(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the order dated 19.04.2018 passed in S.C.No.271 of 2012 on the file of the IInd Additional District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore @ Chidambaram.)

P. Velmurugan, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by P.W.6/Guna challenging the order of acquittal dated 19.04.2018 passed in S.C.No.271 of 2012 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Cuddalore @ Chidambaram.

2. The case of the prosecution is that A1 had an illicit relationship with Sarala, the wife of the de-facto complainant, P.W.1 Shanmugam. About four months prior to the occurrence, Sarala eloped with A1. When A1 later returned to the village, the villagers questioned and scolded him, which resulted in prior enmity. On 06.06.2011, at about 8.00 p.m., due to the said enmity, A1 along with A2 to A11 came to Mariamman Kovil Street, Pudur Maduvangarai Village, in a tractor belonging to A3 and a two-wheeler. They were armed with iron pipes, soda bottles, stones and other weapons. A1 went to the house of P.W.1 Shanmugam and abused P.W.2 Malarkodi in filthy language, stating that he would live in the village along with Sarala. When the deceased Backiaraj intervened to pacify the quarrel, A1 attacked him with a glass bottle on his left eyebrow and caught hold of him. At that time, A2 attacked the deceased on the head with a knife. The deceased fell unconscious and was taken to the hospital for treatment, where he later succumbed to the injuries. When P.W.2 Malarkodi attempted to prevent the assault, A3 and A4 attacked her on the head with an iron pipe and soda bottle, causing injuries. Further, one Shankar tried to prevent the assault, he was also attacked by the 5th accused by a wooden log attached to a spade, causing injuries. A6 to A10 threatened P.W.2 Malarkodi and P.W.3 Shankar with dire consequences by showing weapons. A11 attacked P.W.2 and P.W.3 with stones. Hence, P.W.1 Shanmugam lodged a complaint with the Annamalai Nagar Police Station. Based on the complaint, the first respondent Police registered a case against the accused persons (respondents 2 to 12 herein) in Crime No.149 of 2011 on 07.06.2011 for the offences under Sections 148, 294(b), 342, 324, 506 (Part-II) and 307 IPC. Subsequently, during the course of investigation, as the injured succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment, the offence was altered from Section 307 IPC to Section 302 IPC. After completion of investigation, the Police filed a charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Chidambaram. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case in P.R.C.No.10 of 2012 and, after complying with the requirements under Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C., since the offences were exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, upon receipt of the records, took the case on file as S.C.No.271 of 2012 and made over the same to the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, for disposal in accordance with law. Upon consideration of the materials on record, the learned Sessions Judge found a prima facie case and framed charges against the accused as follows:

                   (i) Against A1 - 148, 294-B, 324, 342, 302 r/w 149 IPC

                   (ii) Against A2 - 148 and 302 IPC

                   (iii) Against A3, A4, A5 and A11 - 148, 324, 302 r/w 149 IPC

                   (iv) Against A6 to A10 - 148, 506(ii) and 302 r/w 149 IPC

3. During the course of trial, in order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, totally 17 witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 17, and 14 documents were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-14, besides four Material Objects (M.Os). were exhibited.

4. After completion of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the incriminating circumstances emerging from the prosecution evidence were put to the respondents 2 to 12 / accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the same as false. On the side of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. Upon conclusion of the trial, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court acquitted the accused persons (respondents 2 to 12 herein), holding that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

5. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, neither the State nor the de-facto complainant / P.W.1 preferred any appeal, or any other injured witness file an appeal. However, P.W.6, the wife of the deceased, alone has filed the present Criminal Appeal, challenging the acquittal of the accused persons.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant / P.W.6 (wife of the deceased) submitted that the deceased was a close relative of P.Ws.1 and 2. Since the accused came to the house of P.W.1 and abused P.W.2 Malarkodi in filthy language and attempted to attack her, the deceased intervened and questioned the same. At that time, A1 attacked the deceased with a broken glass bottle, and A1 caught hold of the deceased, enabling A2 to attack the deceased with a knife on his head, as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries and fell down. The relatives of the deceased called for an ambulance and took him to the hospital. Initially, he was taken to Government Hospital, Chidambaram, where treatment was refused, and thereafter, he was taken to JIPMER Hospital, Puducherry, where he was admitted and treated. After three days, on 09.06.2011, the deceased succumbed to the injuries, and therefore, the offence was altered by changing the relevant section of law. After completion of investigation, the prosecution laid the charge sheet. However, the trial Court failed to consider the motive and prior enmity between P.W.1 and A1. A1 had illicit intimacy with the wife of P.W.1, namely Sarala, and she subsequently eloped with him. On 06.06.2011, when A1 came to the place of occurrence, the relatives of P.Ws.1 and 2 questioned his conduct. Due to this, A1, harbouring animosity, came along with his friends and relatives, armed with deadly weapons, and formed an unlawful assembly. At that time, A1 abused P.W.2 in filthy language, and the deceased, who is the son of the paternal uncle of P.W.1, intervened. At that juncture, A1 attacked the deceased with broken glass and A2 attacked him with a knife, resulting in serious injuries. Subsequently, while undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. There was specific overt act attributed to A1 and A2, but the trial Court failed to consider these material facts and, despite the evidence of eye-witnesses and corroborating medical evidence, erroneously acquitted all the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the trial Court erroneously concluded that there was no motive for the attack on the deceased. Even as per the evidence of P.W.1, it was clearly stated that the deceased was assaulted by A1 and A2 and that P.W.1 himself took the deceased to the hospital. Without proper appreciation of this evidence, the trial Court arrived at a conclusion without application of mind. It was further contended that the trial Court failed to note that the witnesses deposed that the incident started in front of the de-facto complainant’s house and continued for about 200 yards, thereby clearly establishing the continuity of the occurrence, which cannot be disputed. Learned counsel further submitted that P.W.6, the wife of the deceased, had clearly deposed that the incident lasted for nearly one hour. However, even after accepting that there was commotion and chaos between the rival parties, the trial Court disbelieved the prosecution case without valid reasons. As per the post-mortem certificate, the injuries were consistent with the use of a bottle, which was recovered by the prosecution. Immediately after the occurrence, the entire area was heavily guarded by the respondent police. In such circumstances, the delay in lodging the FIR is natural and ought to have been ignored, as consistently held by a catena of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court. It was further contended that the trial Court erroneously placed undue importance on the non-examination of Sarala, holding it to be fatal to the prosecution case. The learned counsel submitted that non-examination of Sarala is not fatal, as the motive and occurrence were otherwise clearly established through oral and documentary evidence. The learned counsel further contended that the trial Court disbelieved the prosecution case on the ground that the Accident Register of the Government Hospital, Chidambaram, where the deceased was initially taken, was not marked as an exhibit, despite clear evidence that treatment was refused at that hospital and the deceased was immediately shifted to JIPMER Hospital. It was also contended that defects in investigation alone cannot be a ground for acquittal when there is otherwise reliable evidence of eyewitnesses and medical evidence. Therefore, the appellant / P.W.6 / wife of the deceased, has filed the present appeal, even though the prosecution and P.Ws.1 and 2 have not filed any appeal. P.W.6 (wife of the deceased) and P.W.10 (mother of the deceased) had clearly spoken about the specific overt acts committed by A1 and A2, yet the trial Court acquitted all the accused. Even though there was no direct enmity between the accused and the deceased, the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 10 clearly establishes that the deceased was a close relative of P.Ws.1 and 2 and was residing in the same street. When A1 abused and attempted to attack P.W.2, the deceased intervened, and at that time, A1 and A2 assaulted the deceased. Learned counsel finally contended that when there are eye-witnesses to the occurrence and specific overt acts are clearly proved and corroborated by medical evidence, proof of motive is not mandatory. In the present case, motive has also been clearly established. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the trial Court is perverse, unsustainable in law, and liable to be set aside, and the accused are liable to be convicted for the charged offences.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 12 / accused persons contended that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the alleged motive has also not been established. It was submitted that there was a quarrel between two rival groups in the village and that both groups attacked each other. During such group clash, the deceased sustained injuries and subsequently succumbed to the same. According to the learned counsel, the accused did not cause any injury either to the deceased or to any of the prosecution witnesses. Though P.Ws.1 to 3 claimed that they sustained injuries, there is no corroboration for the same, and no independent witness has been examined to prove the occurrence. It was further contended that no proper medical records relating to the alleged injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 to 3 were produced before the Court. If at all they had sustained injuries, they ought to have been admitted in the hospital or at least taken treatment either as in-patients or out-patients. Learned counsel further submitted that except the medical records relating to the deceased, no other medical documents were produced. Though the prosecution claimed that the injured witnesses were taken to the hospital by ambulance, there is no evidence to show that a doctor was present in the ambulance or that any immediate medical treatment was provided therein. Even otherwise, the prosecution failed to examine the person who allegedly rendered treatment in the ambulance. Learned counsel for the accused further contended that there is no specific overt act attributed to A4 to A11. No independent witnesses were examined to support the prosecution case, and the witnesses examined, other than the family members of P.W.1, turned hostile. The mahazar witnesses also turned hostile, and the recovery mahazar was not proved. Consequently, the alleged recovery of material objects was not established. It was further submitted that though P.W.11, the Village Administrative Officer, spoke about the alleged confession statement of A3, the said evidence is wholly inconsistent with the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 10. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

