J U D G M E N T have lived together at Mandapam for nearly 20 years. There was some misunderstanding between them and hence the deceased was said to have left Valli. The accused persons herein are the relatives of the said Valli and it is stated that they developed a motive against the deceased since the deceased abandoned the said Valli. On 03.01.2021 at about 2.30 p.m., when the deceased was returning to his house from the tea shop, the accused persons were said to have picked up a wordy quarrel during which time the deceased was pushed down and the accused persons kicked him all over his body and also dragged him in the floor. As a result, the deceased died on the spot. Accordingly, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.2 of 2021 as against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323 and 304 of IPC.

3.2. After completion of the investigation, the respondent police laid the charge sheet before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram, and the same was taken on file in P.R.C. No.

15 of 2021.

3.3. On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section

207 of Cr.P.C. were complied with, and the case was committed to the Court of Session, where it was taken on file in S.C. No.138 of 2021 and made over to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram , for trial under Section 209(A) of Cr.P.C. The trial Court framed charges against the appellants for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323 and 304 of IPC.

3.4. In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.14, and 10 exhibits were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10, and no material objects were marked

3.5. After examination of the prosecution witnesses, when the appellants were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the charges as false. No witness was examined on the side of the accused, nor was any document marked.

4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record and hearing both sides, by judgment dated 07.06.2022, convicted the appellants and sentenced them as detailed in Paragraph No.2 supra. Challenging the above-said conviction and sentence, the appellants have filed the present appeal.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that there is no evidence to show that the injuries sustained by the deceased were caused by the appellants and that the deceased died due to those injuries. Even P.W. 10 doctor in his evidence has clearly stated that the deceased died by consuming alcohol during the occurrence. Moreover, Ex.P.10 shows that the stomach, intestine, liver and kidney of the deceased contained alcohol which wholly corroborates with defence of the appellants wherein it was suggested to all the eye witnesses that the deceased fell down by himself because of the influence of the alcohol and also due to old age he died. There is no specific overt act against the appellants . Even if the case is admitted to be true it would attract the offence under Section 323 of IPC and not more than that. The genuineness of the occurrence remains highly doubtful. Though the witnesses have stated that the accused caused injuries, P.W.13 the doctor who first saw the deceased in the hospital when the deceased was brought to the hospital for treatment declared the deceased as brought dead.

6. Further the deceased had stated that he was assaulted by 6 to 7 known persons which is reflected in the Ex.P7 (AR entry). The delay is not only inordinate but also remains unexplained. Even as per the case of prosecution, the occurrence took place at 02.30 p.m. on 03.01.2021, however, the complaint was given only at 05.00 p.m., whereas the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is about 2 to 3 kms only. Further the delay in forwarding the complaint and the FIR is not acceptable. Even as per the prosecution case the FIR was regist