Judgment :- JANARTHANAM, J. Accused, 1, 2 and 4 to 7 are the appellants. They and another, by name Dhanaraj, viz., 3rd accused, faced trial in S.C. No. 34 of 1986 on the file of the Court of Session, Tiruchirappalli Division. 2. Various charges had been framed as against the said accused, as reflected below : 3. After the framing of charges, 3rd accused died and consequently, the charge as against him got abated. After the examination of the prosecution witnesses, it appears, learned public prosecutor filed a memo for amendment of the second charge originally framed. The said memo had been considered by learned Sessions Judge and charge No. 2 had been reframed as charge No. 2 and 2(a), the former relating to accused 1, 2 and 4 for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and the latter relatable to accused 5, 6 and 7 for the offence under Section 302 read with 149, I.P.C. On the charge so amended, opportunity had been provided to the accused and at their instance, P.Ws 1, 3 and 6 were recalled and further cross-examined by the defence. 4. (a) On trial, accused 1, 2 and 4 were found guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C., convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for life. (b) Accused 5, 6 and 7 were found guilty under Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C., convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for life. (c) Accused 1, 2 and 4 to 7 were found guilty under Section 148, I.P.C. convicted thereunder and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. (d) 2nd accused was found guilty under Section 324, I.P.C., convicted thereunder and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. (e) 5th accused was found guilty under Section 324, I.P.C. (2 counts), convicted thereunder and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year, each. (f) 6th accused was found guilty under Section 324, I.P.C., convicted thereunder and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. (g) 7th accused was found guilty under Section 324, I.P.C. (2 counts), convicted thereunder and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year, each. (h) The sentences, as above, were directed to run concurrently. 5. The present action had been resorted to as against the said convictions and sentences. 6. (g) 7th accused was found guilty under Section 324, I.P.C. (2 counts), convicted thereunder and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year, each. (h) The sentences, as above, were directed to run concurrently. 5. The present action had been resorted to as against the said convictions and sentences. 6. The brief facts are :- (a) The scene village, going by the name Pudur Uthamanur, is situated within the jurisdictional limits of Siruganur police Station, 18 K.Ms. away. All the accused hail from the said village and they are related to each other. Accused, 1, 4 and 5 are brothers. Their cousins are accused 2, 6 and 7. 3rd accused (since deceased) is the brother-in-law of the 1st accused. (b) P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 to 6 are also the natives of Puder Uthamanur Village and P.W. 3 is a native of Nerkuppam. P.W. 4, as a consequence of his avocation, as having been employed in Kothari Sugar Mills, shifted his residence to Kattur. He and his family members had been living there. His wife is P.W. 2. His son is Manoharan (since deceased). His brother-in-law is P.W. 1 and P.W. 3 is his sister. P.W. 6 is the Pangali of P.W. 4. P.W. 5 in related to P.W. 2, as sister by courtesy. Like P.W. 4, P.W. 1 also migrated to Karur, as a consequence of his having been employed as a security guard in Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. at Karur. (c) Some two years prior to the occurrence, which event happened on 4-11-1985, it appears, that there was mutual fight, between the 3rd accused, brother-in-law of the 1st accused and P.W. 4, in respect of which, the Police were stated to have filed a final report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against P.W. 4. The case so filed as against P.W. 4, ended in acquittal, and as a consequence, it appears, there was want of cordial atmosphere between the accused, as a group, and the members of the family of P.W. 4. (d) All Souls Day is being celebrated every year in the scene village. The members of the family of P.W. 1 as well as that of P.W. 4 used to go to their native village every year in connection with the celebration of the said festival. In the year 1985. All souls Day happened to fall on 2-11-1985. The family members of P.Ws. The members of the family of P.W. 1 as well as that of P.W. 4 used to go to their native village every year in connection with the celebration of the said festival. In the year 1985. All souls Day happened to fall on 2-11-1985. The family members of P.Ws. 1 and 4, as usual, in connection with the celebration of the said festival, reached the scene village on the night of 1-11-1985. (e) At 8.00 p.m. on 2-11-1985, P.W. 4, P.W. 11 and one Arokiasamy were sitting in front of the house of one James, a teacher by profession. Likewise, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were sitting in the pial of the house of P.W. 4, which is situate in close quarters to the house of the teacher James and in fact, the distance between the two houses is about 10 feet. While they were actually engaged in conversation, 1st accused happened to pass that way. Then, the 1st accused nurturing a grievance, appeared to have flabbergasted in a drunken mood that he was not going to leave P.W. 4, though he was succeessful in getting an acquittal in the earlier prosecution initiated against him and he would see him to the end, despite P.W. 4 wielding cash resources by virtue of his profitable employment. P.W. 11, Arokiasami, however, pacified the 1st accused and sent him away from there, without any untoward incident happened. It appears that aggrieved by the abominable conduct of the 1st accused, P.W. 4 reported the matter to one Pichai, Amalraj and Arokiasamy, the elders of the village, who sent for the 1st accused to enquire the same. The deceased Manoharan, joining his father P.W. 4, also appeared to have made a fervent appeal to the elders to convene a panchayat and reprimand the 1st accused for his hoodlum behaviour. Since, neither the 1st accused nor the 3rd accused, was available in the village, the panchayat, as requested for to be convened, could not get through. (f) At about 6.45 a.m. on 4-11-1985, P.W. 1 went to Kuzhanthalamman Koil Bus stop for going to Karur, which is one K.M. away from the residential locality of the said village. P.Ws. 2, 3 the deceased and five others accompanied P.W. 1 to the said bus stop. P.W. 4, however, opted to come to the bus stop in a cycle a little later. (g) Before ever P.Ws. P.Ws. 2, 3 the deceased and five others accompanied P.W. 1 to the said bus stop. P.W. 4, however, opted to come to the bus stop in a cycle a little later. (g) Before ever P.Ws. 1 to 3, the deceased and others could reach the bus stop, 1st accused, armed with a crow-bar (M.O. 2) and the 2nd accused with an iron rod (M.O. 3), were standing at the bus stop. 1st accused, on sighting the deceased, questioned the propriety of his running away from the village, after having made a request to the elders of the village to convene a panchayat for reprimanding him for his so-called abominable conduct. He also euphemistically made a poser 'Was it not an act of cowardice on his part to do so ?'. So saying, 1st accused attempted to beat the deceased with the crowbar, which he was having in his hand. P.W. 1, who was there, went to the rescue of the deceased and warded off the attack. 2nd accused in turn, questioning P.W. 1, 'how dare enough he was to interfere ?, attempted to beat P.W. 1 with the iron rod, which he was having in his hand. P.W. 1, in the process of avoiding such a hit, turned aside and somehow or other, the hit aimed on him by the 2nd accused with the iron rod, fell on the left side of his forehead. The deceased, in the meantime, was stated to have picked up a stick (vernacular matter is omitted), which was lying there and gave a hit with it at the hand of the 2nd accused. Then, 1st accused renewed his attack on P.W. 1 with the crowbar and at that juncture, P.W. 1 pushed down the 1st accused. Then, both of them rolled on the ground. In the process of such rolling, 1st accused agonisingly yelled for help. On hearing such a cry, accused 3 to 7 emerged into the scene, arming themselves with lethal weapons in their hands. 