Judgment : V. Rengasamy, J. The appellants herein have been convicted by the learned IX Additional Sessions Judge, Madras in S.C. No.75 of 1989, for the offences under Secs.302,376 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo life imprisonment for the first offence and seven years rigorous imprisonment for the next offences and though they have been convicted for the offence under Sec.448 of Indian Penal Code, no separate sentence was imposed on them. 2. The occurrence took place at about 2.00 a.m. on 19. 1988, in Perambur Kollan Thottam, No. 9, Jamunabai Street, within Sembium police station limits. 3. The facts relating to this case can be narrated in the following manner: .(i) The deceased Uma was formerly living with one Sekar. She was carrying on the business of selling tender coconuts in Moolakkadai and at that time, she developed intimacy with the appellant Arumugam (Crl.App. No.543 of 1990) and was living with him. Through the above said Sekar, she begot a child by name Magesh. After her cohabitation with appellant Arumugam, she gave birth to Devi and Gayathri, two female children. .(ii) Appellant-Arumugam is a cycle-rickshaw Driver and the deceased Uma was the office bearer of Rajinikanth Fans Association as Vice President. As she had contact with so many people on account of her position as Vice President of the said Association, appellant-Arumugam, suspected her conduct and was often finding fault within her that she was having illicit intimacy with other persons. (iii) When the deceased Uma and the appellant-Arumugam were living with the parents of the appellant, appellant- Arumugam was complaining that the deceased was having illicit connection with One Mari. As there was frequent quarrel between them on account of that misunderstanding, the parents of Arumugam asked them to live separately. Therefore, the deceased Uma and the appellant-Arumugam, came to Kollan Thottam and was staying in the house of one Chinnammal, aunt of the second accused, who is the appellant in Crl.App. No.722 of 1989. There also, the appellant- Arumugam suspected the fidelity of his wife and was accusing that she had developed intimacy with the second accused-Appellant - Arumainathan. (iv) P.W.4 Kala, is the sister of the deceased Uma and when the accusation of the appellant-Arumugam fell on her ears, she advised them that they could separate themselves instead of living in acrimony always accusing about the conduct of the wife. (iv) P.W.4 Kala, is the sister of the deceased Uma and when the accusation of the appellant-Arumugam fell on her ears, she advised them that they could separate themselves instead of living in acrimony always accusing about the conduct of the wife. On account of the accusation of the appellant-Arumugam against the deceased Uma that she was having illicit intimacy with the second accused-appellant-Arumainathan, the house owner Chinnammal, Aunt of Arumainathan, asked the deceased Uma and Appellant-Arumugam to vacate the house immediately. Therefore, the deceased Uma breaking her relationship with the appellant-Arumugam came to live in the house of P.W. 12 at No. 9, Jamuna Bai Street with her daughter Gayathri and P.W. 12 was occupying a portion of that house with his wife P.W.3. This had occurred about a week prior to the occurrence. .(v) As P.W.3 Rosi, wife of P.W. 12 had delivered a child two months prior to the occurrence, P.W. 12 brought his sister P.W.1 for his wife’s assistance in bringing up the child. .(vi) After the arrival of the deceased Uma to Door No.9 i.e., the adjacent portion of P.W. 12, P.W. 1 used to take bed along with the deceased Uma, as the deceased Uma was her father’s sister’s daughter. (vii) Even after the arrival to No.9, Jamuna Bai Street, by the deceased Uma, the appellant-Arumugam, wanted to resume his relationship with Uma and he offered her Rs. 100 with a request that she could come and join him. But the deceased Uma scolded him and stated that she had severed her connection from him and was not prepared to live with him. (viii) The appellant-Arumugam once came to P.W.4 with a request that something should be done to unite his wife deceased-Uma with him and that he was prepared to live with her. P.W.4 and her mother advised that a panchayat could be convened and in the presence of the panchayatdars consisting of a Police Constable also he should agree not to accuse the deceased and that if he agreed for these conditions, they would advice the deceased Uma for the union. The appellant-Arumugam said that when he is the husband of Uma, how could she go along with others and he would not leave her alive if she continue this conduct. .(ix) On 19. 1988, the deceased Uma went and attended a film show in Odeon Mani Theatre, situated in Moolakkadai. The appellant-Arumugam said that when he is the husband of Uma, how could she go along with others and he would not leave her alive if she continue this conduct. .(ix) On 19. 