9. Learned counsel for the accused also contended that the trial Court had rightly appreciated both oral and documentary evidence and rightly acquitted the accused. There is no merit in the present Criminal Appeal. Neither the State nor the de-facto complainant has preferred any appeal against the acquittal. The present appeal has been filed only by P.W.6, who did not lodge any complaint before the police. The case was registered solely based on the complaint given by P.W.1. There are material contradictions between the complaint, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, and the deposition of other witnesses. In view of the above submissions, learned counsel contended that there is no merit in the present appeal and prayed that the Criminal Appeal be dismissed and the acquittal of the accused be confirmed.

10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent–Police submitted that, although the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge acquitted all the accused. He further submitted that the delay in filing the FIR is not fatal to the prosecution’s case, as the delay occurred due to the injured parties being rushed to the hospital and the immediate efforts to save the life of the deceased, which prevented them from filing the complaint promptly. Hence, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed that the order passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, be set aside.

11. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

12. The specific case of the prosecution is that A1 had an illicit relationship with Sarala, the wife of the de-facto complainant, P.W.1 Shanmugam, and that about four months prior to the occurrence, Sarala eloped with A1. When A1 later returned to the village, the villagers questioned and scolded him, which resulted in prior enmity. On 06.06.2011, at about 8.00 p.m., due to the said enmity, A1, along with A2 to A11, came to Mariamman Kovil Street, Pudur Maduvangarai Village, in a tractor belonging to A3 and a two-wheeler. A1 went to the house of P.W.1 Shanmugam and abused P.W.2 Malarkodi in filthy language, stating that he would live in the village along with Sarala. When the deceased Backiaraj intervened to pacify the quarrel, A1 attacked him with a glass bottle on his left eyebrow and caught hold of him. At that time, A2 attacked the deceased on the head with a knife, as a result of which the deceased fell unconscious. He was taken to the hospital for treatment, where he later succumbed to the injuries. When P.W.2 Malarkodi attempted to prevent the assault, A3 and A4 attacked her on the head with an iron pipe and soda bottle, causing injuries. Further, when one Shankar attempted to prevent the assault, he was attacked by A5 with a wooden log attached to a spade, causing injuries. A6 to A10 threatened P.Ws.2 and 3 with dire consequences by showing weapons, and A11 attacked P.Ws.2 and 3 with stones. Accordingly, a case was registered as Crime No.149 of 2011 for offences under Sections 148, 294(b), 342, 324, 506 (Part-II), and 307 IPC. Subsequently, during the course of investigation, as the injured succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment, the charge under Section 307 IPC was altered to Section 302 IPC.

