ORDER

1. There are seven appellants who have impugned the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 793 of a 1995 dated 30-9-2003. Before the High Court there were eight appellants but out of them A-2 is said to have died before this appeal was preferred and therefore, we are concerned with seven appellants only . they were tried by the Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai in Sessions Case No. 33 of 1994. The learned Sessions Judge found A-I, A-2 (since deceased) and A-5 to A-8 guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and A-3 and A-4 guilty of b the offence under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC. All of them were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Their appeal was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned judgment and order.

2. The incident giving rise to this appeal took place on 25-8-1993 at about 6.30 p.m. in which, according to the prosecution, the appellants participated and caused injuries to one Chinnapaiyan Sikari who succumbed to his injuries on the next day at about 2.30 p.m. while being treated in the hospital.

3. It appears that the deceased as well as the prosecution witnesses are residents of Village Poosanipadithangal while the appellants are residents of Village Marusur. It appears that these villages are at a distance of only a furlong and half from each other and for all purposes both the villages are d treated as one, in the sense that all disputes and problems are discussed in the Panchayat of Village Marusur which is a larger village with about 400 houses as compared to Village Poosanipadithangal where there are about 20 to 30 houses only. There is evidence on record to show that on many issues differences had arisen between the villagers of these two villages and on several occasions villagers of Village Poosanipadithangal had convened Panchayat or reported matters to the authorities against the misdeeds of the residents of Village Marusur. We have perused the material on record. It appears that most of the issues on which the villagers had disputes were trivial and were not of very serious nature. However, the relationship between the villagers of the two villages was not cordial. The villagers of Village Marusur were particularly aggrieved by the leading role played by the f deceased in sending his sons to complain and moving the authorities to intervene in the disputes between the two villages.

4. The case of the prosecution is that on the date of occurrence, the appellants came to Village Poosanipadithangal and accosted the deceased who was in his house. It is the case of the prosecution that A-I charged the deceased of sending his children to lodge complaints against them. He further admonished him and stated that unless his limbs are broken he will not learn a lesson and stop complaining against them. It is alleged that the appellants were armed with sticks which have been described as thorny sticks. After this altercation between A-I and the deceased, A-3 and A-4 caught hold of the deceased from behind and held his arms so that he was rendered helpless. A-I hit the deceased on his head with a stick while A-2 (since deceased) assaulted the deceased on his face and cheek with his stick. PW 2, the wife of the deceased intervened but A-I attacked her on her head

and hands. It is the case of the prosecution that A-5 to A-8 also assaulted the deceased on his chest, back, legs and knee. After the assault, the deceased fell down unconscious and was taken to Arani Government Hospital. He was thereafter shifted to Vellore ore Government Hospital for further treatment.

5. It also appears from the record that first information report was lodged by PW 1, the son of the deceased who is also an eyewitness. On the basis of the FIR the case was registered and investigated. As noticed earlier the trial court found the appellants guilty and the conviction recorded by the trial court has been affirmed by the High Court in appeal.

6. Learned counsel appearing