3rd accused was armed with a crowbar, 4th accused a spear (M.O. 1), 5th accused, a veecharuval. 6th accused an iron pipe and the 7th accused a crowbar. (h) on seeing their dashing march, the deceased got frightened and ran for his life, towards south. 3rd accused was armed with a crowbar, 4th accused a spear (M.O. 1), 5th accused, a veecharuval. 6th accused an iron pipe and the 7th accused a crowbar. (h) on seeing their dashing march, the deceased got frightened and ran for his life, towards south. Accused 1 to 4 chased the deceased, P.W. 6, who had gone for the purchase of certain provisions from a shop situate near the bus stop, had the opportunity of witnessing the occurrence. P.W. 1 ran behind them, followed by P.W. 3. The deceased ran up to the house of Pappammal, a milk vendor, where he turned back and exactly at that juncture, 4th accused inflicted a stab with the spear (M.O. 1) on his left forehead. On receipt of such a stab, the deceased fell down, facing the sky. 1st accused gave a forcible hit on his chest with M.O. 2 crowbar. The deceased, on receipt of such a hit, turned aside. Then the 2nd accused gave a forcible blow with M.O. 3 iron rod on his back (scapula region). Thereafter, accused 1 to 4 belaboured him indiscriminately all over his body with the weapons they possessed. On seeing such an onslaught of attack, P.Ws. 1 and 3 raised a hue and cry. Consequently, attracted by such hue and cry, neighbours rushed to the scene. On seeing the emergence of neighbours, the accused ran away from there, carrying the weapons with them. (i) For the meantime One Ravi, another son of P.W. 4, rushed to the house and informed P.W. 4 as to the dastardly attack on P.W. 1 and the deceased by accused 1 and 2 at the bus stop. On hearing such an alarming news, P.W. 4, along with P.W. 5, ran to the bus stop. No sooner than they reached the bus stop, they had the fortuitous opportunity of witnessing the 5th accused pecking with aruval on the head of P.W. 2 and the 7th accused beating with an iron rod on her left scapular region. P.W. 5 appeared to have questioned the propriety of the 5th and 7th accused in so doing. The net result was, the 5th accused pecked on the head of P.W. 5 with the aruval. P.W. 5, by impulse of moment, placed his hand on his head. At that juncture, the 7th accused beat P.W. 5 with the crowbar on his right forearm. The net result was, the 5th accused pecked on the head of P.W. 5 with the aruval. P.W. 5, by impulse of moment, placed his hand on his head. At that juncture, the 7th accused beat P.W. 5 with the crowbar on his right forearm. P.W. 4 also intervened and questioned their propriety in making such an attack and he had his due share of receiving an injury. 6th accused beat on his head forcibly by means of an iron pipe which he was having. On receipt of the hit, P.W. 4 made a hue and cry. Then accused 5 to 7 ran away from the scene with the weapons in their hands. (j) The deceased falling down on receipt of the injuries, on account of the onslaught of attack mounted on him near the house of Pappammal, had bodily lifted by P.W. 1 and carried to the office of the Village Administrative Officer, situated in close quarters. On reaching the officer of the village Administrative Officer, he found the door locked. Consequently, he placed the victim-deceased there itself and proceeded to the bus stop, where he met P.W. 2, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 with bleeding injuries. (k) P.W. 7, a person employed in Kothari Sugars, happened to pass that way in his Moped. A good samaritan he was that he obliged P.W. 1 to give a lift in his Moped to go up to Lalgudy for procuring a taxi so that the victim deceased Manoharan and the other injured witnesses P.Ws. 2, 4 and 5 might be taken to the hospital for the purpose of treatment. The distance between the place of occurrence and lalgudi is about 7 K. Ms. On reaching Lalgudi at about 8.45 or 9.00 a.m., P.W. 1 was able to contact P.W. 8, a taxi-driver and engaged his taxi bearing registration No. MDE 8740. P.W. 1 took the taxi to the scene village and reached there at 9.30 a.m. Then, the victim-deceased Manoharan, P.Ws. 2, 4 and 5 were all taken in the said taxi to the Government Hospital, Tiruchy. Ex. P. 2 is the trip sheet for the journey performed, maintained by the taxi driver. (1) P.W. 13 was the then Assistant Surgeon, Government Headquarters Hospital, Tiruchy. 2, 4 and 5 were all taken in the said taxi to the Government Hospital, Tiruchy. Ex. P. 2 is the trip sheet for the journey performed, maintained by the taxi driver. (1) P.W. 13 was the then Assistant Surgeon, Government Headquarters Hospital, Tiruchy. At 11.05 a.m. on 4-11-1985, he examined the victim-deceased for certain injuries caused to him at 6.45 a.m. on 4-11-1985 at kuzhanthalamman Koil, Pudur Uthamanur due to assault by known persons with aruval and (vernacular matter is omitted) crowbar. The Victim-deceased was then fully conscious and was accompanied by one Joseph. He found on him the following injuries. (1) Irregular injury over the left side forehead 3 x 1 c.m. x skin deep. (2) Abrasion over the right knee 3 x 1 cm. (3) complaining of pain over both the thighs. Ex. P. 10 is the copy of the accident register relating to the injuries sustained by him. (m) He examined P.W. 2 at 11.20 a.m. for certain injuries said to have been caused by known persons near Kuzhanthalamman koil at 6.45 a.m. on 4-11-1985 due to assault by means of iron rod (kambi). He found on him the following injuries : (1) Lacerated injury over the middle of scalp 2 x 1 cm. (2) complaining of pain over the left shoulder. Ex. P. 11 is the copy of the accident register relating to the injuries sustained by him. (n) He examined P.W. 5 at 11.35 p.m. for certain injuries said to have been caused by known persons by means of aruval and Kadapparai at 6.45 a.m., near kuzhanthalamman Koil. He found on him the following injuries : (1) Lacerated injury near the right parietal scalp 2 x 1 cm x skin deep - bone seen. (2) Tender swelling over the right elbow. Ex. P. 12 is the copy of the accident register relating to the injuries sustained by him. (o) At 2.30 p.m. he examined P.W. 4 for certain injuries caused to him due to assault with thadi and kadapparai by known persons at 6.45 a.m. on 4-11-1985 at Kuzhanthalamman koil. He found on him the following injuries : (1) Two lacerated injuries over the right side parietal region 4 x 1 cm. x skin deep and 1 x 1 cm. Ex. P. 13 is the copy of the accident register relating to the injuries found on him. He found on him the following injuries : (1) Two lacerated injuries over the right side parietal region 4 x 1 cm. x skin deep and 1 x 1 cm. Ex. P. 13 is the copy of the accident register relating to the injuries found on him. (p) The Doctor P.W. 21 examined the victim-deceased, who was them in M.S. 2 ward of the hospital at 1.30 p.m. and then the deceased told him about the pain he was having on the chest region. The Doctor took steps for taking X-Ray of the chest region. His successor doctor noted in the case sheet, Ex. P. 24, that he suspected that there could be oozing of blood from the lungs. (q) At 2.00 p.m. 2nd accused appeared before the Doctor, P.W. 15 attached to the Government Hospital, Srirangam for treatment of certain injuries said to have been caused to him by known persons at 6.30 a.m. that day due to assault with marakkuchi (stick) at Pudur Uthamanur. He found on him the following injuries : (1) Abrasion 2" x 1" on the left elbow joint with contusion of the right forearm. (2) Laceration 1" x 1/2" on the left parietal scalp. Suspecting fracture of the left elbow, he directed taking of X-Ray. Ex. P. 15 is the wound certificate relating to the injuries found on the person of the 2nd accused. Based on the X-Ray report, P.W. 16, Doctor found a fracture of the lower end of humerus and he opined that the said injury was a grievous one and he had noted his opinion on the back of Ex. P. 15. (r) P.W. 1, after admitting the victim deceased and also producting the other injured witnesses, viz., P.Ws. 2, 4 and 5 into the hospital, rushed to Siruganur Police Station, 25 K.Ms. away from Tiruchy for laying the F.I.R. He reached the police station at 2.30 p.m. P.W. 23, the Sub Inspector of Police was then in charge of the police station. To him, P.W. 1 gave EX. P. 1, written complaint, which had been registered as a case in Crime No. 128 of 1985 under Sections 147, 148 and 324, I.P.C. Ex. P. 19 is the printed F.I.R. P.W. 23 then sent P.W. 1 with a medical memo to the hospital for treatment, he then went to the Government Hospital at Tiruchy. There, he examined P.Ws. P. 1, written complaint, which had been registered as a case in Crime No. 128 of 1985 under Sections 147, 148 and 324, I.P.C. Ex. P. 19 is the printed F.I.R. P.W. 23 then sent P.W. 1 with a medical memo to the hospital for treatment, he then went to the Government Hospital at Tiruchy. There, he examined P.Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5 and the victim-deceased. At about 3.30 p.m. he seized from the victim-deceased M.O. 9 shirt and from P.W. 5 - M.O. 6 shirt, M.O. 7 dothi and M.O. 8 towel, under the cover of mahazar, Ex. P. 5 At 3.40 p.m.., he seized from P.W. 4 M.O. 10 shirt, M.O. 11 dothi and M.O. 12 towel under Ex. P. 4 mahazar. At 3.50 p.m. he seized from P.W. 2 M.O. 4 saree and M.O. 5 jacket under Ex. P. 5 mahazar. Exs. P. 3 to P. 5 mahazars were attested by P.W. 9. He then went to the scene village at about 5.15 p.m. and after visiting the scene place, he prepared Ex. P. 25 observation mahazar. He also seized M.O. 13 blood stained earth and M.O. 14 sample earth, from near the house of the milk vendor Pappammal under Ex. P. 8 attested by P.W. 10 and another. he then drew the rough sketch of the scene Ex. P. 26. He examined P.Ws. 3 and 10 and recorded their statements. He searched for the accused; but they were not available. (s) In the meanwhile, P.W. 22 Doctor, examined the victim deceased at 6.05 p.m. as he was in a critical condition. At that time, the victim deceased was gasping for breath and the blood pressure was unable to be measured. He also noted those facts in the case sheet, Ex. P. 24. At 6.15 p.m., however, the victim-deceased died in the hospital and the Doctor, P.W. 12 despatched the death intimation Ex. 9 to the Out-Post Police Station. (t) P.W. 23, Sub Inspector of Police, returned to the Police Station at 7.00 p.m. and at that time, he received the V.H.F. message from the Out-post police station as to the death of the victim-deceased Manoharan in the hospital. He then altered the case into one under Section 302, I.P.C. also and prepared express report. Ex. P. 27 is the express report. He then sent Exs. He then altered the case into one under Section 302, I.P.C. also and prepared express report. Ex. P. 27 is the express report. He then sent Exs. P. 1, P. 19 and P. 27 through the Constable P.W. 18 to the then Judicial Second Class Magistrate's Court, Lalgudi. (u) On reaching Lalgudi at 7.30 p.m. P.W. 18 came to know that the Magistrate was on leave and he was not able to know who, the in-charge Magistrate was. Consequently, he went to Tiruchy and contacted the Chief Judicial Magistrate, at his residence and from him came to know that the Judicial Second Class Magistrate No. 3, Tiruchy, was the In-charge Magistrate, on that day. (v) At about 8.45 p.m. 1st accused appeared before the Doctor, P.W. 15 for treatment as to certain injuries said to have been caused to him at 6.30 a.m. that day due to assault by a known person with wooden stick at Pudur Uthamanur and he found on his person the following injuries : (1) Abrasion 1" x 1/2" on the right parietal region of the forehead. (2) Abrasion 1" x 1" on the right elbow joint. (3) Abrasion 1" x 1/2" on the left leg. Ex. P. 16 is the wound certificate issued for the injuries he found on the person of the 1st accused. (w) On the next morning i.e. 5-11-1985, P.W. 18 Police Constable handed over Ex. P. 1, P. 19 and P. 27 to the Incharge Magistrate, viz., judicial Second Class Magistrate No. 3, Tiruchy. (x) P.W. 24, the then Inspector of Police, Law and order, received the copy of the express report sent through P.C. 2368. He immediately rushed and reached the scene village and searched for the accused. They were not available. He then returned to the Government Hospital, Tiruchy and between 7.00 and 10.00 a.m. he held the inquest over the body of the deceased. Ex. P. 28 is the inquest report. During inquest, he examined P.Ws. 1 to 5 and others. After the inquest was over, he sent the body of the deceased through P.W. 19 Constable with a requisition Ex. P. 18 for autopsy. He also examined and recorded statements from P.Ws. 12 and 13. (y) P.W. 17 was the then Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Tiruchy. On receipt of Ex. During inquest, he examined P.Ws. 1 to 5 and others. After the inquest was over, he sent the body of the deceased through P.W. 19 Constable with a requisition Ex. P. 18 for autopsy. He also examined and recorded statements from P.Ws. 12 and 13. (y) P.W. 17 was the then Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Tiruchy. On receipt of Ex. P. 18 requisition, he commenced the autopsy over the body of the deceased at 1 p.m. on 5-11-1985. Ex. P. 17 is the Post mortem certificate. He opined in that report that the deceased would appear to have died of traumatic intra pulmonary haemorrhage, pulmonary insufficiency and asphyxia. He also opined that the injury, he found on the lungs of the deceased was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. (z) After the autopsy, the Constable P.W. 19 seized from the body-M.O. 15 lungi and M.O. 16 jatty and handed over the same at the police Station, which appeared to have been seized by P.W. 24 Inspector of Police under Form 95. (aa) P.W. 24, in the meanwhile, at 3.15 p.m. searched the house of accused 2 and 7, after sending advance intimation to the court. The search proved futile, in the sense of he being not in a position to recover any incriminating articles. (bb) P.W. 1, who was sent to the Hospital with a medical memo by P.W. 23, sub Inspector of Police, did not however opt to go to the hospital immediately; but chose to report before P.W. 14, Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital, Srirangam, at 4.00 p.m. on 5-11-1985 for certain injuries said to have been caused by a known person with aruval at 6.45 a.m. on 4-11-1985 at the bus stop at Pudur Uthamanur. He found on his person one injury, viz., An abrasion 2 x 1 cm. on the left forehead with change in colour. Ex. P. 14 is the copy of the accident register relating to him. He opined that the injury was simple in nature. (cc) On 6-11-1985, P.W. 24, Inspector of Police examined P.Ws. 6, 7, 9, 14, 16 and 19 and recorded their statements. On special information as to the whereabouts of accused 1 and 2 he along with a police party, went to lalgudi bus stand and arrested accused 1 and 2 near Palakkattai in the presence of P.W. 9. (cc) On 6-11-1985, P.W. 24, Inspector of Police examined P.Ws. 6, 7, 9, 14, 16 and 19 and recorded their statements. On special information as to the whereabouts of accused 1 and 2 he along with a police party, went to lalgudi bus stand and arrested accused 1 and 2 near Palakkattai in the presence of P.W. 9. On interrogation, 1st accused gave a voluntary confession, the admissible portion of which is Ex. P. 6. Then P.W. 24 along with accused 1 and 2 and P.W. 9, made a march to Pudur Uthamanaur. On the way, at about 4.15 p.m. near Pallavaram bus stand, he happened to sight accused 3 and 7 and also arrested them and then went to the scene village. There, at 5.15 p.m. 1st accused took out and produced M. O. 1 spear, M.O. 2 corwbar and M.O. 3 iron rod, kept hidden under a hay-rick, which were seized under Ex. P. 7 mahazar, attested by P.W. 9. He then returned to the police station along with those accused at 7.30 p.m. Thereafter, he examined P.W. 8 and recorded his statement. On 7-11-1985, he sent accused 1, 2, 3 and 7 to Court for remand. On 8-11-1985 he despatched the incriminating material objects to court. On 14-11-1985, he examined and recorded the statement of P.W. 17. On 20-11-1985, he sent Ex. P. 20 requisition to the then Judicial Second Class Magistrate's Court, Lalgudy, for forwarding the material objects to the Chemical Examiner for the purpose of chemical analysis. (dd) P.W. 20 was the then Head Clerk, then Judicial Second class Magistrate's Court, Lalgudi. On receipt of Ex. P. 20, requisition, he packed the incriminating material objects, viz., M.Os. 1 to 16 separately and sent them to the Chemical Examiner under the direction of the Magistrate under the Original of Ex. P. 11, office copy of the letter. Exs. P. 22 and P. 23 are respectively the reports of the Chemical Examiner and the serologist. (ee) On 22-11-1985, P.W. 24 examined P.W. 15 and recorded his statement. On 30-12-1985, he similarly examined and recorded the statement of P.W. 16. As respects the arrest or surrender of the rest of the accused, viz., accused 4, 5 and 6, no evidence has been let in by the prosecution. However, it transpires from the final report that they had surrendered before Court. On 30-12-1985, he similarly examined and recorded the statement of P.W. 16. As respects the arrest or surrender of the rest of the accused, viz., accused 4, 5 and 6, no evidence has been let in by the prosecution. However, it transpires from the final report that they had surrendered before Court. After completing the investigation, he laid the final report, under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate's Court, lalgudi, on 30-12-1985 against accused 1 to 7 for the alleged offences under Section 147, 324, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. In proof of the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 24, filed Exhibits P. 1 to P. 28 and marked M.Os. 1 to 16. 