Judgment : THANGAMANI, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants are accused 1 to 4, 15 and 16 in S. C. No; 151 of 1985 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Salem. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that on 18/6/1984 A-2 and A-3 were relieved of Rs. 30,000. 00 in a confidence trick played upon them by one Joseph, P. W. 18 Meenkara Ravi alias Babu alias Ravindran, P. W. 26 Josiakkaran alias Manoharan and another during a currency doubling episode and in order to get back the money A-1 to A-17 entered into a conspiracy among themselves to abduct and commit the murder of one Ramachandran and pursuant to the same they formed themselves into an unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons and on 19/6/1984 at 8. 30 P. M. they abducted P.W. 1 Raju and deceased Ramachandran in a Van (M. O. i) bearing No. PYX 8060 belonging to A-1 and in furtherance of their common object of retrieving the money lost they unlawfully confined them in the out-house of P. W. 6 Jakkusingh and the car shed of A-1 Majeeth at Yercaud from the night of 19/6/1984 to the night of 20/6/1984 and by assaulting them with hands, bricks and iron rods they voluntarily caused hurt to P. W. 1 Raju and the death of the said Ramachandran and A-2 and A-3 caused the disappearance of evidence of offence by throwing the dead body of Ramachandran by the side of the road leading to Mont Fort school. ( 3 ) THE trial Court framed these charges against the accused: ( 4 ) THE prosecution examined 29 witnesses, filed 35 Exhibits and marked 32 Material Objects. On the side of the appellants i8 Exhibits were marked. Of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, P. Ws. 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 26 turned hostile. The conspectus of the evidence produced by the prosecution is as under P. W. 18 Ravi is a native of Kerala. He came to Salem in 1971 and settled there. In 1984 he was vending fish. He was supplying fish to the hotel of deceased Ramachandran. In the month of June 1984 there was no business in fish. The conspectus of the evidence produced by the prosecution is as under P. W. 18 Ravi is a native of Kerala. He came to Salem in 1971 and settled there. In 1984 he was vending fish. He was supplying fish to the hotel of deceased Ramachandran. In the month of June 1984 there was no business in fish. So he worked in the hotel of deceased Ramachandran in the morning and in the house of P. W. i Raju in the evening as an errand boy. This Raju is a moneylender. P. W. 18 Ravi used to borrow from him and in that connection he became acquainted with Raju. P. W. 1 Raju was residing in Ex -servicemen Colony with his second wife P. W. 2 Muthulakshmi. P. W. 1 Raju came to know of deceased Ramachandran when the latter borrowed money from him. Deceased Ramachandran was running a hotel in Fairlands, Salem. P. W. 1 Raju worked for some time under one Pandiyan who was engaged in currency doubling. One week prior to the occurrence, Asthampatti Police filed a criminal case against P. W. 1 Raju and deceased Ramachandran in connection with a currency doubling incident on the complaint given by one teacher. ( 5 ) A-1 Majeeth is the Manager of N. S. Transports, Salem. A-2 Azad and A-3 Khaleel are his sons. In the first week of June 1984 one Shanmugham brought A-2 Azad to the house of P. W. 1 Raju. At that time P. W. 1 Raju, P. W. 2 Muthulakshmi and P. W. 18 Ravi were there. A-2 Azad wanted P. W. 1 Raju to give him counterfeit currency notes in exchange for genuine money. P. W. 1 Raju gave a negative reply. So they went away. ( 6 ) ON 11. 6. 1984 A-2 Azad and Shanmugham again came to the house of P. W. 1 Raju. The latter was not in the house. P. W. 2 Muthulakshmi and P. W. 18 Ravi alone were there. They asked P. W. 18 Ravi whether he could arrange for the supply of counterfeit currency notes to them. P. W. 18 Ravi saying that he would meet them in their house sent them away. On the same night P. W. i8 Ravi met P. W. 26 Manoharan and one Joseph and ascertained from them how to secure counterfeit currency notes. P. W. 18 Ravi saying that he would meet them in their house sent them away. On the same night P. W. i8 Ravi met P. W. 26 Manoharan and one Joseph and ascertained from them how to secure counterfeit currency notes. Joseph was introduced to him by P. W. 26 Manoharan. Joseph explained to them Charge No. Accused Section 1. A-1 to A-17 120 (B) I. P. C. 2. A-5 to A-17 147 I. P. C. 3. A-1 to A-4 148 I. P. C. 4. A-1 to A-17 364 I. P. C. 5. 1 to A-14 and A-17 348 I. P. C. 6. A-15 and A-16 149 nw 348 I. P. C. 7. A-1 to A-14 330 I. P. C. 8. A-15 to A-17 149 nw 330 I. P. C. 9. 1 to A-14 302 I. P. C. 10. A-15 to A-17 149 nw 302 I. P. C. 11. A-2 and A-3 201 I. P. C. that first they could hand over some genuine currency notes as sample, inspire confidence and later on they could place white sheets of paper cut to the size of currency notes, place them in a box and spread beneath and above the same with ten rupee currency bundles, give them the box and get cash. P. W. 18 Ravi agreed to this scheme and promised to bring A-2 Azad to Gokulam Hotel, Salem. ( 7 ) ON 13. 6. 1984 Wednesday at about 4. 00 P. M. P. W. 18 Ravi went to the house of A-1 Majeeth. His sons were also there. He told A-1 Majeeth that he would got counterfeit currency notes as required by his sons. P. W. 18 Ravi came to Gokulam Hotel with A-2 Azad and A-3 Khaleel. P. W. 26 Manoharan was already there. Joseph had booked a room in the hotel. All of them went to that room. They tendered Rs. 500. 00 in genuine ten rupee notes as sample. A-2 Azad received the same and gave Rs. 2,000. 00 as advance to Joseph. Joseph told A-2 Azad that if they were able to pass on the counterfeit notes successfully, they could come again with P. W. 18 Ravi and receive counterfeit currencies to the ex tent of Rs. 30,000. 00. A-2 Azad and A-3 Khaleel received the money and went away. 2,000. 00 as advance to Joseph. Joseph told A-2 Azad that if they were able to pass on the counterfeit notes successfully, they could come again with P. W. 18 Ravi and receive counterfeit currencies to the ex tent of Rs. 30,000. 00. A-2 Azad and A-3 Khaleel received the money and went away. Joseph, P. W. 26 Manoharan and P. W. 18 Ravi divided the balance of Rs. 1,500. 00 among themselves. .( 8 ) ON 16/6/1984 Saturday P. W. 18 Ravi had been to the house of A-1 Majeeth in Yercaud and told them that Joseph wanted them to meet with money. There upon A-2 Azad and A-3 Khaleel accompanied P. W. 18 Ravi with Rs. 3,000. 00 in M. O. 1 Van. They went straight to Hotel Woodlands in Salem. Joseph and P. W. 26 Manoharan were waiting for them in it room in that hotel. Joseph told A-2 Azad that he should take counterfeit notes to the extent of Rs. 30,000. 