1988, the deceased Uma went and attended a film show in Odeon Mani Theatre, situated in Moolakkadai. The appellant-Arumugam also had been to that theatre and enquired P.W.11, a booking clerk in the counter, whether his wife Uma had come to the theatre to see the picture. When P.W. 11 confirmed that the deceased Uma had come to the theatre the appellant-Arumugam also bought a ticket and went inside the theatre. He left his cycle-rickshaw with P.W. 10 who is in the counter for issuing the token for the cycles. The appellant-Arumugam enquired P.W.10) also whether his wife came to see the picture and when P.W.10 also confirmed the presence of the deceased Uma inside the theatre, the appellant- Arumugam entered the theatre leaving the cycle-rickshaw in the theatre. But within the theatre, there was quarrel between the deceased Uma and the appellant Arumugam. P.W.10 advised them to have their quarrel outside the theatre and asked them to go out. When deceased Uma returned to her house, she told P.W.1 that her husband also came to the theatre and picked up a quarrel with her and she requested P.W.12 to enquire the appellant-Arumugarri as to his conduct in picking up the quarrel in the theatre. P.W.12 promised her that he would enquire about that after dawn as it was night time. Uma’s child Gayathri was unwell and therefore the deceased Uma and P.W.1 took the child to a doctor in Moolakkadai. On the way near India Pistons Ltd. They saw P.W.9, who is the sister’s son of the deceased Uma and requested him to accompany to the hospital. As the doctor was hot available in the hospital at Moolakkadai, they were returning back and at that time the deceased Uma told P.W.9 that the appellant-Arumugam had Created a scene in the Odeon Mani Theatre by picking up a quarrel with her at 6.00 p.m. on that day. They purchased medicines in a Medical shop near Brintha Theatre and near the theatre they saw the appellant-Arumugam standing with his rickshaw. They purchased medicines in a Medical shop near Brintha Theatre and near the theatre they saw the appellant-Arumugam standing with his rickshaw. As deceased Uma expressed her fear of the appellant Arumugam to P.W.9, P.W.9 accompanied the deceased Uma along with her child Gayathri and P.W.1, to her house in Jamuna Bai Street and he returned home. .(x) P.W.12 is doing cooli workand on every Saturday night he used to go to a slaughter house at Kanakkan Chatram, for the purpose of removing the skin of the butchered goats, meant for sale on the next day and for this he was employed by one Yusuf Bai. .(xi) On 19. 1988 mid-night i.e., around 1.00 a.m. on 19. 1988, P.W.12 left the house leaving his wife arid child, as his sister P.W.1 Was sleeping with the deceased Uma in the adjacent portion. When he was proceeding to Kanakkan Chatram in his cycle, he saw the appellants together near the Telephone Office, sitting in the cycle-rickshaw. Around 2.00 a.m. on the same night, both the appellants came to the house of Uma and the appellant-Arumugam shouted by calling her by name. As the deceased Uma did not respond, appellant-Arumugam kicked the thatched door and entered into the house, the chimny lamp was burning inside the house arid P.W.1 was able to see the appellant-Arumugam. Arumugam shouted that when every one was laying his hand around her and she did not protest, why should she refuse her hand. The deceased Uma replied that it was her desire and he had no right to question her as her relationship was already severed. Immediately, appellant-Arumugam approached Uma and attempted to have sexual intercourse, for which, the deceased Urna resisted arid asked the appellant-Arumugam to get out of the house. But appellant- Arumugam sat over her chest and nagging her mouth with His left hand called the person who was outside, (xii) Immediately, the second accused-Arumainathan, who is trie appellant in Criminal Appeal No.722 of 1989 entered into the house and the appellant- Arumugam with the knife M.O.11, which he had in his waist and stabbed Uma repeatedly on her chest, while the other appellant- Arumainthan was holding her thigh. At that time P.W.2, who is residing in the adjacent hut on the northern side came out and looked through the entrance. At that time P.W.2, who is residing in the adjacent hut on the northern side came out and looked through the entrance. The appellant- Arumugam threatemed the he would also be done away with arid therefore P.W.2 returned back to his house. But he was able to see through the gap in the thatches in between his hut and the hut of Uma as to what was happening, namely the stabbing by Arumugam on the Chest of the deceased Uma. The other appellant Arumainathan then took the kniife M.O.11 from Arumugam and he also stabbed the deceased Uma on her thigh and stomach. Uma died soon after. (xiii) P.W.1, who became nervous on seeing this incident asked Arumugam as to why he murdered Uma, for which Arumugam replied that if she made any sound, she also