8. The accused, when questioned under Section 313, Cr PC, as respects the incriminating evidence and the circumstances available against then, denied their complicity in the crime, None of them chose to examine any witness on their side. The accused, however, chose to mark the police memo issued to the 1st accused as Ex. D. 1 through the doctor, P.W. 14, besides accused 1 and 2 also filed separate written statements. 9. On a consideration of the materials placed before him, learned Sessions Judge rendered the verdict as aforesaid. 10. Mr. K. V. Sridharan, learned counsel for the appleants/accused, would submit that the material placed on record in the shape of evidence, oral and documentary, by the prosecution, is rather suffering from such vital infirmities, and inherent improbabilities and artificialities, as is not possible for the court to place any safe reliance thereon for any purpose whatever and in that view of the mater, it goes without saying that there is no plausibility or possibility to mulct or fasten criminal liability upon any of the appellants/accused and consequently, they deserve to be acquitted, by setting aside the convictions and sentences, as had been imposed upon them by the Court below, to which course, Mr. N. A. Ravindran, representing the Public Prosecutor Mr. B. Sriramulu, representing the prosecution, struck a discordant note. 11. N. A. Ravindran, representing the Public Prosecutor Mr. B. Sriramulu, representing the prosecution, struck a discordant note. 11. Then motive for the occurrence, according to the prosecution, was that some two years prior to the occurrence, there was a mutual fight between the 3rd accused and P.W. 4 leading to injuries being sustained by the 3rd accused and in respect of the said incident, a final report had been laid as against P.W. 4, by the police before the competent criminal Court, which, however, ended in an acquittal of P.W. 4. Ever since the acquittal, it is said, there was want of cordiality between the family of the third accused and that of P.W. 4 and this want of cordially got erupted on the night of the All Souls Day, viz., 2-11-1985, in the sense of the 1st accused, having been fully drunk, flabbergasted and abused P.W. 4 that though P.W. 4 was successful in the criminal prosecution launched against him, yet, he would see that he was properly taught a lesson despite his affluence and this sort of an incident was not allowed to further enlarge into an untoward incident, by the mediation of P.W. 11 and Arokiasamy, who happened to be present in front of the house of James, at teacher by profession, situate in close quarters to the house of P.W. 4. Such an incident could not at all be taken with so much of serious concern, inasmuch as such an incident is a common day-to-day occurrence in any rustic village atmosphere. Such being the case, none of the members of the family of P.W. 4 could have possibly taken the same as an affront or insult to them. Such an incident in all probability could not at all have been reported to the elders of the village for an enquiry to be made as against the 1st accused. Though the prosecution was specific in stating that such an incident had been referred to the elders of the village, viz., Pichai, Amalraj and Arokiam, yet, none of them had been examined. Further, there is dearth of evidence that any of the elders sent for the members of the family of the accused for a panchayat to be convened so as to reprimand the abominable conduct of the 1st accused on the night of 2-11-1985. Further, there is dearth of evidence that any of the elders sent for the members of the family of the accused for a panchayat to be convened so as to reprimand the abominable conduct of the 1st accused on the night of 2-11-1985. Such being the case, we are at a loss to understand as to how any one of the members of the family of the 1st accused could have had any sort of a grievance against the members of the family of P.W. 4. 12. It is also intriguing for us to note as to how in the absence of any evidence as to report either by P.W. 4 or the deceased, to any of the panchayatdars of the village, requiring them to convince a panchayat by summoning the members of the family of the 1st accused for an enquiry, accused 1 and 2 could be laying in wait at the bus stop for the arrival of the members of the family of P.W. 4 or their relations on the morning of 4-11-1985, for wreaking vengeance on them. These things apart, no evidence worth-the-name had been placed on record as to the criminal prosecution having been launched against P.W. 4. by the police for causing injuries to the 3rd accused in an occurrence, which had happened two years before the fateful occurrence in the case on hand. Above all, even assuming for argument's sake, the incident as projected by the prosecution, having happened on the night of 2-11-1985, it is so trivial in any one to have taken cognizance of the same and such an incident, to say served as the igniting cause for the occurrence on the day in a question is highly improbable and in that view of the matter, we are unable to accredite any credibility to the motive aspect of the prosecution case. 13. Turning to the occurrence proper, we rather feel that the version, as projected by the prosecution, is highly doubtful in the facts and circumstances of the case. The initial occurrence happened near Kuzhanthalamman Temple Bus Stop. In the said occurrence, initially P.W. 1 and the deceased, on the one hand, and accused 1 and 2, on the other, alone were involved. The initial occurrence happened near Kuzhanthalamman Temple Bus Stop. In the said occurrence, initially P.W. 1 and the deceased, on the one hand, and accused 1 and 2, on the other, alone were involved. It is the case of the prosecution that accused 1 and 2 having wash near the bus stop for the arrival of the members of the family of P.W. 4, mounted on the victim-deceased an attack. 1st accused was stated to have attempted to beat the deceased with a crow-bar, which was warded off by P.W. 1 and the 2nd accused, at that juncture, was stated to have intervened by questioning P.W. 1. as to how dare enough he was to interfere attempted to beat him with an iron rod, which, when warded off, fell on the left side of his forehead. Immediately, the deceased was stated to have picked up a 'Mattaikuchi' (Stick) and gave a hit at the hand of the 2nd accused. Then, 1st accused attempted to beat P.W. 1. with the crow-bar and in such a process, P.W. 1 was stated to have pushed him down and thereafter, both of them rolled on the ground and during the course of such rolling, 1st accused was stated to have cried for help and thereafter, accused 3 to 7 emerged at the scene, arming with all sorts of lethal weapons. We are at a loss to understand, as already indicated, as to how it could have been possible either for accused 1 and 2 or for accused 3 to 7 to have been present at or about the time of occurrence, near that place, especially when they are not possessed of any sort of knowledge either to the complaint having been made either by the deceased or by P.W. 4. to the elders of the village or about any of the members of the family of P.W. 4. or that of the deceased leaving the village on the next day morning. 14. Perplexing factor it is to note as to how accuse 3 to 7 could have arrived at the scene immediately after the 1st accused caried for help, when especially the occurrence had happened near the bus stop, which is admittedly far away from the houses of accused 3 to 7. 