AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T. Sudanthiram, J.—All the appellants are the accused in S.C. No. 186 of 1994 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Ramanathapuram. A-1 and A-3 are found guilty by the Trial Court under Sections 302 read with 34 and sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/- on each of them, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and the second accused
is convicted u/s 326 IPC (two counts) and sentenced to undergo 3 years for each count and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for each count and in
default to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment for each count. A-2 is also directed to undergo the sentences concurrently. Against the said
convictions and sentences, the appellants have preferred these appeals.
The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 07.08.1994, at about 4.30 p.m., at Karumozhi Bust Stop, when P.W. 2 and his son, P.W. 4 went
to lodge a complaint with regard to the dispute as to who is owner of the coconut tree situate in between the houses of P.W. 2 and A-1, the
accused persons, armed with weapons, attacked both P.Ws. 2 and 4 and when the deceased Jayaseelan interfered, the accused attacked him and
caused his instantaneous death.
The evidence let in by the prosecution in brief is that:
(a) P.W. 1, V. Kulandaisamy, is the resident of Karumozhi village. He had deposed that he knows the accused and at the time of occurrence, A-1
was working as the Constable in the police department and A-2 and A-3 are his sons. The deceased is the brother of P.W. 1. P.W. 2 is the
brother-in-law of P.W. 1. He had also stated that he is having a cycle shop and the deceased is having a petty shop adjacent to his shop at the
Thiruvadanai-Devakottai Main Road. The house of the accused is situate next to the house of P.W. 2. There was a coconut tree in between those
two houses. The A-1 claimed that the tree belongs to him. So, P.W. 2 decided to lodge a complaint against A-1. On the date of occurrence, when
P.W. 2 and his son, P.W. 4 were waiting in the Karumozhi Bus Stop to go to the Police Station, the accused uttering the words as to why they are
going to the Police Station, came running towards them. When P.W. 2 tried to get into the bus, A-2 attacked him on the right side of the head with
a spade. On seeing this, the deceased Jayaseelan interfered and tried to pacify them. A-1 attacked the deceased on his right elbow with an aruval.
A-3 attacked the deceased on his left elbow with a knife. A-1 also attacked the deceased on his back with the aruval. The deceased, after running
to some distance, fell down near the shop of one Xavier. When P.W. 1 tried to run, A-2 attacked P.W. 1 with the spade on his right and left side
of the head. When P.W. 1 tried to prevent the attack, A-2 attacked him on the right wrist. This occurrence was witnessed by P.W. 5, one Pitchai
and one Chinnathambi and some of the of the villagers. They beat the accused persons due to which they sustained injuries. After the occurrence,
P.Ws. 1 and 2 went to Thiruvadanai Police Station and lodged a complaint which is marked as Ex. P.1. Thereafter, P.Ws. 1 and 2 went to
Thiruvadanai Government hospital for treatment where the body of the deceased was brought dead at 7.45 p.m. They were sent to
Ramanathapuram Government Hospital for further treatment and on the next day, P.W. 2 was sent to Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital for
treatment.
(b) P.W. 2, is the resident of the same village. He had deposed that the accused also belong to the same village. His son, Selvaraj is working as a
Police Constable in Chennai. He also stated that there was a coconut tree and a thorny fence in between the house of P.W. 2 and the house of A-
The thorny fence belonged to A-1 and the coconut tree was situate in the land of P.W. 2. There was a dispute prevailing with regard to the
ownership of the tree and a police complaint was also given by P.W. 2 in that regard. The complaint is marked as Ex. P.2. The police came to the
house of P.W. 2 and after enquiry, they asked P.W. 2 to give Rs. 400/- to A-1 and A-1 was asked to give in writing that he is not concerned with
that tree. After that also A-1 was giving trouble to P.W. 2. On the date of occurrence, i.e., 07.08.1994, when P.W. 4 asked one Manimuthu to
get the coconut from the tree, A-1 opposed and so when P.W. 4 himself tried to climb the tree, A-1 pushed him down due to which P.W. 4
sustained injury. P.W. 2 had further deposed about the occurrence in the same manner as spoken by P.W. 1.