13. The prosecution examined seventeen witnesses, of whom P.Ws.1 to 10 are eye-witnesses. P.Ws.5, 8, and 9, however, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The statements of the remaining witnesses, particularly P.Ws.1, 2, 6, and 10, provide direct evidence of the occurrence and the involvement of the accused. In evaluating this evidence, the court must consider the consistency of the testimonies, the identification of the accused, and the circumstances in which the statements were recorded, while also taking into account any minor contradictions or exaggerations. The evidence of the other witnesses is as follows:

14. P.W.1, the de-facto complainant, deposed that A1 Gopinath had an illicit relationship with his wife Sarala and that about four months prior to the occurrence, Sarala eloped with A1. When A1 later returned to the village, the villagers questioned and scolded him, which resulted in prior enmity. On 06.06.2011 at about 8.00 p.m., A1 along with A2 to A11 came to Mariamman Kovil Street, Pudur Maduvangarai Village, in a tractor bearing Registration No.TN-31-7232 and a two-wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-51-7876. A1 proclaimed that he would reside in the village along with Sarala and thereafter abused his mother P.W.2 Malarkodi in filthy language. When the deceased Backiyaraj intervened to pacify the quarrel, A1 attacked him with a broken glass bottle on his left eyebrow and caught hold of him. At that time, A2 Thirugnanamoorthy attacked the deceased on the head with a knife. As a result of the assault, the deceased fell unconscious. When P.W.2 Malarkodi attempted to prevent the assault, A3 Ramadoss attacked her on the head with an iron pipe and A4 Rajkumar attacked her with a bottle, causing injuries. Further, when one Shankar attempted to intervene, A5 Vignesh Prabhu attacked him with a wooden stick, causing injuries. A6 to A10 threatened P.Ws.1 to 3 with weapons and A11 Nirmala attacked them by pelting stones. The deceased was first taken to the Government Hospital and thereafter shifted to JIPMER Hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries on 09.06.2011. P.W.1 lodged the complaint at Killai Police Station on 07.06.2011 at about 12.30 a.m.

15. P.W.2, the mother of P.W.1, deposed that about four months prior to the occurrence, A1 Gopinath had eloped with her daughter-in-law Sarala, resulting in prior enmity. On 06.06.2011 at about 8.00 p.m., the accused persons came near her house in a tractor and a two-wheeler. A1 attacked her nephew Backiyaraj with a glass bottle on his left eyebrow and caught hold of him, while A2 Thirugnanamoorthy slashed him on the head with a knife. When P.W.2 raised an alarm, A3 Ramdoss assaulted her with M.O.2 – iron pipe, and A4 Rajkumar hit her with a bottle, causing her to lose consciousness. She was thereafter taken in an ambulance to the hospital and received treatment at JIPMER.

16. P.W.3 deposed that he knows A1 Gopinath and the other accused. He further stated that about four months prior to the occurrence, Sarala, the wife of Shanmugam, eloped with A1 Gopinath. On 06.06.2011 at about 8.00 p.m., 10 to 11 accused came to Shanmugam’s house in a tractor bearing registration No.31 A-7232 and a two-wheeler bearing registration No.7876. On hearing the noise, P.W.3 ran to the spot, where A1 Gopinath attacked the deceased Backiyaraj with a bottle, causing a cut on his left eyebrow, and caught hold of him, while A2 Thirugnanamoorthy slashed him on the head with a knife. Thereafter, when Malarkodi intervened, she was also assaulted on the head by A3 Ramadoss with an iron pipe, and A4 Rajkumar hit her with a bottle. P.W.3 further deposed that he was assaulted on the forehead by Vignes Prabhu. Both Backiyaraj and his mother-in-law were taken by 108 ambulance and received treatment at JIPMER. Backiyaraj succumbed to his injuries on 09.06.2011.

17. P.W.4 deposed that he resides at Maduvankarai and works in an utensils shop. He knows the witnesses Shanmugam, Malarkodi, and Shankar, and is also acquainted with the accused. On 06.06.2011, at around 7.30–8.00 p.m., he went to the village. Earlier, at about 6.30 p.m., while he was in the shop, he received a phone call regarding a fight. When he reached the spot, he saw A3 Ramadoss assault Malarkodi on the head with an iron pipe. When he tried to intervene, he saw Bakiyaraj lying on the ground with life-threatening injuries. He immediately called an ambulance. Bakiyaraj was taken in the ambulance to the hospital and subsequently to JIPMER, where he died three days later. P.W.4 stated that he did not see who inflicted the injuries on Bakiyaraj.

