Judgment : ARUNACHALAM, J. ( 1 ) BOTH these appeals are disposed of together, since the appellants in C. A. 948/85 and C. A. 63/86 were A5 to A7 and Al to A4 respectively, in S. C. No. 282 of 1984 on the file of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli and the case against them related to one and the same transaction. ( 2 ) IN S. C. No. 282 of 1984 three charges were framed. The first charge was against all the appellants under Section 148, Indian Penal Code on the allegation, that at or about 7 p. m. on 27/4/1984 at Meenthuli Village, they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, with the common object of causing the death of deceased Chelliah Konar and causing hurt to his son P. W. 1 Sivanaiya Konar, Al was then armed with an aruval, while A2 to A7 were armed with Kathi Kambus. The second charge was also framed against all the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code, alleging that in the course of the same transaction, Al attacked the deceased with an aruval, while A2 to A 7 attacked him with Kathi Kambus leading to his death. The last charge was against A2 and A 7 for having caused hurt to P. W. 1 Sivanaiya Konar, by beating him with Kathi Kambu in the course of the same transaction. The learned trial Judge found the appellants guilty as charged. Under the first charge, each one of them was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year, while under the second charge, each appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and on the last charge A2 and A 7 were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year. The sentences of imprisonment were, directed to run concurrently. ( 3 ) THE prosecution case needs narration. Al and A2 are brothers. A3 to A 7 are the friends of Al and A2. Deceased Chelliah Konar was the father of P. W. 1, Sivanaiya Konar. The appellants, the deceased and P. W. 1 were residents of Meenthuli village. On 26/4/1984, P. W. 1 and the deceased, at or about 10 p. m. , had fixed a sheep pen in the land of Narayanasamy Naicker, examined as P. W. 6, and were keeping watch. During night time, they noticed movement of sheep. The appellants, the deceased and P. W. 1 were residents of Meenthuli village. On 26/4/1984, P. W. 1 and the deceased, at or about 10 p. m. , had fixed a sheep pen in the land of Narayanasamy Naicker, examined as P. W. 6, and were keeping watch. During night time, they noticed movement of sheep. Deceased got up and noticed A2 to A4 near the sheep-pen and A2 attempting to catch hold of a sheep. Deceased Chelliah Konar beat with a stick, on the head of A2. Soon thereafter A2, A3 and A4 vanished from the scene. While so, at or about 7 a. m. on 27/4/1984, as was usual, Srinivasan, the younger brother of P. W. 1 came to the sheep-pen to feed the sheep. He was standing near a well within the vicinity of sheep-pen. At that time A 1 armed with an aruval and A2 to A 7 armed with Kathi Kambu, came to the place, where the sheep-pen was situated. Deceased Chelliah Konar questioned A 1. Immediately Al cut on the head of the deceased with an aruval. When he aimed a second cut, on being warded off, it landed on the left little finger and left side of the fore-head, close to the eye brow. A2 with a Kathikambu beat on the head of the deceased. A3 with another Kathikambu stabbed on the elbow of the deceased. A4 with a Kathikambu, he possessed, stabbed on the left flank of the deceased. AS to A 7 stating, that they would not leave the deceased alive, indiscriminately beat and cut the deceased with Kathikambus, they possessed. When P. W. 1 intervened, A 7 holding the blade portion of the kathikambu beat on his head and back. Similarly, A2 beat on the back and left elbow of P. W. 1. A2 and A6 then chased Srinivasan, who was hiding-behind the well, but he made good his escape. The occurrence was witnessed by P. W. 1 as well as P. W. 2 Karuppasamy, who was a watcher in the forest department. P. W. 2 was able to see the occurrence, while on duty at the scene place. He had noticed all the accused crossing him, at or about 6. 45 a. m. , when Al was armed with an aruval, while all the other accused possessed kathikambu. He followed them and was able to witness the occurrence. P. W. 2 was able to see the occurrence, while on duty at the scene place. He had noticed all the accused crossing him, at or about 6. 45 a. m. , when Al was armed with an aruval, while all the other accused possessed kathikambu. He followed them and was able to witness the occurrence. Subsequent to the occurrence, he questioned the accused as to why they had committed such an atrocious act. The accused are stated to have replied, that A2 was beaten on the earlier night and therefore after finishing their job, they were leaving the scene. P. W. 2 came over to Meenthulli village after the occurrence and informed about this occurrence to Chellaiah Konar, the son-in-law of the deceased. ( 4 ) AFTER the occurrence, the deceased fell down face upwards, at the scene. P. W. 1, who had sustained injuries also fell down and became unconscious for sometime. The appellants ran away from the scene. Sometime later, after regaining consciousness, P. W. 1 got up, walked to a distance of 20 feet to 30 feet and not being able to proceed further, sat down. At or about 8 a. m. Srinivasan, the brother of P. W. 1, his mother Ayyammal and brother-in-law Chelliah Konar came to the scene. At that time, the deceased was alive. Srinivasan and Chelliah Konar proceeded to Sankarankoil, fetched a taxi, and arrived at the scene over again, at 10. 