(c) P.W. 4, the son of P.W. 2 also deposed about the occurrence in the same manner as spoken by P.Ws. 1 and 2. P.W. 5 is the resident of the
same village. He had deposed that he knows both the accused and the deceased. On 07.08.1994 at about 4.30 p.m., while he was standing in the
Karumozhi Bus Stop, P.Ws. 2 and 4 came there and were talking with each other that they should go to the Police Station. One Pitchai and one
Chinnathambi were also present in the scene of occurrence. At that time, the accused came there with deadly weapons and started attacking P.W.
On seeing this, P.W. 1 and his brother, the deceased came there and tried to pacify the situation. But, the accused started attacking both P.W.
1 and the deceased. They sustained injuries. P.W. 5 and others took some weapons from the nearby shops and beat the accused. They took the
deceased to the hospital where he was declared dead.
(d) P.W. 12 was the Sub Inspector of Police of Thiruvadanai Police Station during the relevant period. He had deposed that on 15.09.1993, P.W.
2 gave a complaint against A-1 and A-2 which is marked as Ex. P.2, based on which he conducted the enquiry. A-1 gave a written statement-Ex.
P.13 that he would not interfere in the affairs of P.W. 2 and the Investigating Officer after completing the investigation, closed the case. On the date
of occurrence, i.e., 07.08.1994, at 5.30 p.m., when he was in duty, P.Ws. 1 and 2 came to the Police Station and gave a complaint, Ex. P.1. At
that time, P.W. 1 was injured. After recording the complaint, he sent P.Ws. 1 and 2 for treatment to Thiruvadanai Government Hospital along with
the police memo. Based on the complaint, he registered a case in Crime No. 186 of 1994 under Sections 324 and 307 IPC. Ex. P.15 is the
Printed First Information Report. He sent the First Information Report to the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned and also forwarded the copies
of the First Information Report to the higher officials. After some time, P.W. 4 along with the deceased came to the Police Station. P.W. 4 was
also injured at that time. Since they were all involved in the same case, the Investigating Officer sent the deceased and P.W. 4 to the said hospital.
The accused also appeared before the Investigating Officer with injuries. The Investigating Officer sent all the accused to the hospital with the
memos. One Gurusamy, was the Sub Inspector of Police of that Police Station during the relevant period. He recorded the statement of A-1 in the
hospital. Based on the complaint given by A-1, he registered a case in Crime No. 187 of 1994 under Sections 147, 148 and 324 Inspector of
Police. Ex. P.16 is the printed First Information Report in that regard. He also sent the First Information Report to the Court concerned and to the
higher officials. The Investigating Officer received an intimation under Ex. P.17, from the hospital at 7.45 p.m., that the deceased had died.
Therefore, he altered the case in Crime No. 186 of 1994 to Section 302 IPC and forwarded the Express First Information Report, Ex. P.18 to the
Court concerned and to the superior officials.
(e) P.W. 16, the Inspector of Police of Thondi Police Station during the relevant period, on getting instructions from the Deputy Superintendent of
police, Ramanathapuram, went to Thiruvadanai Police Station on 07.08.1994 at 9.00 p.m. He received the First Information Reports in Crime
Nos. 186 and 187 of 1994 and commenced the investigation in both the cases. He went to the scene of occurrence at 11.30 p.m. on the same day
and prepared Ex. P.4-the Observation Mahazar. He also prepared Ex. P.23-the rough sketch. He recovered the blood stained aruval, blood
stained iron rod and blood stained spade under the cover of the Athakshi-Ex. P.3. On 08.08.1994, from 7.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m., he held inquest
on the dead body of the deceased in the hospital and prepared Ex. P.24-the Inquest Report in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars. He
also sent a requisition to the doctor to conduct the postmortem of the deceased. The Investigating Officer examined the witnesses and recorded
their statements. He also recovered M.O.15-the blood stained earth and M.O.16-sample earth under the cover of a mahazar. He sent the Xerox
copy of the First Information Report in Crime No. 187 of 1994, Ex. P.25, the Inspector of Police, Thiruvadanai Police Station, who took up the
further investigation.