18. P.W.5 turned hostile. P.W.6 deposed that she resides at Maduvankarai and is engaged in farming. She stated that P.W.1 Shanmugam is her husband’s uncle’s son. She further stated that Sarala, the wife of P.W.1, was known to Gopinath and that, about four months prior to the incident, Sarala had eloped with Gopinath, which caused enmity between the families. She further deposed that on 06.06.2011, at about 8.00 p.m., Ramadoss arrived in a tractor along with Gopinath and his associates. On hearing the commotion, she and her husband went to the spot. She witnessed Gopinath assault her husband, Backiyaraj, with a broken glass bottle, causing a cut on his left eye, and restrain him. Thereafter, Thirugnanamoorthy slashed Backiyaraj on the head with a knife, causing him to fall unconscious. Malarkodi was assaulted by Vignesh Prabhu with an iron pipe. Another person, Shankar, was also assaulted during the incident. The accused threatened the villagers with knives, iron pipes, and other weapons, warning them not to remain in the village. Backiyaraj was taken by ambulance to Chidambaram Government Hospital, which referred him to JIPMER Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries on 09.06.2011.

19. P.W.7 deposed that she resides in Maduvankarai and does farming. She stated that she has seen the occurrence. She signed the observation mahazar (Ex.P2) prepared by the police, who drew a rough sketch of the scene, and also signed the documents for seizure of the tractor and two-wheeler.

20. P.W.8 and P.W.9 turned hostile. P.W.10, the mother of the deceased, deposed in the Court below that she was acquainted with Shanmugam, Malarkodi, Shankar, and the other witnesses, as well as the present parties, all of whom are from her village. She stated that on 06.06.2011, around 8.00 p.m., some persons, including Gopinath, Ramadoss, Thirugnanamoorthy, Rajkumar, Kalaiyarasan, Chittambalam, and others, were going to Shanmugam’s house, and her son Backiyaraj also went there. She followed them. She deposed that when Gopinath saw Malarkodi, he said that he would live with her daughter-in-law. When her son intervened, Gopinath assaulted Backiyaraj with a broken bottle on his left eyebrow and also caught hold of him. Thirugnanamoorthy then slashed Backiyaraj on the head with a knife, causing him to fall unconscious. Ramadoss attacked Malarkodi with an iron pipe. She further stated that her son, severely beaten, was taken by ambulance and succumbed to his injuries on the third day.

21. P.W.11 deposed that he has retired from his post as a Village Administrative Officer. At the time of this case, when he was working as a Village Administrative Officer in Killai, the police inspector asked him to come to the Annamalai Town Police Station at around 3.00 p.m. on 20.06.2011. He reached the station at about 3.15 p.m. He stated that Ramadoss, Balaiya, Kalai Arasan and Chittrambalam from Maduvankarai were present at the station. At that time, Ramadoss gave a confession regarding the death of Backiyaraj in Maduvankarai, without any inducement or threat. P.W.11 stated that Village Assistant Chinnaswamy was also present. The police inspector recorded the confession, and P.W.11 signed it as a witness. He identified the signature on the confession as his own. He deposed that Ramadoss, in his confessional statement, stated that Sarala had run away with Gopinath about four months prior to the incident, that this led to a commotion, and that during the said occurrence, Gopinath attacked Backiyaraj, causing his death. Ramadoss further stated that he would show the weapon used in the murder if the witness accompanied him to the place. P.W.11 deposed that accordingly, he went to Maduvankarai together with Ramadoss and the police inspector. Near the railway gate, at a brick kiln belonging to Ramadoss, Ramadoss took an iron pipe about two feet long from the bushes and produced it. The police inspector seized the pipe and prepared a seizure report on the spot. P.W.11 stated that the iron pipe produced by Ramadoss is the same one seized and marked in the file. The portion of the confession relating to this is recorded as Ex.P4, and the seizure of the iron pipe is recorded as Ex.P5.

22. P.W.14 is the doctor from JIPMER Hospital, Puducherry, who deposed based on the hospital records relating to the treatment administered to the deceased. Though he was not the treating doctor, his testimony regarding the injuries noted at the time of admission, the nature of treatment provided and the clinical course of the deceased is based on relevant medical records maintained in the ordinary course of official duty. P.W.15, who conducted the post-mortem examination, categorically opined that the deceased died due to the effects of head injuries. The medical evidence clearly proves the cause of death and strongly supports the eyewitness account of how and in what manner the deceased was assaulted.