would be closed. Therefore, P.W.1 became panic and was sitting noise lessly: When both the appellants were about to Come out, the appellant-Arumainathan asked the Other appellant-Arumugam, why not something be done with P.W.1. The appellant-Arumugam answered that he could do anything with her as he liked. The appellant-Arumugarn came out and sat outside the house while appellant-Arumaiathan threatened P.W.1 at knife point and asked her to remove her dress and P.W.1 who was under threat and fear, undressed herself. Thereafter the appellant-Arumainathan raped her and the other appellant- Arumugam also thereafter came inside and raped her. After committing rape on P.W.1 both of them were sitting outside the house till 5.00 o’clock in the morning and thereafter they left the place of occurrence, (xiv) P.W.8 is a cycle-rickshaw driver in Kodungaiyur and when he was in Moolakkadai Rickshaw Stand, appellant-Arumugam went to him and told that he had stabbed his wife and also raped another girl and he wanted to leave his rickshaw with him in that place. Therefore, the rickshaw M.O.12 was left there itself and the appellant-Arumugam moved off. The other appellant- Arumainathan also had left the company of appellant-Arumugam even before he went to P.W.8. (xv) Mean while, P.W.1, after the departure of the appellants, informed this matter to P.W.3, her brother’s wife and both of them went to the house of P.W.1, sister of the deceased Uma. P.W.4 and P.W. 1 thereafter went to Sembium police station, where P.W. 1 gave the complaint Ex.P-1. (xv) Mean while, P.W.1, after the departure of the appellants, informed this matter to P.W.3, her brother’s wife and both of them went to the house of P.W.1, sister of the deceased Uma. P.W.4 and P.W. 1 thereafter went to Sembium police station, where P.W. 1 gave the complaint Ex.P-1. The Sub Inspector of Police P.W.18, registered the same in Crime No.4422/88 under Secs.302 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Ex.P-25 is the First Information Report, prepared by him and the same was forwarded to the Court and other higher Officials. (xvi) P.W.19 was the Inspector of Police at that time and he after receiving the message, came to the scene of occurrence by 8.30 a.m. and took up the investigation. He prepared the Observation Mahazar Ex.P-16 for the scene of Occurrence in the presence of P.W. 17. He prepared rough sketch Exs.P-26 and P-27 and conducted the inquest on the body of the deceased Uma, in the presence of the Panchayatdars between 9.45 a.m. and 11.45 a.m. Ex.P-28 is the inquest report. He seized in bloodstained saree M.O.3, another saree M.O.8, blouse M.O.4, skirt M.O.5, the blood-stained mat M.O.2, blood stained mud M.O.13 and the sample mud M.O.14 and also the half-saree of P.W.1, M.O.6, and another blood stained coffee colour saree piece M.0.7 under the Mahazar Ex.P-17 in the presence of the same witness. He also examined the witnesses. The body was handed over to P.W. 16 First Grade Constable, for handing over to the Doctor for conducting post-mortem, for which the requisition Ex.P-2 was also handed over to Police Constable. (xvii) P.W.5 is the tutor in Forensic Department of Kilpauk Medical College, Chennai. On 19. 1988 at about 1.30 p.m. he received the requisition for conducting the postmortem. He commenced the post-mortem at 1.35 p.m. on the same day and found on the deceased Uma, the following injuries: .(1) Two transverse incised wounds, on the front of the right forearm middle 1/3 parallel to another at a distance of 1 cm. each measuring 2 cm x 0.5 cm. x 0.5 cm.Blood clots were present. Dark red. .(2) Two incised wounds on the back of the right forearm 5 cm. below the elbow transversely placed parallel to one another at a distance of 2 cm apart - each measuring 2 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm. Blood clots were present. Dark red. x 0.5 cm.Blood clots were present. Dark red. .(2) Two incised wounds on the back of the right forearm 5 cm. below the elbow transversely placed parallel to one another at a distance of 2 cm apart - each measuring 2 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm. Blood clots were present. Dark red. .(3) A transversely placed incised wound on the inner aspect of right palm close to the wrist 3 cm. x 0.5 cm. x 1 cm. Blood clots present. Dark red. .(4) An incised wound on the upper part of right axilla 2 cm x 2 cm. x 0.5 cm. Blood clots were present. Dark Red. .(5) A transverse, incised wound on the lower inner quadrant of the right breast 2 x 0.5 x 3 cm. Blood clots were present. Dard Red. .(6) A transverse incised wound 1 cm medical to injury No.5 on the lower inner quadrant of right breast. 1.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm. Blood clots present. Dark red. .(7) A transverse, incised wound on the lower inner quadrant of left breast 2 cm x 2.5 cm x 0.5 cms. Dark red. blood clots present. .