(f) P.W. 10, who was the Assistant Medical Officer of the Thiruvadanai Government Hospital, was in duty during the relevant period. On
07.08.1994 at 6.30 p.m., he medically examined P.W. 1. P.W. 1 had stated to the doctor that he was attacked by three persons with sticks. Ex.
P.6 is the Wound Certificate given by P.W. 10 to P.W. 1 wherein he found the following injuries:
A gapping wound 6cmx1cmx1cm above right ear nearly above right ear.
A gapping wound 6cmx1/2cmx1/2cm back side of the head nearly 4cm behind left ear.
Contusion over right fore arm and wrist 6 cm � 4 cm � 1 cm.
He opined that the injury No. 3 is grievous in nature and the injury Nos. 1 and 2 are simple in nature. He also sent P.W. 1 to Ramanathapuram
Government Hospital for further treatment. On the same day, at 6.30 p.m., he gave treatment to P.W. 2 who had stated to him that he was
attacked by three persons with sticks. P.W. 10 gave Ex. P.7-the Wound Certificate wherein he found the following injuries:
A gapping wound 8cmx1cmx1cm over the scalp right nearly 6cm above right ear.
The doctor had opined that the injury was grievous in nature. P.W. 2 was also sent to Ramanathapuram Government Hospital for further
treatment. At 7.00 p.m., P.W. 10 gave treatment to A-1. A-1 had stated that he was attacked by 3 persons with stick and aruval near his house.
He found the following injuries:
A gapping wound 3 cm � � cm � � cm just above right eye.
An irregular gapping wound with laceration 6cm above left ear. 5 Cm � 1 cm � � cm.
Contusion on the back side of lower end of left forearm 3 cm � 2 cm � 1 cm.
An irregular wound with bone protruding proximal right middle finger.
Ex. P. 9 is the Wound Certificate wherein the doctor had opined that the injuries are grievous in nature and A-1 was sent to Ramanathapuram
Government Hospital for further treatment. At about 7.45 p.m., he medically examined P.W. 4 who had stated to him that he was pushed down by
some persons near Karungulam Bus stop at Devakottai Main Road. He issued Ex. P.8-the Wound Certificate wherein he found an abrasion over
the right knee and he opined that the injury is simple in nature. On the same day, at about 7.05 p.m., he medically examined A-2 who had stated
that he was attacked by four persons with aruval, stick and cycle chain. The doctor gave Ex. P.10-the Wound Certificate wherein he found the
following injuries:
An irregular gapping wound 3 cm � � cm � 1 cm on the top of head.
A wound � cm � � cm � � cm behind left ear.
A gapping irregular wound 1 cm � � cm � � cm with fracture bone protruding.
A linear abrasion over right collar bone 1 cm � � cm.
Contusion over right leg upper end 3cm � 2cm � 1mm.
6.Contusion over upper arm, right 4cm � 3cm � 1cm.
He opined that the injuries are grievous in nature. He had also examined A-3 at 7.10 p.m., on the same day who had stated that he was attacked
by three persons with stick, wooden log and cycle chain. P.W. 10 gave Ex. P.11-the Wound Certificate of A-3 wherein he found the following
injuries:
Abrasion on the back side of the shoulder left 1cm � � cm � 1/4cm.
Abrasion 4 cm � 1 cm � � cm on the back side of right forearm.
A gapping wound 5cm above left ear 2 cm � � cm � � cm.
Contusion over back side of right index finger.
Chest pain.
He opined that the injuries are simple in nature. He was also sent to Ramanathapuram Government Hospital for further treatment.
(g) P.W. 9, who was the Assistant Medical Officer of the Thiruvadanai Government Hospital, received requisition on 08.08.1994 at about 10.40
a.m. for conducting the postmortem of the deceased. He commenced the postmortem at 11.00 a.m. And gave Ex. P.5-the Postmortem Certificate
wherein he had found the following injuries:
EXTERNAL INJURIES:
Incised wound with 6cm straight upper edge parallel to upper margin of left nipple an d1cm lateral to left nipple with a semi circular lower edge
of 8cm length and a breadth of 2cm at the centre, depth of the wound is 10 cm. The edge of the skin of the wound is sutured.