00. Thereupon A-2 Azad gave Rs. 3,000. 00 to Joseph and promised to pay the balance of Rs. 25,000. 00 on 18/6/1984 Monday and receive the counterfeit notes. All of them agreed that they should meet in National Hotel on Monday. .( 9 ) ON 18/6/1984 Monday at 1. 00 P. M. P. W. 26 Manoharan, Joseph and P. W. 18 Ravi were waiting in the lawns of Woodlands Hotel, Salem. They had prepared 70 bundles of papers cut to size with ten rupee currency notes above and beneath of each bundle, placed them in M. O. 20 suit-case and kept it ready. M. O. 21 series are 14 of those 70 bundles. They had also placed newspapers beneath the bundles so that the suit-case weighed heavily. M. O. 22 series are those newspapers. At about 1. 15 P. M. A-2 Azad and A-3 Khaleel came there with P. W. 18 Ravi in M. O. 1 Van. They took their lunch in that hotel. They were talking for about 15 minutes. As instructed by Joseph, A-2 Azad and A - 3 Khaleel got into the Van and started it. When the van was moving slowly, Joseph placed M. O. 20 suit-case in the van and got in exchange another suit-case from A-3 Khaleel. Joseph asked A-2 and A-3 to go fast and so they went away. As instructed by Joseph, A-2 Azad and A - 3 Khaleel got into the Van and started it. When the van was moving slowly, Joseph placed M. O. 20 suit-case in the van and got in exchange another suit-case from A-3 Khaleel. Joseph asked A-2 and A-3 to go fast and so they went away. Then P. W. 18 Ravi, Joseph, P. W. 26 Manoharan and the fourth man proceeded to Erode. On their way Joseph paid P. W. 18 Ravi Rs. 5,000/- from out of Rs. 25,000. 00 collected from A2 and A-3. .( 10 ) ON the same day A-2 Azad and A-3 Khaleel came to the house of P. W. 1 Raju along with A-15 Kumar and A-16 Mohan and enquired whether P. W. 18 Ravi was there P. W. 1 Raju and P. W. 2 Muthulakshmi replied that Ravi would be available either in his house or in the market. Then they went away. ( 11 ) ON 19. 6. 1984, Tuesday P. W. 10 Balu, the driver of the Van PYX 8060 went to the house of A-1 Majeeth as usual for work. A-1 to A-3 were about to start for Salem. All the three knew driving. P. W. 10 Balu also went in the van along with them. On the way A-1 Majeeth was finding fault with A-2 Azad for losing Rs. 30,000. 00 in the currency doubling episode. They met A-15 Kumar, A-16 Mohan and A-17 and told them somehow or other they should trace the persons who had deceived them. A-15 Kumar said that he knew the persons and took them to the house of P. W. 1 Raju in AT. C. Colony. When A-15 Kumar went inside the house and brought P. W. 1 Raju, A-2 Azad told them that he was not the person who received money from him. Only P. W. 18 Ravi got money from him. Then they left the place and on the way collected A-5 and A-6 also. A-15 Kumar told A-1 Majeeth that they could recover the money with the aid of their leader A-4 Gunalan, but they might have to spend Rs. 5,000/- for that purpose A-1 Majeeth accepted the deal A-15 Kumar told A-2 Azad that P. W. 1 Raju and deceased Ramachandran are the leaders of this gang and if they could take them, the money could be recovered. At about 4. 5,000/- for that purpose A-1 Majeeth accepted the deal A-15 Kumar told A-2 Azad that P. W. 1 Raju and deceased Ramachandran are the leaders of this gang and if they could take them, the money could be recovered. At about 4. 4s P. M. as per the directions of A-1 Majeeth, P. W. 1o Balu left for Yercaud. .( 12 ) ON that Tuesday morning while P. W. I raju was not in his house; A-15 Kumar came there and threatened P. W. 2 Muthulakshmi that unless her husband paid half of Rs. 30,000. 00 to him, he would be done away with. When P. W. 1 Raju returned home on that evening, his wife P. W. 2 informed him what A-15 Kumar had told her. At about 8.30 P. M. deceased Ramachandran and P. W. 1 Raju were talking in the open terrace of the latters house. P. W. 2 Muthulakshmi was also in the house. Suddenly A-1 toa-6, A-8, A-9, A-11, A-12, A-14 and A-17 came there in M. O. l Van and took by force P. W. 1 Raju and deceased Ramachandran in that van. When the van proceeded A-5, A-6 and A-8 beat Ramachandran and P. W. 1 Raju and accused them that they had cheated them of Rs. 30,000. 00. P. W. 1 Raju pleaded not to beat them and that P. W. 18 Ravi and P. W. 26 Manoharan were the persons who had cheated them and that he would collect the money from them and handover. The abductors took P. W. 1 Raju and deceased Ramachandran to the house of P. W. 6 Jakku Singh in Yercaud at about 9. 00 P. M. and locked them in a room there. .( 13 ) IN the meanwhile, P. W. 2 Muthulakshmi complained to P. W. 4 Santhanam her landlord about the abduction. P. W. 4 Santhanam took her to the house of deceased Ramachandran in Fairlands. P. W. 2 Muthulakshmi told P. W. 3 Tamilselvi wife of Ramachandran what had happened. Both of them went to Asthampatti Police Station. There was no Officer to receive the complaint. So they went to the house of P. W. 5 Chandrasekar, a lawyer known to them. He advised them to give a telegram and gave a draft. P. W. 2 Muthulakshmi told P. W. 3 Tamilselvi wife of Ramachandran what had happened. Both of them went to Asthampatti Police Station. There was no Officer to receive the complaint. So they went to the house of P. W. 5 Chandrasekar, a lawyer known to them. He advised them to give a telegram and gave a draft. Both of them then went to the Central Post Office and got the telegram form filled up by an elderly gentleman there and sent the message. Ex. P-27 is the copy of the telegram despatched at 12. 55 A. M. on 20/6/1984. .( 14 ) ON 20/6/1984 Wednesday at 9. 30 A. M. both P. W, 2 and P. W. 3 went to Asthampatti Police Station and gave Ex. P-2 complaint already typed. P. W. 27 Sub Inspector registered the same in his Station Crime No. 923/84 under Sections 147, 448, 323 and 363 I. P. C. He prepared Ex. P-26 printed F. I. R. and sent both the documents to J. S. C. M. Court. He examined P. Ws. 2 and 3 in the Police Station itself. On the same day he examined P. W. 4 Santhanam. .( 15 ) ON the night of 19/6/1984 Tuesday A-1 Majeeth, A-2 Azad, A-3 Khaleel and A-4 Gunalan beat both P. W. 1 Raju and Ramachandran with iron rods in the house of P. W. 6 in Yercaud. A-6 and A- 14 tied the hands of both the victims by tearing their dhotis. A5, A-6, A-8, A-9, A-11 and A-12 beat the victims with sticks. A-7 gave them water to drink. Some of the accused beat On the head and back of P. W. 1 Raju and Ramachandran with bricks. A-4 Gunalan told P. W. 6 Jakku Singh and his relatives P. Ws. 6 and 7 not to allow the victims to go outside the house. A-4 Gunalan also directed his men to bring A-15 Kumar. At 11. 