14. Perplexing factor it is to note as to how accuse 3 to 7 could have arrived at the scene immediately after the 1st accused caried for help, when especially the occurrence had happened near the bus stop, which is admittedly far away from the houses of accused 3 to 7. At this juncture, we have to recapitulate the evidence available on record, which points out that initially accused 1 and 2 were present near the bus stop and the other accused were not at all there. Of course, it is seen from the sketch, Ex. P. 26. that the house of the 7th accused is located near the bus stop. But, also even here, we may point out that practically there is no evidence available on record as to the presence of accused 3 to 6 in the house of the 7th accused, so as to enable them to rush to the scene, immediately after hearing the hue and cry emerging from the 1st accused, when he was engaged in the act of rolling on the ground with P.W. 1. Further, nothing is traceable from the earliest information, Ex. P. 1. as to the 1st accused and P.W. 1. having been engaged in the act of rolling on the ground and the 1st accused crying for help. in such a context, we are also unable to believe the story of the prosecution as to the victim deceased, on the emergence of accused 3 to 7 at the scene, arming themselves with lethal weapons, running away from the scene. However, it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was stated to have been chased not by all the accused 1 to 7; but only by accused 1 to 4. In the process of such a chase, it is not as if P.W. 1. was not available, within the reach of these accused for an attack to be mounted on him. He was also virtually following them along in the company of P.W. 3. and in as much as P.Ws. In the process of such a chase, it is not as if P.W. 1. was not available, within the reach of these accused for an attack to be mounted on him. He was also virtually following them along in the company of P.W. 3. and in as much as P.Ws. 1 and 3 even according to the prosecution were virtually available in the immediate vicinity of accused 1 to 4, when the victim deceased was belaboured by accused 1 to 4 in front of the house of the Milk Vendor, Pappammal, we are at a loss to understand as to why accused 1 to 4 chose to chase only the victim deceased, leaving P.Ws. 2 and 3 as well as P.W. 1 with whom, the 1st accused had a wordy altercation followed by a scuffle, which resulted in both of them rolling on the ground earlier. In such a situation, can we comprehend as to how P.W. 1 being left unharmed by accused 1 to 4 or is it probable for P.W. 1, placed in such a situation, to have followed the accused without himself running for his life, away from the clutches of accused 1 to 4 ? The reason why P.W. 1. was made to follow the accused to the place where the deceased was beaten black and blue by accused 1 to 4, was to make him present at the scene, to have the fortuitous opportunity of witnessing the occurrence. Similarly, can we believe P.W. 3. also following the accused in the company of P.W. 1. when especially she being closely related to P.W. 12 ? It is also not possible and believable as to whether P.W. 3. a weaker sex, could have kept pace with a hot chase made by accused 1 to 4. We are made to understand that the house of Milk Vendor Pappammal was located at a distance of 3/4 of a furlong away from Kuzhanthalamman Temple Bus Stop, where the occurrence had initially happened. Such being the case, was it possible for P.W. 3. to have been available exactly at the time, when the deceased was belaboured by accused 1 to 4 can we believe that P.W. 3. Such being the case, was it possible for P.W. 3. to have been available exactly at the time, when the deceased was belaboured by accused 1 to 4 can we believe that P.W. 3. despite being a weaker Sex, possessed such stamina and strength to match the running ability of the deceased as well as accused 1 to 4, when especially her age was 55 years at the time of the occurrence. Can we believe that she possessed the requisite guts and audacity to face the onslaught of attack, emerging from the accused and that perhaps was the reason why she was also following the accused. Can we believe that she was not having the instinct of self-preservation, in such circumstances, so as to run away from the scene, in a bid to escape from the danger or peril to be caused to her life, in case she was available in the immediate vicinity of the accused ? We rather feel that she had been made to run to such a distance for not purpose whatever, except for the purpose of her making herself available at the scene so as to serve as an eye witness. Therefore the presence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 at the scene, having had the fortuitous opportunity of not only witnessing he initial occurrence, but also the subsequent occurrence, as projected to by the prosecution, is rather doubtful in the facts and circumstances of the case, when especially, as already indicated, they are related to the deceased. It is not as if the occurrence had happened in a forlorn or forsaken place, but in a crowded locality of the village and this can be seen by a row of houses located at the place where the deceased Manoharan was belaboured and also the place, where the initial occurrence took place was admittedly a bus stop, where normally a large number of people would gather for the purpose of boarding the bus. 15. P.Ws. 4 and 5 got attracted to the scene by information laid by one Ravi, who is no one else than son of P.W. 4. According to the prosecution, he had been to the bus stop in the early morning along with P.W. 1, deceased and others and he returned to the house and informed P.W. 4. as to accused 1 and 2 belabouring the deceased and P.W. 1. near the bus stop. According to the prosecution, he had been to the bus stop in the early morning along with P.W. 1, deceased and others and he returned to the house and informed P.W. 4. as to accused 1 and 2 belabouring the deceased and P.W. 1. near the bus stop. Here, we have to recapitulate that the distance between the bus stop and the house of P.W. 4, as revealed by Ex.P.25 observation mahazar, is one Kilometre. On hearing the news from Ravi, P.Ws. 4 and 5. rushed to the bus stop, which means, they also travelled a distance of one K.M. to reach the bus stop. So, for P.Ws. 4. and 5. to reach the bus stop, quite some time could have been taken. We have to remember here that P.W. 2 is the mother of the deceased, and according to the prosecution, she opted to remain at the bus itself, in spite of the fact that her beloved son the deceased had been chased by accused 1 to 4 with deadly weapons in their possession. Going by the adage 'blood is thicker than water', can we believe that the mother of the deceased could have kept quite and remained at the bus stop itself in such a situation. The further disquieting factor is that accused 5 to 7 who came to the scene on hearing the alarming cries of the 1st accused, did not follow accused 1 to 4, in the process of chassing the deceased. We are asked to believe that they remained even at the bus stop with the arms in their possession and without resorting to any violence, in the sense of inflicting any sort of an injury to P.W. 2, who was already there. We are further asked to believe the prosecution story that they were waiting for such time as to P.Ws. 4. and 5. reach the bus stop and immediately thereafter, inflicted injuries on the person of P.W. 2 as well as P.Ws. 4. and 5. This appears to our mind that if they had resorted to violence and caused injuries on the person of P.W. 2, there could have been no witness for the assault to be mde on P.W. 2, excepting herself and if the assault had been made subsequent to the arrival of P.Ws. 4. 4. and 5. This appears to our mind that if they had resorted to violence and caused injuries on the person of P.W. 2, there could have been no witness for the assault to be mde on P.W. 2, excepting herself and if the assault had been made subsequent to the arrival of P.Ws. 4. and 5 at the scene, there could be internal corroborative support for the injuries sustained by them. Otherwise, this sort of a device could not have been adopted by he investigating agency. 