Round wound of 1 cm diameter over the left midaxillary line 5cm lateral to lateral edge of injury No. 1 and 12 cm lateral to left nipple 2cm
below the parallel line drawn from the center of the left nipple to left mid axillary line. The depth of the wound is 2 cms.
3.Spindle shaped incised wound of 2cm length 1cm breadth 1cm depth on left side of spinal column at the level of L1.
The doctor had opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the penetrating injury in the left arterium 18
to 20 hours prior to autopsy.
(h) P.W. 17, the Inspector of Police of Thiruvadanai Police Station during the relevant period, took up further investigation in Crime No. 186 of
1994 and on 20.09.1994 he sent the material objects for chemical analysis along with the requisition, Ex. P.19, which resulted in two reports, viz.,
Ex. P.21-the Serologist report and Ex. P.22-the Chemical Analyst Report. The accused were sent to judicial remand. The Investigating Officer
examined P.W. 14, P.W. 9-the postmortem doctor and the doctors who medically examined P.Ws. 1,2 and 4 and recorded their statements.
After completing his investigation, the Investigating Officer laid the final report against the accused. With regard to the investigation in crime No.
187 of 1994, he referred the case as �Mistake of Fact� and closed the same.
In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses, marked 26 exhibits and produced 16 material objects.
The accused were questioned u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses
against them. They denied their complicity in the crime. No oral or documentary evidence had been adduced on the side on the side of the
defence.
Mr. V. Gopalakrishna Lakshmana Raju, learned Senior Counsel appearing for all the appellants, streneously contended that the original First
Information Report has been suppressed and the present Ex. P.1 is concocted one to suit the prosecution case and Ex. P.1 is falsified by the
documents Ex. D.4 and D.5. The genesis of the occurrence is suppressed by the prosecution and the prosecution is not coming forward with a true
version. The injuries on all the accused remain unexplained. No independent eyewitness is examined and even P.W. 5 is not an independent
witness. The place of occurrence as spoken by the prosecution in front of P.W. 1�s shop is also not proved since there was no blood stain
there. The finding of the Trial Court that the accused are the aggressors is incorrect and only the prosecution parties were the aggressors who
indulged in fight and caused injuries to the accused parties.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor was heard with regard to the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor had per contra, submitted that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 are consistent and their evidence is
corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 5. The injuries on the accused were caused due to attack by the public after the occurrence, which is
narrated even in Ex. P.1. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that the version of the defence is improbable whereas the
prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt.
We have gone through all the evidence and materials available in this case and carefully considered the rival submissions made by both parties.
With regard to the occurrence, P.Ws. 1 to 5 speak and among them, P.Ws. 1,2 and 4 are the injured witnesses apart from the deceased. A-1
to A-3 are also injured. As both parties are injured, it is to be seen whether both the deceased party and the accused party sustained injuries in
one and the same occurrence and if it is so, who are the aggressors. On the basis of the complaint given by P.W. 1, a case was registered in Crime
No. 186 of 1994 and Ex. P.15 is the First Information Report in which all the three appellants are shown as the accused. On the basis of the
complaint given by A-1, a case was registered in Crime No. 187 of 1994 and Ex. P.16 is the First Information Report in that regard. As per Ex.
P.16, P.Ws. 1,2 and 4, the deceased and three others are the accused. The time of occurrence in Ex. P.15 is 4.30 p.m., and the time of
occurrence in Ex. P.16 is 5.00 p.m. The learned Senior Counsel submitted though there is a time variation of half an hour in mentioning the time of
occurrence, it is the admitted case that the occurrence was at one and the same time. As it was the case and counter, P.W. 17, the Investigating
Officer also had stated that after the completion of the investigation, he laid the final report against the accused in Crime NO. 186 of 1994 and he
referred the case in Crime No. 187 of 1994 as �Mistake of Fact�. It is also not the prosecution case that the deceased party and the accused
party were injured in two different occurrences. The only attempt made by the prosecution to show is that the accused have been attacked by the
other people immediately after the occurrence. With these above observation, the evidence and the materials are to be analysed.