30 a. m. Before the taxi could arrive, Chelliah Konar had breached his last. In the taxi fetched for Sankarankoil, P. W. 1 along with his brother and brother-in-law went over to Panavadali police station at or about 2 p. m. ; P. W. 1 narrated about this occurrence to P. W. 10, the Sub Inspector of Police. P. W. 10 reduced into writing the statement of P. W. 1. On Ex. P1 so recorded, he obtained his (P. W. 1) thumb impression. On Ex. P1, P. W. 10 registered crime No. 45 of 1984 under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 307, Indian Penal Code. Ex. P16 is the printed First Information Report. Ex. P1 and P16 were forwarded to Court through police constable Sethu (P. W. 8 ). P. W. 10 also conveyed message over VHF of the registration of this crime, to P. W. 11 Subbarayan, Inspector of Police, Sankarankoil. Ex. P16 is the printed First Information Report. Ex. P1 and P16 were forwarded to Court through police constable Sethu (P. W. 8 ). P. W. 10 also conveyed message over VHF of the registration of this crime, to P. W. 11 Subbarayan, Inspector of Police, Sankarankoil. Since P. W. 10 noticed injuries on P. W. 1, after recovering M. Os. 1 and 2, the blood stained dhothi and towel, P. W. 1 was wearing, he forwarded him with a memo Ex. P. 10 to the Government hospital, Sankarankoil for examination and treatment. ( 5 ) P. W. 5 Dr. Karunakaran examined P. W. 1 at or about 6 p. m. on 27/4/1984, and found the following injuries on him. 1. 1. An incised gaping injury of 1 x 3/4 x 1 vertical at the posterior aspect of lower 1/3 of left arm 1 above the posterior aspect of left elbow. 2. An incised gaping injury of 1 x 1/2 x 1 vertical present 1/2 above the injury No. 1 in its line. 3. A laceration of 1" x 1/2 skin deep on a contusion of 2 x 2 at the right parietal region of head. 4. A contusion of 2 x 2 at the centre of and other of right arm. 5. A contusion with stick mark trans verse left upper scapula. 6. A contusion of 3 x 2 left infra scapular region. 7. A contusion of 2 x 1 at the back of left hand. 8. A contusion of 2 x 1-1/2 at the back of lower neck. 9. A contusion of 2 x 1 outer upper left leg transverse. P. W. 1 told P. W. 5 that he had been attacked with aruval and kathikambu by two known persons at or about 7 a. m. on 27/4/1984. X-Ray of left elbow joint of P. W. 1 did not reveal any fracture. It was therefore, opined, that the injuries sustained by P. W. 1, were simple in nature. Ex. P. 11 is the wound certificate. P. W. 10 thereafter reached the scene of occurrence. P. W. 11 Inspector of Police, Sankarankoil, on receipt of VHF message, reached the scene of occurrence around 3. 30 p. m. and obtained at the scene, a copy of the First Information Report, from P. W.-10, and took over investigation. Ex. P. 11 is the wound certificate. P. W. 10 thereafter reached the scene of occurrence. P. W. 11 Inspector of Police, Sankarankoil, on receipt of VHF message, reached the scene of occurrence around 3. 30 p. m. and obtained at the scene, a copy of the First Information Report, from P. W.-10, and took over investigation. At or about 4 p. m. , in the presence of the village Administrative Officer, P. W. 3, he prepared the observation mahazar Ex. P. 2 and the scene sketch Ex. P. 17. At or about 5. 30 p. m. he seized from the scene blood stained earth M. O. 5 and sample earth M. O. 6 under mahazar Ex. P. 3. Between 6 p. m. and 10 p. m. he conducted inquest over the corpse of Chelliah Konar, during the course of which, he examined Srinivasan and Ayyammal. Ex. P. 18 is the inquest report. After inquest, with a requisition Ex. P. 7, through police constable Ganesan (P. W. 9) he forwarded the dead-body to the Government Hospital, Sankarankoil for the conduct of postmortem. P. W. 4 Dr. Abdul Razak commenced autopsy on the dead body at 11. 45 a. m. on 28. 4. 1984 and noticed the following injuries. 1. 1. Incised gaping wound over left side forehead close to eye brow oblique in direction 1-1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2. 2. Incised gaping wound over right side forehead 1-1/2 above eye brow horizontal 1 x 1/2 x 1/4. 3. The incised gaping wound over little finger on outer and plamer aspect oblique in direction 1 x 1/2. The underlying middle phlanx is fully cut. The distal part of the finger is hanging by skin tag. 4. A stab wound over left distal third of forearm on dorsum of 1-1/2 x 1/4 x 1/2. 5. Incised gaping wound over right parietal region 2 x 1/2 x 1/2 oblique in direction. 6. Incised gaping wound over centre of scalp (midline vertically) 3 x 1/2 x 1/2 underlying skull bone is visible. 7. A stab wound left side chest 5 below and external to nipplelj2 x 1/2 x 1/4 posterior part of wound is tailed off. 8. 8. A stab wound over left middle of left in front 1/2 x 1/4 x 1/4. 9. A stab wound 1-1/2 above injury No. 8, 3/4 x 1/2 x depth leads to fractured bone ends. 10. A stab wound left side chest 5 below and external to nipplelj2 x 1/2 x 1/4 posterior part of wound is tailed off. 8. 8. A stab wound over left middle of left in front 1/2 x 1/4 x 1/4. 9. A stab wound 1-1/2 above injury No. 8, 3/4 x 1/2 x depth leads to fractured bone ends. 10. Swelling over upper 1/3rd of left leg just lateral to injury Nos. 8 and 9,4" x 3. 11. A stab wound over middle of right leg middle front 1/2 x 1/2 x 3/4. 12. A stab wound over front of upper 1/3rd of right leg 2 above injury No. 11. 1/2 x 1/2 x depth leads to fractured ends. 13. A stab wound over upper 1/3rd right leg 1" above injury No. 12, 3/4 x 1/2 x 3/4. 14. Swelling over right upper 113rd right leg on outer aspect 3 x 2. On dissection of injury No. 14, P. W. 4 noticed extra vacation of blood in the subcutaneous tissues. He also noticed comminuted fracture of upper 113rd of tibia. On dissection of injury No. 10, subcutaneous extravasations of blood was present. There was comminuted fracture of upper end of tibia and fibula. In the opinion of the doctor, death would appear to have occurred between 12 to 30 hours prior to postmortem. The death was a result of shock and haemorrhage, due to the injuries sustained. Ex. P8 is the post mortem certificate. Injuries 1 to 3 were possible by cutting with a weapon like M. O. 8, at the time and in the manner alleged. All these stab injuries were possible by stabbing with vel-stick, at or about the same time. The swellings noticed on the dead body, could have been caused by beating with stick portion of vel-stick. The deceased could have survived for about 3 hours after sustaining injuries. All the injuries, if left untreated, were sufficient to cause death, in the ordinary course of