16. The evidence of these witness, viz., P.Ws. 2, 4, and 5 as to the receipt of injuries at the hands of accused 5 to 7, is rather slippery and consequently, we are unable to place any safe reliance on their testimony. P.W. 2, at the earliest point of time, stated to the Doctor, P.W. 13. that she was assaulted by known persons with Kambi (iron rod) and this aspect of the matter had been specifically found stated in Ex. P. 11, copy of the accident register. The injury, as found described therein, was a lacerated injury, on the middle of the scalp. But during the course of the evidence what she would state was that she was assaulted by a single individual i.e., 5th accused by means of an aruval by packing on her head. It is rather unfortunate that the accident register copy Ex. P. 11 did not at all disclosed any injury relatable to packing with an arual. Judicial notice can be taken that the utilisation of the tip of a weapon like aruval could case a piercing injury and such an injury not having been found on the head of P.W. 2, we are of the view that her testimony, as respects the receipt of injury at the bus stop at the hands of the 5th accused is rather doubtful. She would further add that the 7th accused was responsible for giving a hit with the aid of a crow bar on her left scapular region. But unfortunately, no such injury was traceable in Ex. P. 11, copy of the accident register. 17. Likewise, P.W. 4. has stated to the Doctor, P.W. 13. that he was assaulted by known persons with thadi and crow bar and the same had been found stated in Ex. But unfortunately, no such injury was traceable in Ex. P. 11, copy of the accident register. 17. Likewise, P.W. 4. has stated to the Doctor, P.W. 13. that he was assaulted by known persons with thadi and crow bar and the same had been found stated in Ex. P. 13, copy of the accident register, But, in evidence, what he would state was that the assault on him was by one single individual, viz., 6th accused who was stated to have given a single hit by means of an iron pipe. So also P.W. 5, at the earliest point of time stated before the Doctor P.W. 13, that he was assaulted by known persons by means of aruval and crow bar. The Doctor, P.W. 13 found a lacerated injury on the right parietal region of the scalp up to skin deep, as described in Ex. P. 12, copy of the accident register. Perhaps this injury is relatable to the overt act of the 5th accused as seen from his evidence. What he would state in his evidence is that the 5th accused by means of an Aruval, packed on his head and consequently, he sustained the injury. However, the Doctor did not at all find any sort of piercing injury on the head and as already indicated, he found only a lacerated injury, that too skin deep on the right parietal region of the scalp, which could not have been caused by the tip of an aruval. Taking into consideration the overall picture of the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 4, and 5, as relatable to the overt acts of accused 5 to 7. we are unable to place any safe reliance on their testimony. 18. The evidence of P.W. 1, as to the receipt of injuries on his person, as a consequence of mounting of an attack by the 2nd accused cannot at all be accrediated with any credibility in the facts and circumstances of the case. What he would state is that when he interfered and warded of the attack, mounted by the 1st accused on the deceased, the 2nd accused was stated to have given him a hit with an iron rod and such a hit fell on his left fore-head, while he turned aside. This sort of evidence is not receiving corroboration from the medical evidence in the shape of P.W. 14 coupled with Ex. This sort of evidence is not receiving corroboration from the medical evidence in the shape of P.W. 14 coupled with Ex. P. 14, copy of accident register. What all the medical testimony discloses is that he was having on his left fore-head a tiny abrasion with change in colour, thereby pointing out that the so called abrasion had been in the process of healing. 19. The further intriguing factor is that though he had taken steps to take the injured witnesses, P.Ws. 2, 4 and 5 and the deceased to the Government Headquarters Hospital at Tiruchy, for the purpose of treatment, even without a police memo, he would not submit himself for reasons best known to himself. Not only that, he was also available subsequently in the same hospital on the very day of occurrence and he had also been examined by the Sub Inspector of Police, P.W. 23, and even in such a situation, he did not at all opt himself for medical treatement, even though he had obtained a medical memo from the Sub Inspector of Police, P.W. 23, on lodging the F.I.R., Ex. P. 1. However, he opted not to got to the Government Headquarters Hospital at Tiruchy, but to the Government Hospital at Srirangam and that too on the next day, viz., 5-11-1985 at 4.00 p.m. Taking all these aspects into consideration, we are unable to place any sort of reliance on his testimony on this aspect of the matter. 20. One more witness left out of consideration is P.W. 6. She is also not emerging from any independent quarters. She is after all related to P.W. 4, as his Pangali. She has obliged in stating that her residence is situate next to Pichai Chettiar's grocery shop. Pichai Chettiar's shop is shown in the rough sketch, Ex. P. 26. as No. 13. and she has stated that she went to a shop near the bus stop for the purpose of procuring some provisions and at that juncture, the incident or occurrence having happened, she has the fortuitous opportunity of witnessing the occurrence. But for her going to the shop near the bus stop for the purpose of procuring provisions, she could not have been a witness for the occurrence. The further disturbing factor here is that even the Investigating Officer, P.W. 23. But for her going to the shop near the bus stop for the purpose of procuring provisions, she could not have been a witness for the occurrence. The further disturbing factor here is that even the Investigating Officer, P.W. 23. would candidly admit and state that he did not know as to where she resides and whether her residence had been located next to the shop of Pichai Chettair, which is marked as No. 13. in the rough sketch, then her house could not have been escaped from the attention of the Investigating Officer in preparing the said rough sketch. In such a situation, we rather fell that P.W. 6. being a close relative of the deceased Vagayara, had been planted as a witness by the prosecution. This impression of ours gets reinforced by the fact that the places, where the first as well as the second occurrence had taken place, as already indicated, were crowded areas; but, however, no independent witness had been examined to project the prosecution case. 21. Reverting to the attack on the deceased, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3, we feel is not bearing an imprese of truth. Apart from the other reasons given for doubting the presence of P.Ws. 1 and 3 at the place of occurrence for having had the fortuitous opportunity of witnessing the occurrence, we also feel, that if really accused 1 to 3 had belaboured the deceased with all sorts of lethal weapons like crow-bar, spear and iron pipe, etc., the deceased would have been reduced to pulp in the sense of receiving more grievous injuries of very serious nature and the astounding feature, as disclosed by the medical testimony on record is that all the external injuries found on the person of the deceased were trivial in nature. This sort of a towering circumstances also throw loss of doubt on the version as projected by the prosecution as to the manner of attack. 22. Furhter, the sordid fact is that the injuries sustained by accused 1 and 2 were not at all referred to in the earliest information, Ex. P. 1. given by no less an eye witness than P.W. 1 P.W. 1 would further make a faint attempt to explain the injury sustained by the 2nd accused on his right elbow, during the course of trial. P. 1. given by no less an eye witness than P.W. 1 P.W. 1 would further make a faint attempt to explain the injury sustained by the 2nd accused on his right elbow, during the course of trial. He would state that the deceased took a stick (Mattai Kuchi) and beast him (P.W. 1.) with an iron rod. He did not, however, say anything as to how the 2nd accused sustained the other injury on the left parietal region of the scalp, as revealed by Ex. P. 15, Wound certificate. He did not however make any attempt to explain as to how the 1st accused sustained injuries on his person, as revealed by Ex. P16. Besides P.W. 1, none of the other so called eye witnesses, viz., P.Ws. 2 to 6 whisper anything as to how the 1st accused sustained the injuries on his person. 