00 P. M. A-15 Kumar was brought there. A-4 Gunalan beat A-15 Kumar also. P. W. 10 Balu who came to the house of P. W. 6 Jakku Singh with food for them saw Ramachandran being tortured. .( 16 ) ON 20/6/1984 P. W. 10 Balu brought breakfast in M. O. 1 van to the house of P.W. 6 Jakku Singh. He again brought lunch. On the whole day the victims were beaten at intervals. .( 16 ) ON 20/6/1984 P. W. 10 Balu brought breakfast in M. O. 1 van to the house of P.W. 6 Jakku Singh. He again brought lunch. On the whole day the victims were beaten at intervals. Ramachandran had sustained injuries on account of these beatings. At 11.00 P. M. on that Wednesday A-1 10 A-4, A-9 and A-6 look P. W. 1 Raju and Ramachandran to the car shed of A-1 Majeeth since the abduction had been published in news papers. Both the victims were naked and unconscious at that time. A-2 Azad brought Tiger Balm from the house. A-5 and A-6 applied the same to Ramachandran and went away. During night P. W. i Raju escaped crawling through an opening under the door of the car shed, came out of the house and ran for some distance. He fell into a pit and swooned. .( 17 ) ON 21/6/1984 Thursday at 6. 00 A. M. A1 to A-3 took M. O. 1 van to the house of P. W. 19 Somasundaram and left it there. A-1 Majeeth told this witness that his sons were cheated to the tune of Rs. 30,000/-and so they have brought two persons and beat them in the house of P. W. 6 Jakku Singh. One of them had died and the other gone to the Police. Thereupon P. W. 19 Somasundaram advised them to surrender in Court. He also told them that he would entrust the van to the Police, if they failed to take it back till that evening. .( 18 ) ON that Thursday at about 8. 30 A. M. P. W. 1 Raju reached the Yercaud Police Station and gave Ex. P-1 complaint narrating the kidnap and torture. P. W. 28 Sub Inspector registered the same in his Station Crime No. 47/84 under Sections 147, 148, 342, 365, 323 and 324 I. P. C. , prepared Ex. P-28 printed F. I. R. and sent the documents to J. S. C. M. Court. P. W. 1 Raju took P. W. 28 Sub Inspector and P. W. 20 Radhakrishnan to the house of P. W. 6 akku Singh and the car shed of A-1 Majeeth. Then the Sub Inspector sent P. W. 1 Raju to the Doctor. .( 19 ) AT 10. P. W. 1 Raju took P. W. 28 Sub Inspector and P. W. 20 Radhakrishnan to the house of P. W. 6 akku Singh and the car shed of A-1 Majeeth. Then the Sub Inspector sent P. W. 1 Raju to the Doctor. .( 19 ) AT 10. 30 A. M. P. W. 23 Doctor examined P. W. 1 Raju for report as to certain injuries said to have been caused from 18/6/1984 to 20/6/1984 and to be due to assault with wooden plank, iron rod and brick. The following injuries were found:1. Lacerated wound at left eye-brow 1cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm. 2. Lacerated wound at right side 1 cm below the right eye 1 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm. 3. Linear abrasion at right side back 5 cm x 1 cm. 4. Linear abrasion left knee joint region 8 cm x 1/2 cm. 5. Multiple abrasions of varying sizes at right knee, right thigh regions. 6. Abrasion at right elbow joint. 7. Multiple contusion No. 11 about 8 x 5cm to 5 x 3cm. at front and back of the thorax. 8. Contusion at left dorsam hand 8 cm x 6cm. 9. Contusion at right dorsam hand 6 cm x 5 cm. 10. Round abrasion left thigh. .( 20 ) SUB conjunctival haemorrhage at both eyes. The Doctor is of opinion that the above injuries are simple in nature. Ex. P-19 is the certificate issued by him. He referred him to Govt. Hospital Salem for further treatment. .( 21 ) IN the meanwhile, at 10. 00 A. M. the Sub Inspector inspected the scene of occurrence in the house of P. W. 6 Jakku Singh and prepared Ex. P-7 observation mahazar. He also recovered M. Os. 2 to 8 sticks, M. Os. 9 to 12 iron rods, M. O. 13 series bricks, M. 0. 14 blood stained shirt, M. 0. 15 blood stained dhoti, M. O. 16 blood stained dhoti and M. O. 17 blood stained banian from there under Ex. P8 mahazar. At about 1. 00 P. M. he inspected the car shed of A-1 Majeeth and prepared EX. P-9 observation mahazar. He recovered M. O. 18 Tiger Balm bottle from there under Ex. Plo mahazar. P. W. 20 Radhakrishnan has attested all these mahazars. P8 mahazar. At about 1. 00 P. M. he inspected the car shed of A-1 Majeeth and prepared EX. P-9 observation mahazar. He recovered M. O. 18 Tiger Balm bottle from there under Ex. Plo mahazar. P. W. 20 Radhakrishnan has attested all these mahazars. P. W. 28 Sub Inspector got the house of P. W. 6 Jakku Singh photographed by one Rajamanickam who is no more. M. Os. 26, 27 and 28 are the said photographs. Exs. P-29 and P-30 are the rough sketches prepared by the Sub Inspector of the two places of occurrence. M. Os. 29 and 30 are the photographs taken of the car shed of A-1 Majeeth by deceased Rajamanickam. The Sub-Inspector then proceeded to Salem and examined P. W. 2 Muthulakshmi and P. W. 3 Tamil Selvi. He searched for A-1 to A-7, but they had absconded. At 3 P. M. on that day P. W. 27 Sub Inspector examined P. W. 1 Raja in Govt. Hospital, Salem. .( 22 ) ON 22. 6. 1984 Friday at 7. 30 A. M. P. W. 8 Eswaran gave a written report Ex. P3 before P. W. 28 Sub Inspector at Yercaud Police Station stating that on the previous night at about 7. 00 P. M. he found the dead body of Ramachandran inside the garden of one Chandran. Thereupon the Sub Inspector altered the crime to one under Section 302 I. P. C. , prepared Ex. P-32, Express F. I. R. and sent Exs. P-3 and P-31 to J. S. C. M. Court. .( 23 ) ON receipt of information, P. W. 29 Inspector proceeded to the garden of Chandran at 8. 45 A. M. and found the body of deceased Ramachandran lying there naked. P. W. 28 Sub Inspector was already there. The Inspector prepared Ex. Pllobservation mahazar in the presence of P. W. 20 Radhakrishnan. He got the body photographed in several angles by late Rajamanickam. M. Os. 19, 24 and 31 series are the said photographs. M. O. 32 series are the relevant negatives. From 9. 30 A. M. to 12. 30 P. M. the Inspector held in quest over the dead body bf Ramachandran. At that time he examined P. W. 3 Tamil Selvi, P. W. 6 Jakku Singh, P. W. 7 Ganesh, P. W. 8 Eswaran and P. W. 9 Mahadev Singh. M. O. 32 series are the relevant negatives. From 9. 30 A. M. to 12. 30 P. M. the Inspector held in quest over the dead body bf Ramachandran. At that time he examined P. W. 3 Tamil Selvi, P. W. 6 Jakku Singh, P. W. 7 Ganesh, P. W. 8 Eswaran and P. W. 9 Mahadev Singh. All of them except P. W. 3 have turned hostile. Ex. P-33 is the Inquest Report. Then he sent the body with Ex. P-20 Requisition for postmortem through P. W. 24 Constable. ( 24 ) ON 22. 6. 1984 at 2. 