S. Nagamuthu, J.

The appellants are accused 1 to 5 in S.C. No. 96 of 2012 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Namakkal. The trial Court framed as many as six charges against the accused, as detailed below:-

Charges	Accused	Section of law
Charge No.1	Accused 1 to 5	148 IPC
Charge No.2	Accused 1 to 5	302 r/w 149 IPC
Charge No.3	Accused 1 and 3	307 IPC
Charge No.4	Accused 2, 4 and 5	307 r/w 149 IPC
Charge No.5	Accused 4 and 5	324 IPC
Charge No.6	Accused 1 to 3	324 r/w 149 IPC

2. By judgment, dated 21.11.2013, the trial Court convicted all the five accused, as detailed below:-

Accused	Section of law	Sentence
A-1 to A-5	U/s 148 IPC	To pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment.
A-1 to A-3	U/s 302 IPC r/w 149 IPC	Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
A-4 and A-5	U/s 324 IPC	To pay a fine of Rs.500 each, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.

3. The trial Court has ordered the sentences to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.

4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-

The deceased in this case was one Mr. Kumarasamy @ Auto Kumar. P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 are the wife, sister's son and sister, respectively, of the deceased. They were all residing at Karattankaadu Village in Namakkal District. All the accused belonged to one and the same family. There was a dispute between the two families in respect of a landed property in the said village. There were five coconut trees on the said disputed land. The accused parties had cut and removed three such trees. In respect of the other two trees, the accused parties were claiming right. Because of the said dispute, there was a long standing enmity between the two families. This is stated to be motive for the said occurrence.

5. On 29.04.2010, the accused parties had put up a small shed on the said disputed property. At the time when the shed was put up, the deceased was not in the village. As he was an auto driver by profession, he was elsewhere. In the evening, at about 07.00 pm, he returned to his house. On coming to know about the shed put up by the accused parties, he went to the house of the accused parties and questioned them as to under what authority they had put up the shed. This resulted in a quarrel. Accused 1 to 3 gave a chase to the deceased. The deceased returned to his house. Then, along with P.Ws.1 to 5, the deceased went to the place of occurrence. There arose a quarrel again. In the said quarrel, the first accused was armed with aruval, the second accused was armed with a rice pounder, the third accused was armed with an iron pipe and accused 4 and 5 were armed with wooden reapers.

6. In the said quarrel, it is stated that the first accused cut the deceased with Aruval on his neck. The second accused attacked him on his head with rice pounder. The third accused attacked the deceased with iron pipe on his head. Accused 4 and 5 attacked the deceased on his head with wooden reapers. The deceased sustained extensive blood injuries and died on the spot.

7. In the said occurrence, the first accused attacked P.W.2 with aruval on his head and caused injury. The third accused attacked P.W.3 with iron pipe on his head, resulting in injury. The fourth accused attacked P.W.4 with wooden reaper on his chest and neck. The fifth accused attacked him with wooden reaper on his chest and neck. Thus, P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 and the deceased sustained extensive injuries. After the occurrence, the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.

8. Believing that there was life in the body of the deceased, the dec