponding Injury for the overt act of A-2, who is said to have caused injury on the Right Thigh. Injury No. (5) is : 'Incised wound 2' x 1/4' over right lateral aspect 2' below the iliac crest over the hip present.'
The Injury being placed on the Right Lateral aspect corresponds to the above overt act of A-2. The Injury inflicted on the Right Thigh is only a manner of description of situs of attack by an individual. The Incised wound over Right Laternal aspect below the iliac crest over the hip is the corresponding injury. The oral evidence is well consistent with the Medical Evidence and probabilities of the case.
32. Sekar-Tea Shop Owner in Ganiravuthankulam, before whose shop the occurrence had taken place was examined as P.W.4. P.W.4 has stated that he saw the accused 1 to 5 going In an Auto and after sometime, Chinnasamy and his men came there. P.W.4 has further stated that on hearing the noise, when he came out he saw Chinnasamy with bleeding injuries and another one Load man (P.W.2) with injuries. Though P.W.4 was treated as Hostile, his evidence partly strengthens the Prosecution case. That he saw Chinnasamy with bleeding Injuries and that he saw the accused in Auto going towards Erode are relevant corroborating the version of. P.Ws. 1 and 2 to that extent. Hostility of P.W.4 does not in any way effect the prosecution case.
33. After the accused surrendered before the Courts, Police custody of the accused were taken. Pursuant to the Confession Statement of Appellant/A-1, M.O.1-Button Knife, M.Os.8 and 9-Blood Stained Clothes were seized. On the basis of Confession Statement of Appellant/A-2, M.O.2'-Knlfe, M.Os. 10 and 11-Blood stained clothes of A-2 were recovered. Human blood was detected in those material objects as noted below :
Accused
MATERIAL OBJECTS/WEAPON
Serology Report
A-l
Blood Stained Clothes-M.Os.8 and 9
'B' Group Blood
Human Blood
A-2
Blood Stained Clothes-M.Os.10 and 11
Human Blood
Human Blood
Presence of Human blood in recovered material objects is the strong militating circumstance against A-1 and A-2. The improbabilities urged on the recovery of the material objects have no force.
34. As noted earlier, Injuries 1 and 5 are attributed to A-2; Injuries 2 to 4 are attributed to A-1. But, death was due to the cumulative effect of all the injuries to vital organs-Liver, Lungs, Intestine and Aorta. Thus, both the accused are proved to be responsible for causing the death of Chinnasamy. Upon careful re-assessment of the evidence and the Judgment of the trial Court, this Court finds that the reasonings and the findings of the trial Court are well in conformity with the evidence and materials on record.
35. Pointing out that the occurrence was in a sudden quarrel and there was no preplan or pre-meditation, learned Sessions Judge has convicted A-1 and A-2 under Section 304, Part I, I.P.C. Learned Sessions Judge was of the view that both the accused had the intention to cause the death. A-1 and A-2 inflicted Incised Wounds on the Chest, Abdomen piercing Lung and Liver and Aorta on deceased-Chinnasamy.
36. Considering the nature of injuries, the trial Court has rightly inferred the intention on the part of the appellants to cause the death and rightly found that the act of the accused would fall under Section 304 Part I, I.P.C. Section 304 Part I, I.P.C. applies where the accused causes bodily injury with intention to cause death or with intention to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. By causing injuries on the vital organs the appellants/accused are proved to have intention to cause the death of Chinnasamy. Hence, the finding of guilt and conviction under Section 304, Part I, I.P.C, is to be maintained.
37. For the conviction under Section 304, Part-I, I.P.C, the trial Court has imposed sentence of imprisonment of seven years. Deceased-Chinnasamy and Prosecution Witnesses went in group and encountered the accused party. Had they not gone at the night time, the occurrence would not have taken place. The occurrence was in the mid night/small hours of the day. Both the parties have been deprived of their sleep and must have been in aggressive mood against each other. The incident was in a spur of the moment and there was no previous motive or enmity between the parties. The injuries were caused only in the wordy altercation. Considering the manner of attack and the nature of injuries, the sentence of Imprisonment of seven years is reduced to five years.
38. Crl.Appeal Nos. 846 of 96 and 276 of 97 :-Therefore, the judgment of the Sessions Court in S.C. No. 120 of 1996 dated 30-9-1996, convicting the Appellants/A-1 and 2 under Section 304, Part-I, I.P.C. is confirmed. The period of sentence of imprisonment of seven years imposed upon the Appellants/Accused is reduced to five years and these appeals are party allowed accordingly.
39. Since the appellants/accused are on bail, the trial Court is directed to secure the custody of the appellants/accused and make them to undergo remaining period of sentence.