45 P. M. P. W. 23 Doctor conducted post-mortem over the dead body of Ramachandran in Government Hospital, Yercaud. He found these injuries on him:1. Multiple abrasions of varying sizes all over the body. 2. Contusion at left side fore-head 4 cm x 3 cm. 3. Contusion at right side check below the right eye 4 cm x 2 cm. 4. Diffused contusion at right side neck. 5. Diffused contusion at right side shoulder. 6. Contusion at left side upper arm 5 cmx4 cm. 7. Contusion at left side collar bone 8 cm x 4 cm. 8. Contusion at right side chest 8 cm x 6cm. 9. Contusion at left side chest 6 cm x 4 cm. 10. Contusion at left side iliac region 8 cm x 6cm. 11. Contusion at left side thigh 12 cm x 8cm. .( 25 ) CONTUSION at right side knee 6 cm x 4 cm. .( 26 ) ROUND shaped abrasion at right side lateral aspect of the thigh. .( 27 ) LINEAR abrasion at lateral aspect of the right side thigh 10 cm. .( 28 ) LINEAR abrasion across the back upper portion 25 cm x 2 cm. .( 29 ) DIFFUSED contusion at the back. .( 30 ) SCROTUM: Swollen, reddened and multiple small abrasion seen. Internal Examination: Opening of the Thorax:1. Fracture of 3rd and 4th ribs lateral side left. 2. Fracture of 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs by right side lateral aspect. Blood stained fluid seen in the Thorax. Heart- Weight 8 ounce, cut section normal. Lungs: Left - weight 18 ounces. rupture of lobe upper 6 cms length 4cm x 1 cm. Right - weight 20 ounces. Cut section congested. Rupture upper lobe seen 8 cm length x 4 cm x 1 cm. Opening of the abdomen: Cut section congested. Blood stained fluid seen in the Thorax. Heart- Weight 8 ounce, cut section normal. Lungs: Left - weight 18 ounces. rupture of lobe upper 6 cms length 4cm x 1 cm. Right - weight 20 ounces. Cut section congested. Rupture upper lobe seen 8 cm length x 4 cm x 1 cm. Opening of the abdomen: Cut section congested. Blood stained fluid seen. Stomach: Distended with and digested food materials. Liver: Weight 50 ounces. Rupture of liver seen in the antero lateral aspect 6 cm x 4 cm x 2 cm. Spleen: Weight 6 ounce. Cut section normal. Kidneys: Left, Right - 5 ounces. cut section normal. Small Intestine: Distended with fluid and gas. Bladder: Empty. Brain: Weight 40 ounces. cut section normal. In the opinion of the Doctor, the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to fracture of the ribs and injury to vital organs liver and lungs about 34 to 38 hours prior to post-mortem. Ex. P-21 is the post-mortem certificate issued by him. about 5. 00 P. M. P.W. 19 Somasundaram appeared in Yercaud Police Station and produced M. O. 1 Van. P. W. 29 Inspector seized the same under Ex. P-6 mahazar which contains the signature of P. W. 19 also. On the following days the Inspector examined the witnesses and searched for the accused. On 26. 7. 1984 he received information that A-1 to A-3 had surrendered on 19. 7. 1984 in Madurai Court. On 30. 7. 1984 A-5 surrendered in J. S. C. M. Court, Salem. On 3. 8. i984 he got Police custody for A-5. On 6. 8. 1984 he got Police custody for A-1 to A3. On receipt of Ex. P-22, Requisition from the Inspector, the blood stained clothes were sent for chemical examination from J. S. C. M. Court by P.W. 25 Head Clerk with the original of Ex. P-23 covering letter. Exs. P-24 and P25 are the reports of the Chemical Examiner and Serologist. On 8. 8. 1984 at 7. 30 A. M. A-2 Azad gave a confession statement before P. W. 29 Inspector, the admissible portion of which is Ex. P-12. Pursuant to the same he took the Police party to his house in Yercaud and produced M. O. 20 suitcase. M. O. 21 series are the 14 bundles of newspapers cut to size with ten rupee currency notes above and beneath the papers. P-12. Pursuant to the same he took the Police party to his house in Yercaud and produced M. O. 20 suitcase. M. O. 21 series are the 14 bundles of newspapers cut to size with ten rupee currency notes above and beneath the papers. M. O. 22 series are the news papers placed inside the suit-case. The Inspector seized the same under Ex. P-13 mahazar. P. W. 21 V. A. O. who was present then attested the mahazar. On the same day at 2. 00 P. M. the Inspector arrested A-9 and A-6. A-13 surrendered in the Court of J. S. C. M. No. 3, Salem on 13. 8. 1984. On 18. 8. 1984 the Inspector took A-4 Gunalan in Police custody. On the next day he arrested A-14 Gundu Samraj who was identified by A-4gunalan. On 26. 8. 1984 he examined P. W. 18 Ravi. P. W. 18 Ravi produced M. O. 23 series currency notes. _the Inspector recovered the same under Ex. P-34 mahazar. .( 31 ) ON the requisition of P. W. 29 Inspector, P. W. 22 J. S. C. M. , Salem conducted Test Identification Parade at 1. 45 P. M. on 4. 9. 1984 in the Males Sub-Jail, Salem. In that parade P. W. 1 Raju identified A-4, A-5 and A-7 to A-14. Ex. P-18 is the proceedings of the J. S. C. M. Since Crime No. 923/84 of Hasthampatti Police Station relates to the same occurrence, that was also entrusted to P. W. 29 Inspector. P. W. 27. Sub Inspector handed over the Case Diary to P. W. 29. On completion of investigation P.W. 29 Inspector laid the charge sheet on 24. 2. 1985. .( 32 ) WHEN examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellants and other accused denied the allegations against them, They did not examine any defence witness. However, they marked Exs. D-1 to D-18 on their side. ( 33 ) AFTER trial, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted A-5 to A-14 and A-17 of all the charges and convicted and sentenced the appellants herein as under: A-1 to A-4. A-15 and it charge Section 120 (8) I. P. C. Imprisonment for life. A-16 He also ordered the sentences to run concurrently. .( 34 ) A-1 to A-4, A-15 and A-16 have preferred this appeal against the said conviction and sentence. A-15 and it charge Section 120 (8) I. P. C. Imprisonment for life. A-16 He also ordered the sentences to run concurrently. .( 34 ) A-1 to A-4, A-15 and A-16 have preferred this appeal against the said conviction and sentence. .( 35 ) THIRU, N. T. Vanamamalai, the Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that P. W. 1 Raju and P. W. 18 Ravi alleged to have been involved in the confidence trick are obviously of people with no character and given to falsehood as a matter of business. P. W. 18 Ravi in his evidence has made several improvements over his earlier statements to the Police and his version has not received corroboration from the evidence of other witnesses such as P. W. 1 Raju and P. W. 2 Muthulakshmi. The trial Court has failed to take note of the significant improvements made by P. W. 18 Ravi in his evidence over his earlier statements and also the contradictions that exist between his version in the witness box and his narration before the Police. This witness claims to have played an important role in the confidence trick. According to him when P. W. 1 Raju expressed his inability to comply with the request of A-2 Azad to supply him counterfeit currency notes, they approached him for that purpose. It is his admission in the witness box that he did not know A-2 Azad prior to that meeting. Only A-2 introduced A-1 and A-3 to him. While so, it is not known how A-1 to A-3 wanted this witness who is a total stranger to them to supply counterfeit currency notes. That the Manager of a Transport Company and his two sons entered into a deal for the purchase of counterfeit currency with an errand boy in the house of P. W. 1 Raju whom they do not know earlier is somewhat hard to believe. .