nature. ( 6 ) P. W. 11 examined P. W. 1 at the hospital, even on 27/4/1984. At or about 1 p. m. on 28/4/1984 in the presence of P. W. 3, he arrested A2 on the road leading to Keezhaneelinallur from Melaneelinallur, at the point, where the road branches of to Elanthykulam. He seized blood stained banian M. O. 10 worn then by A2 under a mahazar Ex. P6. At or about 1 p. m. on 28/4/1984 in the presence of P. W. 3, he arrested A2 on the road leading to Keezhaneelinallur from Melaneelinallur, at the point, where the road branches of to Elanthykulam. He seized blood stained banian M. O. 10 worn then by A2 under a mahazar Ex. P6. On being questioned, A2 volunteered a statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex. P4. In pursuance of his statement, A2 took P. W. 11 and his party to the well situated in his garden and from the thorny bush, he produced M. O. 8 blood stained aruval and M. O. 9 Kathikambus which were kept concealed. They were seized under mahazar Ex. PS. P. W. 11 noticed an injury on A2 and therefore, forwarded him to the Government hospital, Sankarankoil, for examination and treatment. At or about 5. 40 p. m. on 28. 4. 1984, P. W. 4 Dr. Abdul Razak examined A2 and found on him a lacerated wound on the right temporal region of the scalp 1/2" x 1/2". Blood was found clotted over the wound. The doctor was informed, that A2 had sustained the injury, at or about 10 p. m. on 26. 4. 1984, due to an assault by a known person, with a stick. Ex. P. 9 is the wound certificate. The injury was simple and could have been sustained by A2, 24 hours prior to his medical examination. ( 7 ) P. W 11 forwarded the material objects seized during investigation, for chemical analysis, through Court. Ex. P14 and P15 are the reports of chemical analyst and Serologist respectively. The other accused could not be traced in spite of combing operations. Al and A4 to A7 surrendered before Judicial I Class Magistrate (Prohibition), Tirunelveli on 30/4/1984. A3 surrendered on 4/5/1984, before the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Sankarankoil. After completion of investigation, P. W. 11 laid the charge-sheet against the appellants before the committal Court on 3/7/1984 alleging that they had committed offences punishable under Sections 148 and 149, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 302 and Section 324, Indian Penal Code read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. ( 8 ) WHEN the appellants were questioned under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in evidence, they chose to deny their complicity in the crime. ( 8 ) WHEN the appellants were questioned under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in evidence, they chose to deny their complicity in the crime. They chose to file a written statement, containing the following details. There was bitter enmity between them and P. W. 1. Between 6 and 7 a. m. on 27/4/1984, P. W. 1 and his group, had committed mischief in the house of A2 and A3 in which process they committed robbery also. A2 and A3 immediately proceeded to the Panavadali Police Station and preferred a complaint. A3, a teacher at the Panchayat Union Middle School, Melaneeli Nallur, had attended to his work fully on 27/4/1984. P. W. 1 was not in the habit of erecting sheep-pen. Such a claim was false. The deceased was an illicit arrack distiller and was a known rowdy in the village. He had many enemies. He used to distill arrack and sit near the distillation spot. The accused did not know P. W. 2. On enquiry, they learnt that the deceased had married the daughter of the second wife of P. W. 2. P. W. 2 was dismissed from service even prior to 27/4/1984. This prosecution had been launched, with an. ulterior motive, at the instance of Krishna Konar and Nagaiah Konar. The appellants examined D. Ws. 1 and 2, to substantiate their defense apart from marking Ex. D1, to affirm the presence of A3, at his work-spot at the school, on 27/4/1984. ( 9 ) D. W. 1 Sankaran, the then Forest ranger of Sankarankoil had deposed that in 1984, P. W. 2 was not working as a watcher. He had worked only up to June 1983, in the said range. The appointment of P. W. 2, even then was temporary in nature. D. W. 2, the Headmaster of the Panchayat Union Middle School, Melaneelinallur was examined-and Ex. Dl was marked through him, to affirm the case of A3 that he was attending to his normal duties on 27. 4. 1984, from 9 a. m. to 4. The appointment of P. W. 2, even then was temporary in nature. D. W. 2, the Headmaster of the Panchayat Union Middle School, Melaneelinallur was examined-and Ex. Dl was marked through him, to affirm the case of A3 that he was attending to his normal duties on 27. 4. 1984, from 9 a. m. to 4. 30 p. m. ( 10 ) ON appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial judge, while holding, that P. W. 2 could not have been an eye witness and hence rejection his version, however held that the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and dealt with them as stated earlier, after rejecting their defense. ( 11 ) ME. N. T. Vanamamalai, learned Senior Counsel representing A 1 to A4 (Cr1. A. No. 63 of 1986) and Mr. R. Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel representing AS to A 7 (Cr1. A. No. 948 of 1985) contended that P. W. 2 had been inducted into the case to give face evidence. The induction of this false witness clearly showed, that forces were behind the prosecution, in the faction-ridden village, where admittedly security cases were pending against both parties. In other words, they submitted, that fabrication of evidence was attempted, by introducing a false witness and that should put the Court on guard, to scrutinize the evidence of P. W. 1, the only other witness, who belonged to the opposite faction, with great care and caution. They also pointed out, that between the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2, there was total variance in respect of over tracts attributed to one or other of the appellants. They went on to submit, that admittedly there was an occurrence prior to 7 a. m. in the house of A2 and A3, during the course of which it was quite possible for P. W. 1 to have stained injuries noticed on him by the medical officer. They urged that P. W. 1 could not have been an eye witness and his conduct justified such In inference being drawn. They further contended that there was an extraordinary delay in setting the law in motion. They also pointed out, hat there was correction, in time, in Ex. They urged that P. W. 1 could not have been an eye witness and his conduct justified such In inference being drawn. They further contended that there was an extraordinary delay in setting the law in motion. They also pointed out, hat there was correction, in time, in Ex. P1, the original First Information Report, which correction had been made to suit the evidence of P. W. 11, who claims to have reached the scene of occurrence at a particular point of time. They also contended, that there was intrinsic material available in the evidence, to show that P. W. 1 could not have been the author of Ex. P1. They pointed out, that there was further delay in Ex. P1 reaching the Court. They contended, that it was quite possible that the deceased had met with his death much earlier, in a different occurrence, in which probably the appellants were not involved. In continuation they submitted, that if the occurrence had taken place as alleged, the non-examination of independent witnesses cannot be easily explained away. They further submitted, that the medical evidence would probabilised the defense version. Relying upon the defense evidence, they submitted that the defense was certainly probable and more so, when the evidence of P. W. 1 deserved rejection. ( 12 ) MR. B. Sriramulu, learned Public Prosecutor, while countering arguments of the learned defense Counsel, contended, that the argument regarding the time to registration of the first information report cannot be countenanced, since the defense had suggested P. W. 1 that he was at the police station at 2 p. m. and the registration of the First Information Report also showed, that it was registered at or about the same time. However, he submitted that the success of failure of the prosecution depended upon the acceptance or rejection of the evidence of P. W. 1. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the defense and prosecuting Counsel. We agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, that the fate of this prosecution will depend upon the acceptance or rejection of the evidence Of P. W. 1, which is its sheet-anchor. We have carefully considered the rival contentions of the defense and prosecuting Counsel. We agree with the learned Public Prosecutor, that the fate of this prosecution will depend upon the acceptance or rejection of the evidence Of P. W. 1, which is its sheet-anchor. ( 13 ) WE will now examine the evidence of P. W. 1, the only ocuar witness available for the prosecution, since the evidence of P. W. 2 has been tightly disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge and it had not been possible for the prosecution, either in the lower Court or before us, to persuade acceptance of his version. P. W. 1, aged 25 years, is the son of the deceased. Srinivasan, the other son of the deceased, who had also witnessed this incident, died a year before the trial commenced. P. W. 1 has clearly deposed, that there was no enmity between him, the deceased and the appellants till the date of occurrence. They were in talking terms. Therefore, the proximate cause for the occurrence spoken to by P. W. 1 was the incident, which had taken place during the earlier night when A2 in the company of A3 and A4 attempted to come it theft of a sheep, from the sheep- pen situated in the land of Venkatasami Naicker, which he and his father were guarding. The injuries noticed by Dr. Abdul Razak (P. W. 4) on the temporal region of the scalp of A2, is sought to be connected, to the beating administered by the deceased on the head of A2, at the time of attempted theft of a sheep. However, the defense would have it, that not only A2 but also P. W. 1 had sustained injuries in an entirely different occurrence, which had taken place around 6 or 6. 30 a. m. on the morning of 27. 4. 1984, when P. W. 1 and his group committed mischief and robbery at the houses of A2 and A3. We have the admission of P. W. 1, that on the morning of occurrence, the houses of A2 and A3 and the household articles kept therein, were found broken, though he was not aware of any theft. P. W. 1 has further affirmed, that such breaking took place at or about 6 or 6. We have the admission of P. W. 1, that on the morning of occurrence, the houses of A2 and A3 and the household articles kept therein, were found broken, though he was not aware of any theft. P. W. 1 has further affirmed, that such breaking took place at or about 6 or 6. 30 a. m. He has further stated, that in respect of the said incident, A2 and A3 had preferred a false complaint against him and his men, at the local police station. These admissions of P. W. 1 clearly show, that at least thirty minutes to one hour before the murderous assault on the deceased, an occurrence had taken place in the village, in which A2, A3 and P. W. 1, had allegedly participated. Hence on the mere ground, that P. W. 1 had sustained an injury on that morning, cannot automatically make him an eye witness, on that score, alone. Though P. W. 1 has denied that there were two factions in the village; one headed by A4 and the other headed by Nagaiah Konar; P. W. 3 Sankaranarayan, Village Administrative Officer, has categorically admitted that in the yadhava community, there was faction in the village. One faction was led by Nagaiah Konar, to which faction P. W. 1 belonged, while the other faction was led by A4. P. W. 3 has further affirmed, that the appellants were important persons in the group of A4. P. W. 1 has further admitted that there were disputes between A4 and his group and he and his followers, in respect of appointment/election of various office bearers, to the local