With regard to the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the original First Information Report is suppressed and the present Ex. P.1 is
contra to Ex. D4 to D6, is to be analysed. Ex. D4 is the entry made by the police in the General Diary at 5.30 p.m. As per Ex. P.1 it is stated by
P.W. 1 that after the occurrence, P.W. 1 had come to the Police Station to report the matter. But, he was not knowing about the position of the
deceased who was attacked by the accused. Whereas, Ex. D4 mentions that after the entry at 5.30 p.m. about the complaint given by P.W. 1 and
being registered, another entry at 5.30 p.m. is made that P.W. 4 came with the deceased and informed that they were injured and they were also
sent to the hospital with a memo. Ex. D5 is the memo for sending P.Ws. 1 and 2 to the hospital. On perusal of Ex. D4, there is an another entry at
6.30 p.m., that A-1 appeared before the police and gave a complaint along with the other accused and they were also sent to the hospital with a
memo. Ex. D6 is the memo in respect of the accused for sending them to the hospital. Anyhow, the entry in Ex. D4 does not affect Ex. D.1.
The submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the entry made in Ex. D4 that the deceased was brought to the police station and thereafter,
he was sent to the hospital is not acceptable on the basis of the opinion given by the doctor that the death was instantaneous; would not affect the
prosecution evidence that the deceased was brought to the Police Station and thereafter, taken to the hospital in a bus by P.W. 4, since the witness
might have been under the impression that the deceased was alive. P.W. 4 also stated in cross-examination that when he went and saw after the
occurrence, the deceased was alive.
With regard to the contention of the defence counsel that no independent witness is examined by the prosecution, also may not affect the total
version of the case of the prosecution. It is true that P.W. 5 is also associated to P.W. 2 which is admitted by P.W. 2 in his cross-examination that
A-1 had given a case in the year 1988 against P.Ws. 2,5 and others.
With regard to the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that whether the prosecution has come forward with the genesis of the occurrence
and whether the injury on the accused have been explained and whether the place of occurrence shown by the prosecution is acceptable, are all to
be analysed in considering the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses and other available materials in this case. As per Ex. P.23-the rough sketch
and Ex. P.4-the Observation Mahazar, the blood stains were found on the Main Road which is 150 feet distance away from the house of the
deceased and P.W. 1�s shop and 200 feet distance away from P.W. 4�s house and 150 feet distance from A-1�s house. It is also clear
that the place of both parties are nearer to each other. The dispute between the parties is with regard to the coconut tree between the house of
P.W. 2 and A-1. Both P.W. 2 and A-1 claim as the owner of the coconut tree. Even as per Ex. P.16, the First Information Report on the basis of
the complaint given by A-1, the dispute between A-1 and P.W. 2 with regard to the land and the coconut tree was for the past 12 years.
According to P.W. 2, even about one year prior to the occurrence, he had given a complaint to the police, Ex. P.2, against A-1. Therefore, it is
possible to conclude that both the prosecution and the accused party had grievance against each other due to the dispute with regard to the
ownership of the coconut tree. According to the evidence of P.W. 2, on the date of occurrence, P.W. 4 went and brought one Manimuthu to
pluck the coconuts and as the said Manimuthu climbed the tree, A-1 objected to it and therefore, the said Manimuthu had left the place. Then
P.W. 4 tried to climb the tree and A-1 pushed him down and thereafter, both P.Ws. 2 and 4 in order to give a complaint to police, went near the
bus stop. Even in Ex. P.1, it is stated that P.W. 4 attempted to pluck the coconuts from the tree and the accused came and objected to it and
therefore, P.Ws. 2 and 4 went near the bus stop in order to go to the Police Station. Even as per Ex. P.16, the First Information Report registered
on the basis of the complaint given by A-1, it is stated that on the date of occurrence, P.W. 4 came along with the family members to pluck the
coconuts from the tree and it was objected by him. Then they started abusing A-1 and thereafter, the occurrence followed. It is therefore, clear
that on the date of occurrence, the dispute arose again between the parties as P.W. 4 attempted to pluck coconuts from the tree. Therefore, the
origin for the occurrence is only due to the attempt made by P.W. 4 to pluck the coconuts from the tree. The quarrel started between the parties
only near the coconut tree. Though the learned Senior Counsel submitted that according to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the
occurrence had taken place near the bus stop, but the actual place of occurrence was only near the coconut tree. The distance between the
coconut tree and the place of occurrence is only about less than 200 feet.