( 36 ) THE episode of confidence trick as spoken to by P. W. 18 Ravi bristles with inherent improbabilities. It is in the evidence of this witness that on 16. 6. 1984 when A2 and A-3 met Joseph and others in Hotel Woodlands, they were shown 70 bundles of currency notes. On 18/6/1984 they did not open the box and show the bundles to them. It is in the evidence of this witness that on 16. 6. 1984 when A2 and A-3 met Joseph and others in Hotel Woodlands, they were shown 70 bundles of currency notes. On 18/6/1984 they did not open the box and show the bundles to them. It is highly unlikely that A-2 and A-3 would have received M. O. 20 suit-case even without having a cursory glance of its contents before parting with Rs. 25,000/ -. Further while P. W. 18 Ravi says that they had placed 70 bundles of papers cut to size of ten rupee currency notes in M. O. 20 suit-case, only 14 of such bundles marked as M. O. 21 series have been recovered from the house of A-1 Majeeth. According to this witness, on 11/6/1984 Joseph had explained to them how to place the bundles in a suit-case and make it appear that they are bundles of currency notes. Whereas as per the evidence of P. W. 29 Investigating Officer this witness had not stated to the Police that on 11/6/1984 he met Joseph. Besides, the Lodge Registers had not been seized and produced for the purpose of ascertaining whether in fact P. W. 18 and his party had stayed in Hotel Gokulam and Hotel Woodlands on the relevant dates as claimed by P. W. 18 Ravi. It is also intriguing that A-2 and A-3 have consented to meet P. W. 18 and others in a hotel lawn and receive the suit-case in a moving car when on a prior occasion they were called to the room and handed over the currency notes. Though P. W. 18 Ravi states in his evidence that on 13. 6. 1984 he met A-1 Majeeth in his house at Yercaud along with his sons, he has not mentioned about the presence of this accused during investigation. Evidently it is a deliberate attempt to implicate A-1 Majeeth at the time of trial. More over it is against the natural course of human conduct that A-1 to A-4 did not try to find out the contents of the suit-case given to them immediately on leaving the hotel premises. We find from the evidence of P. W. 18 Ravi that P. W. 1 Raju has nothing to do with the confidence trick. It appears that one Joseph was the prime-mover behind the entire episode. We find from the evidence of P. W. 18 Ravi that P. W. 1 Raju has nothing to do with the confidence trick. It appears that one Joseph was the prime-mover behind the entire episode. P. W. 18 Ravi is categorical in cross-examination that he did not apprise P. W. i Raju what arrangements they had made regarding the confidence trick they had planned. It does not appear from the evidence of P. W. 1 Raju also that he was in any way connected with the cheating incident. Admittedly P. W. 1 Raju was working for some time under one Pandiyan who was carrying on this doublingt trade. Even one week prior to the occurrence, on the complaint of a teacher Hasthampatti Police have filed a criminal case against this Pandiyan and P. W. 1 Raju. Yet there is no evidence to indicate that P. W. 1 Raju had any complicity in the confidence trick where A-1 to A-3 were cheated to the tune of Rs. 30,000/ -. If it is so, it passes ones comprehension as to why A-1 to A3 had chosen to abduct and torture P. W. 1 Raju also in order to realise the money they had lost. Anyhow the background of P. W. 1 Raju reveals that he is not a person engaged in any honourable avocation. Further as it is pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the appellants, the institution of the criminal case on the complaint of a teacher indicates that there are some other individuals who have got grievance against P. W. 1 Raju and deceased Ramachandran. ( 37 ) THE prosecution case of abduction and torture mainly depends upon the testimony of P. W. 1 Raju. This witness states in his evidence that on 18. 6. 1984 he knew only A-15 Kumar. However, in Ex. P-1 complaint given by him on 21. 6. 1984 he has given the names of A-1, A-2, A3, A-4 besides that of A-15 Kumar. In cross-examination his categorical admission is to the effect that even on the date of examination in Court he did not know the names of any other accused except that of A15. So there is force in the argument of the learned senior counsel for the appellants that this witness could not have been the author of Ex. P-1 complaint. In cross-examination his categorical admission is to the effect that even on the date of examination in Court he did not know the names of any other accused except that of A15. So there is force in the argument of the learned senior counsel for the appellants that this witness could not have been the author of Ex. P-1 complaint. .( 38 ) IN the witness box P. W. 1 Raju identifies A-1 to A-6, A-8, A-9, A-11, A-12, A-14 and A-17 as the persons who had come to his house in the van on the night of 19. 6. 1984 and abducted himself and Ramachandran. He also points out A-5, A-6 and A-8 mentioning their names as the persons who had beat them with hands. A-5, A-6, A8, A11 and A-12 were shown as the persons who had beat them with sticks. The witness has stated their names also. He admits in cross-examination that he did not specify the names of the above said persons during investigation since he did not know their names then. His explanation in the re-examination that during his confinement in the house or P. W. 6 Jakku Singh, A-4 Gunalan used to call the names of the accused for the purpose of distributing food packets to them and on that occasion he became aware of the names, is far from convincing. When admittedly this witness does not know the names of the appellants even during investigation, the mentioning of them in Ex. P-1 amply fortifies the argument of the learned senior counsel that the origin and genesis of Ex. P-1 complaint is highly suspicious. .