23. It is pertinent to note at this juncture the injury sustained by the 2nd accused on his left elbow. The X-Ray taken had revealed fracture of the lower end of humerous and it was a grievous injury, as disclosed by the medical testimony, Ex. P. 15. If we compare the injuries sustained by the deceased with those sustained by the 2nd accused as disclosed by the medical testimony, the injuries sustained by the deceased are trivial in nature. The Doctor, P.W. 13, happened to see the deceased first in point of time. He noted in Ex. P. 10, copy of the accident register only two injuries. One is an irregular injury near the left side forehead 3 x 1 cm x skin deep. and the second is, abrasion over the right knee 3 x 1 cm. The third one is not even an injury, but it is after all complaining of pain over both the thighs and not even on any other vital parts of the body. 24. P.W. 21, who happened to treat the victim-deceased when he was in M.S. 2 ward found on him only the injuries, as had been found by P.W. 13, and (sic) Ex. P. 10. No doubt, it is true that the post mortem certificate, Ex. P. 17. issued by Doctor P.W. 17. lists out 15 injuries, as noted below :- 1. Sutured wound left fore-head 3 cm. length on exploration - scalp deep. 2. Abrasion 1/2 x 1/4 cm. 2 inches above and internal to right nipple. P. 10. No doubt, it is true that the post mortem certificate, Ex. P. 17. issued by Doctor P.W. 17. lists out 15 injuries, as noted below :- 1. Sutured wound left fore-head 3 cm. length on exploration - scalp deep. 2. Abrasion 1/2 x 1/4 cm. 2 inches above and internal to right nipple. 3. Abrasion 2 1/2" x 1" over left upper lateral guardrant thigh. 4. Abrasion 1" diametre left knee anterior aspect. 5. Abrasion 1/2 cm x 1/4 cm left medial malleous. 6. Abrasion 1/2 x 1/2 cm. anterior aspect left ankle. 7. Abrasion 1 x 1 cm left 1st malleous. 8. Two abrasions each 2 x 2 cm over medial aspect right distal fore-arm. 9. Two abrasions each 1 x 1/2 cm over right dorsum hand. 10. Abrasion 1/2 x 1/2 cm over dorsum of middle phlanax of right index finger. 11. Contused abrasion on right side back or chest over supra scapular region 5 x 1/2 cm. 12. Contused abrasion 7 x 2 cm back of right upper thigh. 13. Abrasions two in number 1 1/2 x 1" and 1/2" x 1/4" right knee anterior aspect. 14. Abrasion 1 cm x 1/2 cm right elbow posterior surface. 15. Abrasion 1 x 1/2 cm right fore-arm below elbow on exterior surface. Of the 15 injuries, as stated above, 12 injuries, viz., injuries 2 to 10 and 13 to 15 are mere abrasions; two injuries, viz., injuries No. 11 and 12 are contusion one on the right side over supra scapular region and the other on the back of the right upper thigh and yet another injury, viz., injury No. 1. is a sutured wound on the left side of the fore-head. Puzzling it is to note as to how the injuries on the body of he deceased swelled from two to 15 during the course of the post mortem. Even though the injuries said to have been found on the body of the deceased during the post mortem, which were not found out by the Doctors, while he was alive, could have been there, at or about the time of the occurrence, it cannot be gainsaid that the presence of those injuries would improve or advance the case of the prosecution to any extent. The reason is rather obvious. The reason is rather obvious. All the injuries found at the time of the post mortem, for the first time are rather abrasions or contusions. No doubt, the Doctor, P.W. 17, who conducted the post mortem, would state that the external injury No. 11, a contused abrasion on the right side back of the chest over supra scapular region could have caused to internal injury, viz., laceration to lungs, which resulted in the oozing of blood culminating in his death due to traumatic intra-pulmonary haemorrhage, pulmonary insufficiency and asphyxia. 25. It is worth mentioning at this state that the earliest opportunity, in Ex. P. 1. what P.W. 1 had stated is that the 4th accused inflicted a stab on the fore-head of the deceased with M.O. 1 spear and thereafter, he fell down and at that juncture, accused 1 to 3 beat him on his chest and legs. He would not even state whether they used any weapons or their hand as weapons of offence for beating the deceased. However, he did not whisper as to the deceased being beaten either with hand or with any other weapon, on the right side back of chest over the supra scapular region. Realising this sort of a blunder, the prosecution made an improvement to its storey during the course of investigation and made P.W. 1 and other obliging interested witnesses to say during trial that the 4th accused stabbed the deceased on his fore-head with a spear, that on receipt of the stab, he fell down with his face facing the sky, that the 1st accused beat on his chest with a crowbar and thereafter, he turned aside and at that juncture the 2nd accused gave a hit with an iron rod on his back. This sort of an improvement, we rather feel, had been made with a design, during the course of trial to connect the laceration to the lungs with its external injury on the back of the chest. 26. This sort of an improvement, we rather feel, had been made with a design, during the course of trial to connect the laceration to the lungs with its external injury on the back of the chest. 26. Useful reference at this juncture may be made to the epoch making judgment of the Apex Court of this Country in the case of Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar (1977) I SCWR 306 : AIR 1976 SC 2263 : (1976 Cri LJ 1736) in which, their Lordships laid down the rule that in a murder case, non explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused, at or about the time of the occurrence, or, in the course of altercation, is a very important circumstance from which the court can draw the following inferences. 1. That the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version; 2. that the witnesses, who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused, are lying on a most material point and, therefore, their evidence is unreliable; and 3. That in case there is a defence version, which explains the injuries on the person of the accused, it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. Such a rule has now become an axiomatic proposition or law. 27. Before adverting our attention to the inordinate delay caused in laying the first information report and its reaching belatedly the portals of the premises of the Court, worthy it is to pen down here as to what their Lordships of the Supreme Court, S. Rathnavel Pandian and K. Jayachandra Reddy. JJ. said, as respects the consequences that flow from the delay in giving the F.I.R., in the case of Tara Singh v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1991 S.C. 63 : (1990 Cri LJ 2681). It is reflected in para 4 as follows :- "It is well settled that the delay in giving the FIR itself cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect these villagers to rush to the Police station immediately after the occurrence. Human nature as it is, the kith and kin who have witnessed the occurrence cannot be expected to act mechanically with all the promptitude in giving the report of (sic. to) the police. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect these villagers to rush to the Police station immediately after the occurrence. Human nature as it is, the kith and kin who have witnessed the occurrence cannot be expected to act mechanically with all the promptitude in giving the report of (sic. to) the police. At times being grief sticken because of the calamity it may not immediately occur to them that they should give a report. After all it is but natural in these circumstances for them to take sometime to go to the police station for giving the report. Of course, the Supreme Court as well as the High Court have pointed out that in cases arising out of acute factions there is a tendency to implicate persons belonging to the opposite faction falsely. In order to avert the danger of convicting such innocent persons the courts are cautioned to scrutinise the evidence of such interested witnesses with greater care and caution and separate grain from chaff after subjecting the evidence on to a closer scrutiny and in doing so the contents of the FIR also will have to be scrutinised carefully. However, unless there are indications of fabrication, the Court cannot reject the prosecution version as given in the FIR and later substantiated by the evidence merely on the ground of delay. These are all matters for appreciation and much depends on the facts and circumstances of each case." 28. From what the Apex Court had said, as above, it is rather clear that the brook of delay in laying the F.I.R. to set the wheels of law in motion is to be visited with or without consequence of various dimensions, in the sense of either affecting or not affecting the credible image of the case of the prosecution, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case