sheep maintenance Sangam. Again though P. W. 1 has denied, that security proceedings were pending against him and his group and the appellants, P. W. 3 as well as P. W. 11, the investigating officer have admitted, that due to prior quarrel between the prosecution group and the accused party, security proceedings had been initiated and they were pending. It must also be mentioned at this stage, that P. W. 1 has affirmed, that the appellants were men of means possessing substantial lands, house property and gardens fixed with pump sets. It must also be mentioned at this stage, that P. W. 1 has affirmed, that the appellants were men of means possessing substantial lands, house property and gardens fixed with pump sets. While appreciating the evidence of P. W. 1, the status of the appellants will have to be kept in mind, when visualizing the possibility of A2 committing theft of a sheep from the pen, which was guarded by the deceased and P. W. 1. If the aim of appellants was to attack the deceased fatally, they could have easily achieved it during night time, when the deceased had beaten with a stick, on the head of A2. Even then, the- appellants were more in number than the prosecution party, which only consisted of deceased and P. W. 1. It appears rather strange, that A2 to A4 went away meekly during night time, and chosen a bright morning to come back to the scene, to attack the deceased, when they were certain that plenty of villagers will be available not only in the neighbouring fields, but also on the adjacent public road, opening themselves up for gaze, and consequent evidence against them. P. W. 1 would have it, that all the appellants came to the scene of occurrence at or about 7 a. m. , Al armed with an aruval and A2 to A 7 armed with kathikambus. On seeing the appellants, the reaction of the deceased himself was to question them as to what ostensible purpose they had then, though their object was to commit theft earlier, during night time. Then the attack on the deceased followed. The over-tacts have already been stated, while narrating the facts and needs no reiteration. It still remains, that P. W. 1 is certain, that his father, the deceased was beaten with stick portion at least 15 times, which obviously does not get support from the medical evidence furnished by Dr. Abdul Razak (P. W. 4 ). There are only two swellings noticed on the deceased on the upper 1/3rd of the right and left legs. The other injuries are either incised gaping wounds or stab wounds. As far as some stab, wounds are concerned, the prosecution would seek to connect them with M. O. 9, a kathikambu, seized at the instance of A2, which contained human blood as well, though grouping could not be done. P. W. 4, Dr. The other injuries are either incised gaping wounds or stab wounds. As far as some stab, wounds are concerned, the prosecution would seek to connect them with M. O. 9, a kathikambu, seized at the instance of A2, which contained human blood as well, though grouping could not be done. P. W. 4, Dr. Abdul Razak is certain, that if the tip of the vel stick is bent and an injury had been caused, one side of the injury will be lacerated and the other. side of the injury will be cleaned cut. The stab wounds noticed by him were not like that. Ex. P14, the report of the Chemical Examiner shows, that what was forwarded to him was a tip bent spear with wooden handle. On the medical evidence the possibility of this tip bent spear having been used, gets obliterated. ( 14 ) P. W. 1 is further certain, that he and his father were attacked only when they were in the sheep-pen itself and his father fell down even at the very same spot. The said assertion is disproved by the evidence of the investigating officer and the scene sketch, which shows that the distance between the sheep-pen and the place where the dead body was found, was about 100 feet. Even if we take it, that this slight distance, need not have to be taken very seriously, to discredit the prosecution case, it is apparent that P. W. 1 was not inclined to speak the whole truth. Blood stains were also recovered only from a spot 100 feet away from the pen. P. W. 3, the Village Administrative Officer has deposed, that there was no sheep-pen at the place where the dead body was found. Anyhow, we are inclined to hold, that somewhere within the vicinity of the place, where the deceased was found dead, there must have been movement of sheep, since wide patches of urination and bowels of sheep, were found by the Investigating Officer and such fact has been mentioned in the observation Mahazar, Ex. P2, P. W. 1 would claim, that two cuts were inflicted slightly above his left elbow and plenty of blood came out of those injuries. He is further certain, that he did not tie with cloth those injuries till he reached the Government hospital. P2, P. W. 1 would claim, that two cuts were inflicted slightly above his left elbow and plenty of blood came out of those injuries. He is further certain, that he did not tie with cloth those injuries till he reached the Government hospital. He fell down initially 10 feet away from his father and 5 minutes thereafter he got up over again and fell at some distance away and at both these places, he claims that blood had fallen on the ground. But the investigating officer had not noticed any blood on those specified spots. P. W. 1 admits that he had a towel with him at that time. ( 15 ) THE conduct of P. W. 1 soon after the occurrence is rather amazing. He had seen his father having been attacked by a group of accused, who had inflicted injuries on him as well. He is certain that even after he became conscious, he did not go anywhere near his father, even to find out if he was alive or dead. He did not take any steps to bandage the wounds of his father. He has also deposed, that he did not go near his father and see the parts of his body, where injuries had been inflicted. He is categoric, that till he preferred the complaint Ex. P1 at or about 2 p. m. at the Panavadali police station, he did not inform to anyone-else, of