( 39 ) IT is significant to note that in Ex. P-1 complaint the identifying features of the appellants are conspicuous by their absence. The evidence of P. W. 22 J. S. C. M. reveals that initially he had fixed 27/8/1984 as the date of Test Identification Parade. But on that day the Parade could not be held since some of the accused were not produced. The J. S. C. M. had to postpone the Parade to 4/9/1984. P. W. 1 admits in cross-examination that on 27. 8. 1984 except A-4 Gunalan, the other six were available in the Sub Jail. But on that day the Parade could not be held since some of the accused were not produced. The J. S. C. M. had to postpone the Parade to 4/9/1984. P. W. 1 admits in cross-examination that on 27. 8. 1984 except A-4 Gunalan, the other six were available in the Sub Jail. So the possibility of this witness having had an opportunity to see the accused before the Parade which took place more than two months after the occurrence could not be ruled out. P. W. 1 Raju further states in his evidence that in the house of P. W. 6 Jakku Singh, A-1 to A-4 beat him with iron rod, A-5, A-6, A-8, A-9, A-11 and A-12 beat him with stick, A-2 and A-3 beat him with bricks and A-4 pierced his eye with finger. And in the car shed of A-1 majeeth, A-5, A-6 and A-8 beat him with hands. However, of these persons A-4, A-5, A-6, A-8, A-9, A-u and A-12 were not known to him earlier. In the T. i. Parade held on 4. 9. i984 he had identified A-4, A-5 and A-7 to A-14. So the learned Sessions Judge has rightly accepted the contention of the appellants that P. W. 1 Raju had occasion to see A5 and A-7 to A-14 earlier. The learned senior counsel for the appellants points out that this is not a mere question of wrong identification. A person not known to P. W. 1 Raju came to be identified. In other words P. W. 1 had chosen to identify certain people whom he did not know. And the manner in which T. i. Parade has been postponed also raises serious doubts regarding the origin and genesis of the occurrence. .( 40 ) IT is in the evidence of P. W. 1 Raju that on 18. 6. 1984 A-2, A-3, A-15 and A-16 came to his house and enquired the whereabouts of P. W. 18 Ravi. P. W. 2 Muthulakshmi also says that on that Monday A-2 and A-3 came to her house and asked about P. W. 18 Ravi. This would indicate that till that time P. W. 1 was not thought of as a person involved in the confidence trick by the appellants. P. W. 2 Muthulakshmi also says that on that Monday A-2 and A-3 came to her house and asked about P. W. 18 Ravi. This would indicate that till that time P. W. 1 was not thought of as a person involved in the confidence trick by the appellants. Had really P. W. 1 Raju anything to do with the doubling episode, the above said accused could not have left him when they saw P. W. 1 in his house on that day. Besides, P. W. i0 Driver Balu states even in his chief examination that on 19. 6. 1984 Tuesday A-1 Majeeth told A-17 Rajkumar that they should trace out the persons who had deceived them. A-15 Kumar who was present there saying that he knew that person concerned took them to the house of P. W. 1 Raju. When A-2 Azad saw P. W. i Raju, A-2 remarked that he was not the person who received money from him. Only the Malayalee man obtained money from him. This also throws doubts about the involvement of P. W. 1 Raju in the cheating incident. .( 41 ) P. W. i Raju swears that on the night of 20. 6. 1984 Ramachandran and himself were shifted from the house of P. W. 6 Jakku Singh to the car shed of A-1 Majeeth. According to him, both of them were taken in M. O. 1 van by A-5, A6, A-8 and A-9. And A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4 followed the van in a car. On the other hand P. W. 1o Driver Balu would state that A-1 to A-4, A-9 and A-10 took the two victims in M. O. 1 van. .( 42 ) P. W. 1 Raju is categorical in his evidence that he did not know the other accused except A-15 Kumar prior to the occurrence. He further states that while he was confined in the house of P. W. 6 Jakku Singh, A-4 Gunalan directed his men to bring A-15 Kumar and A-15 Kumar came on the scene only at 3. 30 P. M: on 20. 6. 1984 Wednesday. Whereas P. W. 10 Driver Balu would say that when he went to the house of P. W. 6 Jakku Singh on the night of i9. 6. i984, A-15 Kumar was also beating P. W. 1 Raju and Ramachandran with stick. 30 P. M: on 20. 6. 1984 Wednesday. Whereas P. W. 10 Driver Balu would say that when he went to the house of P. W. 6 Jakku Singh on the night of i9. 6. i984, A-15 Kumar was also beating P. W. 1 Raju and Ramachandran with stick. .( 43 ) IT is in the evidence of P. W. i Raju that both the victims were kept in separate rooms in the house of P. W. 6 Jakku Singh on the night of abduction. They were stripped off their clothes before being confined to the room. He was lying on the floor throughout the night. There were blood stains all over the floor. When he took P. W. 28 Sub Inspector to the place of occurrence, he showed him the blood stains. However, no blood stains were recovered by either P. W. 28 Sub Inspector or P. W. 29 Inspector during investigation. .( 44 ) P. W. 1 admits in cross-examination that on reaching Yercaud Police Station on the morning of 21/6/1984 P. W. 28 Sub Inspector first took him to hospital and then to the house of A-1 Majeeth and thereafter to the house of P. W. 6 Jakku Singh, recovered the articles there, came back to the Police Station and then prepared Ex. Pi complaint. However, P. W. 28 Sub Inspector would say that M. Os. 2 to 17 and 25 were recovered only after io. 00 A. M. Further, as it has been rightly argued by the learned senior counsel for the appellants, investigation is nothing but gathering of evidence. In this case the investigation had commenced the moment P. W. 1 Raju took the Sub-Inspector to the places of occurrence. There is no G. D. entry regarding the Sub Inspector proceeding to the places of occurrence. So the possibility of there being an earlier First Information Report which has been suppressed exists. This view also gets support from the evidence of P. W. 20 Tahsildar who was called upon by P. W. 28 Sub Inspector to witness the recoveries. P. W. 20 Tahsildar states in his evidence that he went to the house of P. W. 6 Jakku Singh along with the Police party at about 9. 00 A.M. and he attested Ex. P-7 observation mahazar which also reads that the inspection of the place of occurrence was at 9. P. W. 20 Tahsildar states in his evidence that he went to the house of P. W. 6 Jakku Singh along with the Police party at about 9. 00 A.M. and he attested Ex. P-7 observation mahazar which also reads that the inspection of the place of occurrence was at 9. 00 A. M. .( 45 ) P. W. 23 Doctor has examined P. W. 1 Raju at 10. 30 A. M. on 21. 6. 1984 for the injuries found on him. Ex. P-19 the wound certificate issued by him reads that as per the Police Memo he was required to report as to certain injuries said to have been caused to P. W. 1 Raju on and from 18. 