23. As regards the alleged injuries sustained by P.Ws.2, 3 and 5, though they claimed that A3 to A11 assaulted them with iron pipes, bottles, stones and other weapons, no medical records or treatment documents were produced to substantiate such claims. In the absence of medical corroboration or independent supporting evidence, the allegations relating to assault on P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 cannot be held to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. To that extent, the trial Court was justified in extending the benefit of doubt to A3 to A11 with regard to the offences alleged against them.

24. The prosecution further alleged that all the accused formed an unlawful assembly and acted in furtherance of a common object so as to attract Section 149 IPC. However, the evidence on record does not satisfactorily establish the existence of a common object shared by A3 to A11 to commit the murder of the deceased. Mere presence at the scene of occurrence or vague allegations of threat, without cogent and reliable corroboration, are insufficient to invoke Section 149 IPC. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in declining to apply Section 149 IPC and in acquitting A3 to A11 of the charges framed with the aid of the said provision.

25. The prosecution has not been able to establish the involvement of A3 to A11 beyond reasonable doubt, and they are therefore entitled to acquittal. However, this does not in any way affect the evidence relating to the fatal assault on the deceased, Backiyaraj, by A1 and A2.

26. The acts of A1 and A2 stand on an independent footing and are supported by multiple layers of evidence, including consistent accounts of witnesses present at the scene, identification of the accused, recovery of material objects, and medical records confirming the nature and severity of injuries. It is evident that A1 and A2 committed specific overt acts that directly caused grievous injury and ultimately death. The unproven participation of the other accused does not weaken the criminal responsibility of A1 and A2. The appeal, therefore, survives solely with respect to these two accused. The Court must now consider whether the offences under Sections 324 and 304 Part I IPC are established against them, whether the trial Court correctly appreciated and weighed the evidence, and whether the acquittal of A1 and A2 warrants interference in the interest of justice.

27. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the events leading to the death of the deceased emerge clearly. The material on record discloses the circumstances, motive, and sequence in which the occurrence took place. A1 had an illicit relationship with Sarala, the wife of P.W.1, who had eloped with him approximately four months prior to the incident, giving rise to animosity between A1 and the family of P.W.1. On 06.06.2011, at about 8.00 p.m., A1, accompanied by A2 and others, arrived at Mariamman Kovil Street, Pudur Maduvangarai Village, in a tractor and a two-wheeler. A1 verbally abused P.W.2 Malarkodi in obscene and threatening language. When the deceased, a close relative of P.Ws.1 and 2, intervened to pacify the quarrel and question the conduct of A1, he was assaulted by A1 on the left eyebrow with a broken glass and restrained, while A2 struck him on the head with a knife, marked as M.O.1, causing grievous injury. The deceased fell unconscious and was immediately taken first to Government Hospital, Chidambaram, and thereafter referred to JIPMER Hospital, Puducherry, where he succumbed to his injuries on 09.06.2011. The post-mortem report confirms that the injuries were caused by sharp and blunt weapons consistent with the accounts provided in evidence. The acts attributed to A1 and A2 were directed at vital parts of the body and were of such nature as to cause fatal injuries. The prior enmity arising out of A1’s illicit relationship with Sarala, the sequence of events, and the specific overt acts spoken to by the eyewitnesses stand fully corroborated by medical evidence. Minor procedural lapses, such as the non-production of records from the initial hospital or the absence of corroboration regarding injuries to other witnesses, do not undermine the consistent and reliable evidence against A1 and A2. Considering the totality of the evidence, this Court is satisfied that the fatal assault on the deceased was committed by A1 and A2, and that the acquittal of these accused by the trial Court is unsustainable in law.

28. The defence contended that the prosecution failed to establish motive, particularly by not examining Sarala, the wife of P.W.1, who was alleged to have had an illicit relationship with A1. It is well settled that when there is clear, cogent and reliable evidence of eyewitness with respect to the occurrence and the specific overt acts of the accused, proof of motive assumes only secondary importance. In the present case, the occurrence itself is spoken to consistently by the eye-witnesses, and therefore, the non-examination of Sarala or any alleged weakness in proving motive does not weaken the prosecution case.

29. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.Ws.5, 8 and 9 turned hostile and did not fully support the prosecution version. It is trite law that the evidence of a hostile witness is not to be rejected in its entirety and that the Court may rely upon such portions of the testimony which inspire confidence and find corroboration from other evidence on record. Even otherwise, excluding the testimony of hostile witnesses, the prosecution case, insofar as the assault on the deceased is concerned, rests firmly on the consistent, natural and trustworthy evidence of P.Ws.1, 6 and 10.

30. The learned counsel for the accused contended that there was a delay in lodging the complaint and registering the First Information Report and that such delay creates a doubt about the prosecution case. This Court does not find any force in the said submission. The occurrence took place at about 8.00 p.m. on 06.06.2011. The deceased sustained a serious head injury and fell unconscious at the spot. He was immediately taken by ambulance to the Government Hospital, Chidambaram, and thereafter referred to JIPMER Hospital, Puducherry, for further treatment. The evidence on record shows that the primary concern of the family members at that time was to save the life of the injured rather than to go to the police station to lodge a complaint. The complaint came to be lodged at about 12.30 a.m. on 07.06.2011, after the injured was admitted in the hospital. The delay is therefore natural and stands properly explained. In cases involving serious injuries, some delay in lodging the complaint is to be expected and cannot, by itself, be a ground to doubt the prosecution case. In the present case, the contents of the complaint are consistent with the evidence of the eyewitnesses examined before the Court, and there is no indication of any exaggeration or false implication. The accused have also not shown that they were in any way prejudiced by the said delay. Hence, this Court holds that the delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal to the prosecution case.

31. However, upon a careful consideration of the evidence on record, it is clear that there was no prior enmity between the deceased and A2. The dispute was confined to A1 on the one hand and P.Ws.1 and 2 on the other. The deceased had no independent quarrel and was drawn into the incident only because he intervened in the dispute between A1 and P.Ws.1 and 2. On the date of occurrence, A1 went to the house of P.W.1 and abused P.W.2 in filthy language. The deceased, who was a close relative of P.Ws.1 and 2 and was present at the scene, intervened only with a view to pacify the quarrel and questioned the conduct of the accused. At that point of time, in the heat of the moment, A1 assaulted the deceased with a broken glass on his left eyebrow and caught hold of him, and while so restraining the deceased, A2 attacked him with a knife, marked as M.O.1, inflicting a fatal injury on the head. The occurrence thus arose out of a sudden quarrel, without any premeditation or prior intention to cause the death of the deceased. Though the injury inflicted by A2 was intentional and was on a vital part of the body, the attendant circumstances clearly indicate that the act was committed in a fit of anger and under provocation, and not pursuant to a calculated design to kill. Consequently, the essential ingredients required to constitute the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC are not made out. The act of A2, therefore, amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and is punishable under Section 304 Part-I IPC. The role of A1 in voluntarily causing hurt to the deceased stands independently proved, as A1 not only assaulted the deceased with a broken glass but also caught hold of him, thereby restraining the deceased and enabling the fatal attack, which clearly attracts liability under Section 324 IPC. The evidence of eyewitnesses P.Ws. 1, 6, and 10 is consistent, natural, and trustworthy, and is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. The failure of the prosecution to prove the participation of the other accused does not, in any manner, weaken the case against A1 and A2. Proof of motive, though available, is not crucial when the occurrence and the specific overt acts of the accused are clearly proved by reliable eyewitness and medical evidence.

32. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds in part. The judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court in respect of A1 and A2 is hereby set aside. A1 is found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC for causing grievous injury to the deceased and also for the offence punishable under Section 342 IPC. A2 is found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC for causing death by culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Since this appeal has resulted in reversal of the judgment of acquittal, this Court, in the interest of justice, deems it appropriate to hear A1 and A2 on the question of sentence before passing appropriate orders.

33. As regards A3 to A11, the prosecution has failed to prove their participation in the offence beyond reasonable doubt. There is no perversity in the trial Court’s acquittal of these accused, and the same is accordingly confirmed. The Criminal Appeal is therefore allowed in part, solely in respect of A1 and A2, and dismissed insofar as A3 to A11 are concerned.

34. List the appeal on 16 / 02 / 2026 for hearing A1 and A2 (respondents 2 and 3) on the question of sentence to be imposed upon them.