his and his father having sustained injuries, in this occurrence. He admits, that his mother Ayyammal and his brother-in-law Chelliah Konar came to the scene. Already his younger brother Srinivasan was present at the venue. It is rather strange, that P. W. 1 had pot told, either to his mother or his brother-in-law about the manner in which he and his father had sustained injuries. This attitude of P. W. 1 casts suspicion, if P. W. 1 was injured at all in the incident, in which his father had been fatally attacked. ( 16 ) P. W. 1 has admitted, that the place where he seated himself ultimately, was 10 to 20 feet away from the Kumkkal Patti Road, where plenty of persons would be usually proceeding. On this road buses used to ply. He has also admitted, that the sheep-pen was surrounded on all the four sides, by agricultural lands, then with crops. On this road buses used to ply. He has also admitted, that the sheep-pen was surrounded on all the four sides, by agricultural lands, then with crops. He is further certain, that in the usual course the agriculturists would arrive at their respective lands at or about 5 a. m. These admissions of P. W. 1 make it obvious, that many persons must have been within the vicinity, at or about 7 a. m. when the occurrence had allegedly taken place, and if that be so, the non-examination of independent witnesses, would certainly assume material significance. P. W. 1 has stated that while guarding sheep, they would be armed with sticks. If in fact the deceased and P. W. 1 were armed with sticks, they would never have kept quiet without using their sticks, on one or other of the appellants. P. W. 1 has specifically stated, that he had noticed the appellants coming towards them armed, even when they were about three furlongs away. Though the distance specified may be exaggerated, the fact remains that P. W. 1 had seen the appellants with arms at quite some distance. P. W. 1 has further deposed that he knew, that the appellants were coming towards them, with a view to attack them. He affirms that he entertained a feeling that there was a danger to him and his father, at the hands of the appellants who were coming towards them. In spite of it both of them did not either try to escape or prepare themselves with the sticks they possessed to defend themselves. He has stated, that there was no reason whatever for him and the deceased, in not having attempted to escape or use their sticks to defend themselves, from the merciless attack of the appellants. P. W. 1 has claimed to have identified A2 to A4 during night time, only because there was a clamor of the sheep. He is certain that before dawn, it was quite dark. It is rather doubtful, when P. W. 1 claims, that he had not used the torch light, as to how he was able to identify A2 to A4, on the dark night, when it is not his case, that any of the appellants 2 to 4, uttered any word whatsoever, to facilitate voice identification. An argument was advanced by the learned defense counsel, that though in Ex. An argument was advanced by the learned defense counsel, that though in Ex. P1, P. W. 1 has stated, that the sheep-pen was put up in the punja land of Narayana Naicker, P. W. 1 in his oral evidence has stated, that the sheep-pen was in the land of Venkataswami Naicker and, therefore, there was one other ground, to discard his evidence. We are not inclined to agree with this submission, for we find, that Narayana Naicker, examined as P. W. 6, is the son of Venkataswami Naicker. Punja land, therefore, belonged not only to Narayana Naicker but also to Venkataswami Naicker. Similarly, we are not taking serious note of the discrepancy in the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 as to the number of sheep that were penned, be it 500 or a mere 60 or 70, for, that variance cannot really affect, the occurrence proper. P. W. 1 when cross-examined, has deposed, that all the appellants attacked his father at the same time. If that be so, it would be very difficult for P. W. 1 to independently assign overacts to one or other of the appellants. He has further stated, that when his father was attacked, he was very certain, that he would be the next target, but still he did not choose to run away to protect himself. If in fact P. W. 1 did not want to leave his father and run away like a coward, his subsequent conduct of utter carelessness towards the deceased, certainly shocks us. P. W. 1 is further certain, that he did not sustain any cut injury, due to user of an aruval. His specific case is that A2 and A 7 beat him with Kathikambus on his head, back and left elbow. However, he has stated to the doctor, when he was examined at 6 p. m. on 27. 4. 1984, when his memory ought to have been fresher, that he was attacked with Kathikambu and aruval. Not only that, P. W. 5, doctor Karunakaran is certain, that injuries 1 and 2, found on P. W. 1, were possible by a cut with an aruval, like M. O. 8. The words used by P. W. 1, in his oral evidence, are that A2 and A7 beat him with Kathikambu. To the same effect, are the averments in the First Information Report, Ex. P 1. The words used by P. W. 1, in his oral evidence, are that A2 and A7 beat him with Kathikambu. To the same effect, are the averments in the First Information Report, Ex. P 1. It is obvious, that P. W. 1 had, therefore, sustained injuries not only due to an attack with an aruval but due to an attack with Kathikambus also. The evidence of P. W. 1, exuding the user of aruval, would certainly permit an inference, that in all probability, P. W. 1 had not sustained injuries in the same occurrence in which his father was attacked. We have already referred to the untenable conduct of P. W. 1 by any standard, after the incident, and if that be so, it will be quite possible to hold, that in all probability P. W. 1 was not present at the scene and had not witnessed this occurrence. In this context, we must also refer to the evidence of Doctor Abdul Razak, P. W. 4, that the deceased could have survived for more than 3 hours after the receipt of injuries and if