6. 1984 to 20/6/1984 and to be due to wooden plank, iron rod and brick. This Doctor states even in his chief examination that P. W. 1 Raju represented to him about the assault on him from 18/6/1984 to 20/6/1984. Ex. D-14 is the medical memo mentioned above given by P. W. 28 Sub Inspector of Yercaud. In this the Sub Inspector himself has stated that P. W. 1 Raju was assaulted by A-1 to A-4 and 10 others from 18/6/1984 to 20/6/1984. There is no explanation from the side of prosecution as to how the date came to be mentioned as 18. 6. 1984 in these two documents. This date goes a long way to support the claim of the learned senior counsel that the alleged abduction took place not on 19. 6. 1984 as mentioned in Ex. PI, but much earlier and in any event the origin and genesis of Ex. P-I is surrounded in mystery. .( 46 ) P. W. 2 Muthulakshmi is stated to have been in her house at the time of alleged abduction. It is in her evidence that on 18. 6. 1984 Monday also A-1 to A-4 came to her house and talked to her husband P. W. 1 Raju and deceased Ramachandran. But she has not narrated this to P. W. 27 Sub Inspector during investigation. According to her, A-15 and A-16 also came with them on that evening. Only on enquiry on that day she came to know who they were. But she has not narrated this to P. W. 27 Sub Inspector during investigation. According to her, A-15 and A-16 also came with them on that evening. Only on enquiry on that day she came to know who they were. As contended by the learned senior counsel that this evidence of P. W. 2 Muthulakshmi cannot be safely acted upon for the reason that it has not been tested in a prior Identification Parade. According to her, A-15 Kumar also came in the van to her house on the night of 19. 6. 1984 and kidnapped her husband and deceased Ramachandran. Even in Ex. P-2 she makes mention of the presence of A-15 Kumar. Whereas P. W. 1 Raju is definite in his evidence in the witness box that Ai5 Kumar came on the scene only at 3. 30 P. M. on 20. 6. 1984 Wednesday at Yercaud. Ex. P-2 is the complaint lodged by P. W. 2 Muthulakshmi in Hasthampatti Police Station at 9. 30 A. M. on 20. 6. 1984. In this she states that one of the sons of the Manager of the Bus Company came there. But we find from the evidence of P. W. 10 Driver Balu that besides A-2 and A-3, A-1 Majeeth had another son by name Ibrahim. So we are not in a position to know which of the sons of A-1 Majeeth chose to accompany the assailants at the time of the abduction. While in Ex. P-2 P. W. 2 Muthulakshmi has specifically stated that A-15 Kumar, A-16 Mohan and some 15 other persons whose name she did not know came to her house at 8. 00 P. M. on 19. 6. 1984, in the witness box she has chosen to give evidence by mentioning the names of A-2 and A-3 as the persons who had come on that night. Further in Ex. P-2 this witness states that the assailants beat her husband and Ramachandran with hands and carried them in van. But in her cross-examination she concedes that they did not beat. So the learned senior counsel is right in his contention that P. W. 2 is a person who is prepared to go to any extent without caring for the truth. P-2 this witness states that the assailants beat her husband and Ramachandran with hands and carried them in van. But in her cross-examination she concedes that they did not beat. So the learned senior counsel is right in his contention that P. W. 2 is a person who is prepared to go to any extent without caring for the truth. .( 47 ) P. W. 2 Muthulakshmi deposes that immediately after abduction she went to the house of P. W. 3 Tamil Selvi the wife of Ramachandran and informed her what had happened. Whereas as per P. W. 28 Sub Inspector she has not stated so during investigation. Even P. W. 3 Tamil Selvi did not mention before him that on the night of 16. 1984 P. W. 2 Muthulakshmi met her and both of them went to the house, of P. W. 5 lawyer. 45. Both P. W. 2 Muthulakshmi and P. W. 3 Tamil Selvi swear that on the night of 19/6/1984 they went to Hasthampatti Police Station. There was no officer in that Police Station. So they had been to the house of P. W. 5 Chandrasekaran, a lawyer who is known to them. They narrated the incident to Chandrasekaran. He advised them to give a telegram to the Police and furnished a draft for that purpose. Then they proceeded to Central Post Office. An elderly gentleman available there filled up the telegram form. Ex. P-27 is the copy of the telegram. This reads that on 19. 6. 1984 P.W. 1 Raju and Ramachandran were kidnapped by A-15 Kumar and A-16 Mohan and 10 others. The son of N. S. Bus Manager was one among them. This telegram has been received by the Hasthampatti Police at 1. 45 A. M. on 20/6/1984. The time of despatch of the telegram is mentioned as oo55 -19/6. The learned senior counsel for the appellants argued that this telegram should have been given on 18/6/1984 which belies the prosecution theory that the abduction took place on the night of 19/6/1984. But on a careful scrutiny of the telegram, we are not impressed with this contention. This telegram has been despatched at 12. 55 A. M. on 20/6/1984 and evidently the date 19/6 is a slip. The learned senior counsel further relied on Ex. D-9 the G. D. entry of Hasthampatti Police Station relating to the time 6. But on a careful scrutiny of the telegram, we are not impressed with this contention. This telegram has been despatched at 12. 55 A. M. on 20/6/1984 and evidently the date 19/6 is a slip. The learned senior counsel further relied on Ex. D-9 the G. D. entry of Hasthampatti Police Station relating to the time 6. 00 A. M. to 7. 00 P. M. on 21/6/1984. This reveals that the Sub Inspector came to the Station at 6. 00 A. M. However, we arc unable to find any material in this G. D. entry to strengthen the claim of the learned senior counsel. ( 48 ) P. W. 10 driver Balu is stated to have accompanied A-1 to A-3 in M. O. 1 van from Yercaud on 19. 6. 1984. According to him, on the way A-1 Majeeth was finding fault with A-2 Azad for having lost Rs. 30,000/-in the doubling episode. We do not think that there could be any other version more artificial than this. As it has been rightly observed by Thiru G. Krishnan, the learned senior counsel for the appellants 4 to 6, it is as if the father and sons had chosen to speak about the loss in the van so that the driver could hear the same and give evidence later on. .( 49 ) P. W. 10 Driver Balu says that at 3. 00 A. M. on 21. 6. 