for all assault in which not only the victim and his daughterin-law (P.W.1) sustained injuries but also both the appellant and his wife. In fact, initially the FIR in Crime No.41/2016 registered based on the statement of P.W.1 was for offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506 (ii) and 302 IPC against the appellant and his wife. Simultaneously, another FIR in Crime No.42/2016 was registered based on the statement of Rajakumari under similar Sections against the deceased Rayar, Kalaiselvi (P.W.1) and Rajangam (P.W.2). Though FIR in Crime No.42/2016 was closed by P.W.16 as mistake of fact it is true that the appellant and his wife were injured as is evidenced by the Accident Registers Ex.D3 and Ex.D4. This fact has been confirmed by P.W.1 also in her deposition. Out of the three eyewitnesses to the occurrence, P.W.1 has claimed that she saw her deceased father-in-law after he was attacked by the appellant and his wife and that when she went to physically lift him she was also attacked by the appellant with the crow-bar (M.O.2). P.W.2, the husband of P.W.1 also corroborated P.W.1 by deposing that only after hearing his father's scream P.W.1 rushed to scene of occurrence and tried to lift his father when she was allegedly attacked by the appellant. P.W.3, the mother of the appellant had deposed that the appellant attacked her husband with a crowbar (M.O.2) on his head. P.W.4 to P.W.7 who turned hostile have also confirmed the presence of both the appellant and his wife in the scene of occurrence carrying the crow-bar (M.O.2) and Aruval (M.O.3). This portion of their deposition, though they turned hostile, cannot be brushed aside. It is also true that both the deceased and P.W.1 suffered serious injuries in comparison to that suffered by the appellant and his wife. It is also pertinent to mention that the complaint in FIR 42/2016 was closed as per the evidence of P.W.16. P.W.3 in fact has also revealed that the first appellant and the deceased were not in talking terms for about 30 years and the same was the case with P.W.2 and the first appellant also. Therefore, it is clear that there was a sharp divide in the family with the appellant and his wife on one side and the rest of the family on the other. The animosity only kept growing over the years and ended up in this attack. The deceased, unlike many other fathers, was clear in his thought while partitioning his properties retaining a portion of it for his own use. It can also be seen from the depositions of all the close relatives that all the three sons of the deceased were living separately with their respective families in the properties settled in their favour. They were not living with their father, the deceased. During the course of cross examination it was suggested to prosecution witnesses that in the fight involving a group of persons the possibility of the deceased and P.W.1 getting injured cannot be attributed to the