The contention of the learned Senior Counsel that no blood stain was found in front of the shop of P.W. 1, it is not the prosecution version that
the deceased was attacked in front of the shop. Only after the deceased rushed to the scene of occurrence, he was attacked. Therefore, it can be
safely concluded that though the quarrel started near the coconut tree between the parties, the occurrence had ended at the Main Road which is
nearer to the place where the blood stains were found. As per the Wound Certificates of the prosecution witnesses and the accused, the place of
occurrence was on the Main Road.
With regard to the occurrence there are two versions, one from the prosecution and the other from the defence. In both the complaints, though
it is stated that how each one of the party was being attacked by the opposite party, with regard to the injury on A-1 to A-3, the prosecution
witnesses had disowned their liabilities. They simply state that the accused were subsequently attacked by the villagers whereas in the complaint
given by A-1 against P.W. 1 and others, the accused disown their liability with regard to the attack on the deceased. On the other hand, it is stated
that while P.W. 4 attempted to stab A-3, the deceased intervened and therefore, the stab fell on the chest of the deceased. The explanation given
by both the parties for the injuries sustained by the other party are not convincing and acceptable. Admittedly, the occurrence being at one and the
same time and both the parties having suffered injury at the same time and the origin being the same has put forward by both the prosecution
witnesses and the accused; it is to be concluded that due to the dispute with regard to the coconut tree and as P.W. 4 attempted to pluck the
coconuts from the tree, the occurrence had started and both the parties have entered into a free fight. Though it was not a pre-determined attack
on each other, each one was free to attack the other. At this juncture, it is to be noted that though the prosecution witness has explained that the
accused were attacked by the villagers, no case is filed by the police against the villagers and the police had stated that A-1 had given complaint
with the specific name of P.Ws. 1, 2, 4, the deceased and three others.
The learned Senior Counsel also brought to our notice that though the police had referred the complaint given by A-1, a private complaint was
filed by A-1 against the said persons in C.C.No.1 of 1996 and it was tried and decided by the same Court and the Judgment was delivered on the
same day. P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and three others were convicted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 447 and 506(ii) IPC. This Court is
not going to the details of the conviction of the other case.
Having regard to the totality of the evidence, we are convinced that both parties came and indulged in a free fight which resulted in injuries on
both sides. As both the parties had prepared to fight, it is unnecessary to go into the question as to whether any of them exercised the right of
defence and therefore, the culpability of the accused must be determined by reference to the individual acts. In 1993 SCC (Cri) 882 Dwarka
Prasad v. State of U.P. the Hon�ble Supreme Court has held that:
A free fight is that when both sides mean to fight a pitched battle, the question of who attacks and who defends in such a fight is wholly
immaterial and depends on the tactics adopted by the rival party. In such cases of mutual fights, both sides can be convicted for their individual
acts. This position has been settled by this Court in the cases of Gajanand v. State of U.P., Kanbi Nanji virji v. State of Gujarat, Puran v. State of
Rajasthan, Vishvas Aba Kurane v. State of Maharashtra. As such once it is established by the prosecution that the occurrence in question is result
of a free fight then normally no right of private defence is available to either party and they will be guilty of their respective acts.
In this case, even the Trial Court has not made A-2 responsible or liable for the death of the deceased. A-2 is found guilty only for attacking P.Ws.
1 and 2 and has not even framed charge against him in respect of it. As such, the consistent evidence is that the deceased was attacked by A-1
and A-3. A-1 cut the deceased with an aruval on his left chest and on the back and A-3 stabbed the deceased with a slukki knife on the left flank.
Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC states that:
Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without
the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
The act of A-1 and A-3 attacking the deceased falls under the Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC.
Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on A-1 and A-3 u/s 302 read with 34 IPC is set aside and instead, they are convicted u/s
304(Part I) IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment. The fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- imposed on each of them, is
retained for this offence. The conviction imposed on A-2 u/s 326 IPC for two counts is confirmed. The sentence of three years rigorous
imprisonment is reduced to one year rigorous imprisonment considering the fact that the occurrence had taken place twelve years ago.
With the above modification, the criminal appeal is partly allowed.