1984 Thursday A-2 Azad woke him up and told him that Ramachandran had died while P. W. 1 Raju had escaped. He directed this witness to take the mother of A-2 Azad in the car and leave her in the house of A-1 Majeeths brother. It is not known why the mother who was sleeping inside the house was sought to be disturbed while Ramachandran was confined in the car shed of the house. The mother inside the house could not have any knowledge either of the confinement or the death of Ramachandran in the car shed. So this part of the evidence of P. W. 10 Balu also appears to be unnatural. .( 50 ) P. W. 10 Balu swears that on 19. 6. 1984 when they came to Salem from Yercaud in M. O. ivan, A- 17 told A-15 that they should trace out the, culprits responsible for the doubling. So this part of the evidence of P. W. 10 Balu also appears to be unnatural. .( 50 ) P. W. 10 Balu swears that on 19. 6. 1984 when they came to Salem from Yercaud in M. O. ivan, A- 17 told A-15 that they should trace out the, culprits responsible for the doubling. A-15 told Al Majeeth that they could recover the money with the aid of their leader A-4 Gunalan, but they might have to incur expense to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-for that purpose and A-1 Majeeth agreed to that deal. A-15 told A-2 that P. W. 1 Raju and Ramachandran are the gang leaders and if they are taken, the money could be recovered. But as per Ex. D-4 in his statement under Section 164 Cr. P. C. he has not mentioned about it. And above all he admits in cross-examination that he has no personal knowledge about A-4 to A-6, A-14 and A-15 beating P. W. 1 Raju and deceased Ramachandran. Further, though this witness speaks about A-15 Kumar and A-16 Mohan coming in M. O. 1 van on 19. 6. 1984, he admits in cross-examination that he did not mention the identifying features of these persons either during investigation or in his 164 statement. .( 51 ) YET another factor which throws suspicion about the prosecution story is this: As per the evidence of P. W. 29 Inspector, he held inquest over the dead body of Ramachandran between 9. 30 A. M. and 12. 30 P. M. on 22. 6. 1984 at the place where the body was lying. In Ex. P- 32 rough sketch he had shown that place as that beneath the tree along the road leading to Kottachedu from Mont Fort School. However, Ex. P33 the Inquest Report discloses that the inquest was held at Government Hospital Mortuary, Yercaud on 22. 6. 1984. This has been received by J. S. C. M. , Salem at 6. 00 P. M. on that day at his residence. It is significant to note that in this inquest report, of the five Panchayatdars the first one by name Krishnan alone hails from Yercaud. The next Panchayatdar A. Mani is a resident of Hasthampatti, Salem. The third Panchayatdar P. Raju is a Watch Repairer in Sornapuri, Salem. The fourth Panchayatdar Mariappan is a resident of Chinna Pudur, Hasthampatti, Salem. It is significant to note that in this inquest report, of the five Panchayatdars the first one by name Krishnan alone hails from Yercaud. The next Panchayatdar A. Mani is a resident of Hasthampatti, Salem. The third Panchayatdar P. Raju is a Watch Repairer in Sornapuri, Salem. The fourth Panchayatdar Mariappan is a resident of Chinna Pudur, Hasthampatti, Salem. The last person A. Gopal is a resident of Muthampatti near Seshan Chavadi in Salem District. In column 8 it is asserted that the body is lying beneath the Murunga Tree in the road leading to Kottachedu from Mont Fort School. In column 13 it is mentioned that after completion of inquest the body had been sent to Government Hospital, Yercaud for postmortem. So as it has been rightly argued by the learned senior counsel, the very holding of inquest itself has taken place in suspicious circumstances. His apprehension about the background in which the inquest was held is fortified from the evidence of P.W. 2 Muthulakshmi who asserts in the witness box that she saw her husband P. W. 1 Raju in the Government Hospital, Salem on the night of 21. 6. 1984. P. w. 29 Inspector was available there. In the Hospital she came to know that Ramachandran had died and his body was in Yercaud. Thereupon, on that Thursday night Yercaud Police took herself and P. W. 3 Tamil selvi to Yercaud. This assertion is quite contradictory to the recitals in Ex. P-3 wherein it is mentioned that P. W. 8 Eswaran first noticed the dead body at 7. 00 A. M. on 22. 6. 1. 984 along the road leading to Kottachedu from Mont Fort School. So the inconsistent stand taken by the prosecution regarding the time of the recovery of the dead body heightens the suspicion in this case. ( 52 ) THE learned senior counsel for the appellants next contended that the evidence of P. W. 1 Raju regarding the assault on him and deceased Ramachandran is belied by the medical evidence. As per the version of this witness the deceased Ramachandran had suffered injury on his chest due to assault with bricks by A-2 and A-3 on the night of 19. 6. 1984 and that after the receipt of these injuries he was alive till about 3. 00 A. M. on 21. 6. 1984. As per the version of this witness the deceased Ramachandran had suffered injury on his chest due to assault with bricks by A-2 and A-3 on the night of 19. 6. 1984 and that after the receipt of these injuries he was alive till about 3. 00 A. M. on 21. 6. 1984. But P. W. 23 Doctor admits in cross-examination that the deceased could not have lived beyond six hours after the receipt of the injuries on the chest. ( 53 ) IN the circumstances, we are unable to agree with the reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge that the contradictions and improbabilities pointed out by the learned senior counsel are of little consequence. Instead, in our view, the inherent improbabilities shown in the arguments throw grave doubt about the origin and genesis of the occurrence. In Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar (1977 (1) S. C. W. R. 306) it has been laid down that if the origin and genesis of the occurrence have been deliberately suppressed, it leads to the irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has not come out with a true version of the occurrence. The prosecution can succeed only by substantially proving the very story it alleges. Unless the main features of the prosecution story are shown to be true, it is, in our opinion, unsafe to regard mere wealth of uncorroborated detail as a safeguard of truth. When the substratum of the evidence given by P. W. 1 Raju and P. W. 18 Ravi is found to be improbable, we have no other go, but to give the benefit of doubt to the appellants. No doubt, there may be suspicion against the appellants. But suspicion, however grave, it may be is no substitute for legal proof to base a conviction. ( 54 ). In the result, the appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges against them. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Appeal allowed.