treated promptly, death could have been averted. If the deceased could have survived for such a length of time and P. W. 1 was near him, we would certainly expect, a different pattern of action from P. W. 1, who should have rushed to save his father, as any son placed in such a position, would have done. Even if P,w. 1 was not so dutiful, his younger brother Srinivasan, who was admittedly present, could not have also acted in the same desperate manner as his elder brother had done, not wanting to save the dying old man. This is yet another factor which probabilised the absence of P. W. 1 at the scene of occurrence. ( 17 ) HAVING doubted the presence of P. W. 1 at the scene, let us now examine his subsequent conduct, in setting the law in motion. Admittedly, his brother Srinivasan had joined his mother Ayyammal and brother-in-law Chellaiah Konar. If they had joined at the time, when the deceased ought to have been alive, they should have acted quickly instead of wasting over 3-112 hours in attempting to fetch a taxi from Sankarankoil, before which time the deceased had breathed his last. Admittedly, his brother Srinivasan had joined his mother Ayyammal and brother-in-law Chellaiah Konar. If they had joined at the time, when the deceased ought to have been alive, they should have acted quickly instead of wasting over 3-112 hours in attempting to fetch a taxi from Sankarankoil, before which time the deceased had breathed his last. Leaving aside the said facet, one or other of these persons, would have certainly either taken P. W. 1 to the nearest hospital or police station, to prefer a complaint and then have him treated. The fact remains, that for over 3-112 hours P. W. 1 was left unattended, till Srinivasan and Chelliah returned with a taxi from Sankarankoil and found to their dismay that the deceased was already dead. We are unable to see, that Chelliah and Srinivasan had taken only 3-1/2 hours to reach Sankarankoil situated 30 miles away and come back with a taxi to the scene of occurrence. But with a taxi available with them, it had taken over 3-112 hours to reach Panavadali police station, to prefer the complaint Ex. P1, though the police station was situated, only 12 kms away from the scene. No explanation has been sought to be offered as to why the First Information Report had been preferred about this dastardly crime, after a delay of 7 hours though the police station was at such a short distance. ( 18 ) WE are even doubtful, if P. W. 1 could have been the author of Ex. P1. In Ex. P1, P. W. 1 has stated the name of the grandfather of A 7 as well as the village to which he belonged. Similarly, the name of the grandfather of A6 had been Stated therein. P. W. 1 is certain, that w hen he gave out the statement to P. W. I a, the Sub Inspector of Police at Panavadali police station, nobody intervened, or prompted him. He is certain, that he did not know the names of the grandfathers of A6 and A 7. If that be so, interference of an extraneous agency, to fix the identity of A6 and A 7, through their grandfathers is obvious. We cannot also ignore the evidence of P. W. 1, that there was telephone facility in the local post office, which could have been utilized to promptly inform the police, of this occurrence. If that be so, interference of an extraneous agency, to fix the identity of A6 and A 7, through their grandfathers is obvious. We cannot also ignore the evidence of P. W. 1, that there was telephone facility in the local post office, which could have been utilized to promptly inform the police, of this occurrence. To a specific question, P. W. 1 has denied, that Nagiah Konar and his men had accompanied him to the police station. But P. W. 3, the village Administrative Officer was very guarded in his answer, that he was not attentive to find out if Nagaiah Konar was present along with police party. We are inclined to entertain a suspicion, that the law has been set in motion very belatedly, after deliberation, and confabulation, to implicate their avowed enemies, in this crime. It is at this stage, that we have to recapitulate, that there are two factions in the village, one headed by A4 and the other headed by Nagiah Konar. If in fact P. W. 1 had preferred Ex. P1 even at2 p. m. , it is rather strange, that he was examined by P. W. 5 Dr. Karunakaran only at 6 p. m. We have already seen that the distance to Sankarankoil from Panavadali would be about 18 kilometers. The taxi was in the custody of the prosecution party. In this context, if we look into the original first information report Ex. P1, there has been an obvious attempt, to change the time of recording of Ex. P1. What obviously looks like 16 or 18 hours, has been changed to 14 hours. The possibility is, therefore, still open, that the complaint had been given at the police station around 4 p. m. and that was the reason why P. W. 1 was examined by the doctor at Sankarankoil at 6 p. m. ( 19 ) WE will now consider the evidence of the travel of Ex. P1 from Panavadali police station to the Court of Judicial II Class Magistrate, Sankarankoil. P. W. 8, police constable Sethu was entrusted with Ex. P1 around 3. 30 p. m. He left the police station at 4 p. m. and had reached the Magistrates Court at 5 p. m. He was informed by the Court Head Clerk, that the Magistrate was camping at Sivagiri. He claims to have waited till 6. P. W. 8, police constable Sethu was entrusted with Ex. P1 around 3. 30 p. m. He left the police station at 4 p. m. and had reached the Magistrates Court at 5 p. m. He was informed by the Court Head Clerk, that the Magistrate was camping at Sivagiri. He claims to have waited till 6. 40 p. m. for the arrival of the Magistrate, as directed by the Head-clerk, but later chose to leave the documents with the Head-clerk himself, after obtaining acknowledgment. P. W. 8 could have either proceeded to Sivagiri, which is only about 18 kms. away from Sankarankoil or handed over the documents even at 5 p. m. to the Head-clerk of the Court. We are able to see an enforcement in Ex. P1 by the Magistrate that it had been received in his Court at 6. 