on hand, admittedly, the occurrence, according to the prosecution, having happened at 6-45 a.m., had been reported only at 2-30 p.m. before P.W. 23. Sub Inspector of Police. The defence would mount an attack that the F.I.R. Ex. In the case on hand, admittedly, the occurrence, according to the prosecution, having happened at 6-45 a.m., had been reported only at 2-30 p.m. before P.W. 23. Sub Inspector of Police. The defence would mount an attack that the F.I.R. Ex. P. 1 could not have come into existence as stated by the prosecution and the brief facts and circumstances, if viewed in a broad spectrum analysis, would point out that it had come into existence, subsequent to the death of the deceased in the hospital, which even had happened at 6-15 p.m. on the day of occurrence, with all embroidered and embellished versions, suiting to the needs and exigencies of the case of the prosecution. Such a submission, we feel, cannot at all be brushed aside so lightly, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 29. It is the evidence of P.W. 1. that he got admitted the victim deceased and produced the injured witnesses, before the Government Headquarters Hospital at Tiruchy. and thereafter, he went to Sirugannur Police Station and laid the written complaint Ex. P. 1 at 2.30 p.m. before P.W. 23. and on such a complaint, P.W. 23. registered the case and then proceeded to the Government Hospital, Tiruchy to pursue further with the case. It is disturbing to note that P.W. 1. would also make a candid admission in his cross examination that he was bodily present at the time when the Doctor, P.W. 13. examined and treated the deceased and the injured witnesses, viz., P.Ws. 2, 4, and 5. If we take into consideration the evidence of the Doctor P.W. 13. it would reveal that he had examined and treated P.W. 4 at 2-30 p.m. on 4-11-1985. The distance between siruganur and Tiruchy, is admittedly 25 k.ms. Disquieting it is to note as to how on earth it is possible for P.W. 1. to have been present in both the places at one and the same time, when especially the distance between the two places is so alarmingly long enough as is not possible for the prosecution to trot out an explanation that so much of importance should not be given to time factor as to happening of events, narrated by rustic folk like P.W. 1. 30. The further agonising factor is, as already indicated, that P.W. 1. would seek a medical memo for his treatment. If really P.W. 1. 30. The further agonising factor is, as already indicated, that P.W. 1. would seek a medical memo for his treatment. If really P.W. 1. had been sent with a medical memo Ex. D. 1. for the treatment of his injuries, after the registration of the case at 2-30 p.m. on the basis of Ex. P. 1 Ex. D. 1. must contain the particulars as to the crime number, place of occurrence and such other details, as provided for in this memo. We are astonished to note that such particulars are absent in the memo, Ex. D. 1, as admitted by P.W. 23. 31. It is this juncture we have to take into account the evidence of the Constable, P.W. 18, to whom Exs. P. 1, P. 19 and P. 27 had been entrusted for being handed over to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate at Lalgudi. According to him, he was entrusted with those documents at 7-30 p.m. on the day of occurrence subsequent to the death of the victim deceased at 6-15 p.m. that day, that is to say, after one hour and 15 minutes after the death. He would say that he had been to Lalgudi and on reaching there, he came to know that the said Magistrate was on leave and he could not know who the in-charge Magistrate was and so, he proceeded to Tiruchy and reached the residence of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchy at 1-30 a.m. on 5-11-1985. and ascertained from him that the Judicial Second Class Magistrate No. 3, Tiruchy was the in charge Magistrate on that date. Though he was dare enough to wake up the Chief Judicial Magistrate, during the odd hour and ascertains such a trivial fact from him as to who the in-charge Magistrate was, yet, he would not make any attempt to deliver those documents to the in-charge Magistrate, who resides within 100 yards away from the residence of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and what he would say for his not handing over the documents right at that night, but did so at 6 a.m. the next day is that he was not able to hand over those documents at that night itself, as it rained the cats and dogs and therefore, he was not able to reach the residence of the in-charge Magistrate that night itself. We are not prepared to accept this explanation for the delay caused in the handing over of those documents to the Magistrate, the Presiding Deity of the concerned Court. 32. There is yet another telling circumstance that would point to the fact that Ex. P. 1. could not have come into existence at the time, as suggested by he prosecution and such a circumstance gets revealed by P.W. 23 not arresting the 1st accused when he appeared before him and he had been sent in fact to the hospital with a memo for treatment of the injuries found on him, and Dr. P.W. 15 treated him at 8-45 p.m. on the day of occurrence. In such a situation, we rather feel that we are not far wrong in coming to the conclusion that the case assumed importance only after the death of the victim deceased in the hospital and that thereafter, the Investigating agency got geared up in bringing into existence Ex. P. 1, suiting to the needs and exigencies of the prosecution case, after deep deliberation, consultation and confabulation with the person interested in the cause and welfare of the prosecution party, through the medium of P.W. 1 and that the further investigation proceeded on the basis of such information cannot at all be stated to be not tainted, thereby not serving as a ground, not to doubt the case of the prosecution. 33. Even the arrest of accused 1 and 2, confession and the consequent recovery of M.Os. 1 to 3 pursuant to the so called confession stated to have been made by the 1st accused, the admissible portion of which is Ex. P. 6, we feel, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is a stage managed show enacted for the purpose of this case. We are to point out that P.W. 9. is the witness for the arrest of accused 1 and 2 and also for the recovery effected pursuant to the confession of 1st accused. He is also the witness, who accompanied the deceased and other injured witnesses P.Ws. 2, 4, and 5 to the hospital and rendered all assistance. It was he, who served as mahazar witness for the recovery of the blood stained clothes effected from the deceased and other injured witnesses, while they were in the Government Hospital, Tiruchy. He is also the witness, who accompanied the deceased and other injured witnesses P.Ws. 2, 4, and 5 to the hospital and rendered all assistance. It was he, who served as mahazar witness for the recovery of the blood stained clothes effected from the deceased and other injured witnesses, while they were in the Government Hospital, Tiruchy. Worthy it is, at this juncture, to take note of the fact that the place where accused 1 and 2 had been arrested, viz, Palakkattai near the bust stand at Lalgudi is one where P.W. 9 would make his contumacious presence exactly for him to serve as a witness for the arrest and the consequent confession and the recovery. All these point out that the arrest, confession and the recovery had been manipulated only for the purpose of this case. Even assuming for argument's sake that the arrest, confession and the subsequent recovery, reflects truth and nothing but truth, even then, it cannot be stated that the case of the prosecution gets a face lift by such a circumstance, inasmuch as the chemical examiner and serologist's reports, Exs. P. 22. and P. 23, respectively, did not at all point out human blood of any group or the blood group as that of the deceased. 34. For the reasons, as above, we are of the view that the prosecution faced a colossal failure in successfully establishing its case beyond any reasonable doubt, the consequence of which is the convictions and sentences as had been imposed by the Court below on any of the appellants accused are not sustainable. 35. In that view of the matter, the appeal shall stand allowed and the convictions and sentences, as had been imposed upon the appellants/accused shall stand set aside and they are acquitted of all the charges. The bail bonds executed by the appellants, if any, shall stand cancelled. Appeal allowed.