40 p. m. , while he was on camp at Sivagiri. P. W. 7, the head clerk is silent about the explanation of P. W. 9. If the First Information Report had been registered at 2 p. m. , the long delay of 4 hours and 40 minutes in its having reached the Magistrate at Sivagiri, situated within 18 kms. , cannot easily be explained away. We are able to infer, for all the reasons stated above, that the First Information Report in all probability, had not had its birth till very late at the evening and certainly could not have had its genesis at 2 p. m. as claimed. Even if Ex. P1 had been preferred at 2 p. m. , as already noticed, there was substantial delay. We have already noticed that a suspicious correction exists in Ex. P1 and, therefore, the defense would be justified in contending, that to suit the evidence of P. W. 11, the Investigating Officer that he had reached the scene of occurrence at 3. 30 p. m. , a correction in the time of recording of Ex. P1 was found necessary for, otherwise he would have reached the scene, even before a complaint was lodged. 30 p. m. , a correction in the time of recording of Ex. P1 was found necessary for, otherwise he would have reached the scene, even before a complaint was lodged. We must also mention at this stage, that if the appellants were men of substantial means, it would be rather doubtful, whether they would have indulged in attempting to commit theft of sheep or participate in broad day light in an incident of this nature, when easily hirelings could have done the same job at their instance. ( 20 ) APART from the doubt about the genesis of the First Information Report and the evidence of P. W. 1, which does not inspire confidence, we are able to see that P. W. 2 had been inducted into the case to give false evidence. P. W. 2 put up as an eye witness, has certainly deposed, that he was able to witness the occurrence only because he was on the spot in discharge of his duty as a public servant, - a watcher in the Forest Department. The evidence of D. W. 1 Sankaranarayanan, the Forest Range Officer, clearly shows that after June 1983, P. W. 2had not reported for duty. It is thus obvious that P. W. 2 could not have been present at the scene on account of his official position as a watcher in the Forest Department. It, therefore, appears probable as suggested by the appellants in their written statement, that the deceased Chelliah Konar had married the daughter of P. W. 2 through his second wife. Further the overact attributed by P. W. 2 to one or other of the accused is at variance with the evidence of P. W. 1. We are not inclined to point out the discrepancy in the overtacts, since the evidence of P. W. 2 had been rightly rejected by the trial Court and we are unable to hold that such rejection was not justified. The conduct of P. W. 2 in not having informed of this incident even after he became aware of the death of the deceased subsequently, clearly portrays him, as an introduced witness. We are also able to see from the evidence of P. W. 3, the Village Administrative Officer, that in respect of this occurrence Thalayari Arulappan had made a written report which was forwarded to the Tahsildar, through Revenue Inspector. We are also able to see from the evidence of P. W. 3, the Village Administrative Officer, that in respect of this occurrence Thalayari Arulappan had made a written report which was forwarded to the Tahsildar, through Revenue Inspector. P. W. 3 is also certain that in the said report Arulappan had stated the place and time of occurrence. P. W. 3 has further stated, that he had told the investigating officer about the report made by Thalayari Arulappan. When P. W. 11 was questioned on this aspect, he would have it, that he had not seen the report sent by Thalayari Arulappan to the Tahsildar. It is not the case of P. W. 11 that there was no such report. The evasive answer of P. W. 11 certainly probabilised another report about this occurrence, which had been suppressed. ( 21 ) IF the ocular version of P. W. 1 has to be rejected for a variety of reasons listed by us, the medical evidence alone cannot alter the position, to hold the appellants guilty. To the limited extent necessary, we have already taken note of the medical evidence, while discussing the intrinsic merit of the evidence of P. W. 1. When there has been so much delay in the preferring of the First Information Report, P. W. 11 owed a duty to have examined the driver of the taxi which was fetched by Sriniva. ( 22 ) IT has not been disputed, that A3 was a Teacher at the Panchayat Union Middle School situated at Melaneeli Nallur. D. W. 2, the Headmaster of the School has deposed about the presence of A3 in the school premises from 9 a. m. till 4. 30 p. m. on 27/4/1984. The evidence of D. W. 2 was sought to be relied upon to show that if A3 had participated in the crime at 7 a. m. , he would not have attended his regular work at the school from 9 a. m. We are not impressed with the evidence of D. W. 2 for, the house of A3 had also been damaged by P. W. 1 and his group, regarding which, he chose to prefer a complaint. It, therefore, looks unnatural that A3 had attended school on 27/4/1984, though he chose to stay away from the next day. It, therefore, looks unnatural that A3 had attended school on 27/4/1984, though he chose to stay away from the next day. The non-acceptance of the evidence of D. W. 2 in any event, cannotimplicatea3 in the crime, since the prosecution evidence on record is totally doubtful and does not pass the test incredibility. ( 23 ) ON the basis of our reasoning, we are unable to sustain the verdict of the learned trial Judge who had not chosen to consider the evidence in the right perspective. The discrepancies noticed by us are not minor or technical errors, but significantly material which affect the foundation or basis of the prosecution case. ( 24 ) THE convictions and sentences imposed on all the appellants, on all the charges, are set aside and they are acquitted. These appeals are allowed. Appeals allowed.