(8) An oblique wound 1.5 cms. lateral to injury No.7 in the lower inner quadrant of left breast 2 cm x 0.5 cm x 2.5 cm. Blood clots present. (9) An oblique stab injury on the lower outer quadrant of left breast 3 cm x 0.5 cm. x 7 cm. entering into the thoracic cavity through 5th intercostal space 5 cm away from the Midline close to the midclavicular line. Blood clots present. Dard red. On further dissection: There was an oblique incised injury on the 5th intercostal space near the mid clavicular line, over the intercostal muscle 3 cm x 0.5 cm. and there was an incised wound on the pericardial membranes and anterior wall of the right ventricle 2 cm. above the apex for 1.5 cm x 0.3 cm x entering the heart chamber right ventricle. .(10) An oblique incised wound 4.cm below the costal margin in the left hypochondriac region 2 cm x 1.5 cm x 3 cm. Blood clots present. Dark red. .(11) An oblique incised wound 1 cm.media to injury No.10.9 cm. below the costal margin in the left hypochondriac region 2 x 1 x 2 cm. .(10) An oblique incised wound 4.cm below the costal margin in the left hypochondriac region 2 cm x 1.5 cm x 3 cm. Blood clots present. Dark red. .(11) An oblique incised wound 1 cm.media to injury No.10.9 cm. below the costal margin in the left hypochondriac region 2 x 1 x 2 cm. .(12) An oblique incised wound on the internal aspect of the upper 1/3 of the left thigh 2 x 1 x 5 cm. Dark red. Blood clots present. .(13) An oblique incised wound on the front of the middle 1/3 of the left fore arm 1 x 1/2-5 x 0-5 cm. Dark red. Blood clots present. .(14) An oblique incised wound on the front of the left forearm 3 cm. above the wrist joint 1.5 cm. x 0.5 cm. x 1 cm. .(15) An oblique incised wound on the back of the middle 1/3 of left forearm 2.5 x 1.5 x 2 cm. dark red. Blood clots present. .(16) An oblique incised wound on the back of right thigh 4 cm. below the gluteal fold 3 x 1 x 5 cm. Dark red. Blood clots present. (xviii) The internal examination revealed that there was partly digested cooked rice food 150 grams and the heart chambers were empty. All other internal organs were pale. He also preserved the stomach contents, intestine contents and sample of liver, kidney, sample of urine for chemical examination. (xix) P.W.5 Doctor, who examined the body of the deceased Uma had found the Injury No.9 had entered into the pericardial membrance and the anterior wall of the right ventricle. This was the fatal injury on the deceased Uma. The Doctor was of the opinion that the deceased had died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries sustained by her about 6 to 18 hours prior to the post-mortem. Ex.P-3 is the postmortem certificate issued by him. Ex.P-4 is the Chemical Examiner’s report on the viscera, (xx) On 19. 1988, the Inspector of Police-P.W.19 sent the requisition Ex.P-9 to the Medical Officer in the Government Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, Madras-10, to examine P.W.1 and find out evidence if any with regard to the alleged rape, (xxi) On 19. Ex.P-3 is the postmortem certificate issued by him. Ex.P-4 is the Chemical Examiner’s report on the viscera, (xx) On 19. 1988, the Inspector of Police-P.W.19 sent the requisition Ex.P-9 to the Medical Officer in the Government Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, Madras-10, to examine P.W.1 and find out evidence if any with regard to the alleged rape, (xxi) On 19. 1988 at about 2.15 p.m. P.W.6 examined P.W. 1 and she found no external injury, no nail mark or laceration or bite either in the breast or in the nipples, which were found normal, the Public hair of 3 cm. Length was not matted, the abdomen was soft, there was no evidence for any injury including in the private part, which was found normal. There was no dried up semen, the hymen was not intact, Fourchette intact, the vagina admitted a finger, Cervies was pointing forward, uterus retroverted. Normal size. There was no bleeding or tear in the vagina. After the chemical examination of the swab and smear no spermatozes was detected. She was of the opinion that P.W. 1 would have had sexual intercourse. Ex.P-10 is the report prepared by her for the examination of P.W.1 and Ex.P-11 is the Accident Register, containing the entries relating to the observations. (xxii) At 4.45 p.m. on that day, P.W.19 Inspector of Police seized the skirt from P.W.1 in the presence of P.W.14 under Form 95. On 20.9.1985 at about 3.30 p.m. P.W.19 Inspector of Police arrested the appellant- Arumugam in Perambur G.N.T. Road, near Dr. Ambedkar College, in the presence of P.W. 15 and another person. When the appellant- Arumugam was interrogated, he gave a statement, the admissible title portion of which is Ex.P-18. After the statement, he took the police party and the witnesses to a Cement Company in G.N.T. Road and from a shed he took out the M.O.11 knife, for which Ex.P-19 Mahazar was prepared. (xxiii) Thereafter, the appellant- Arumugam took the police party to Moolakadai and pointed out the rickshaw M.O.12. Under the seat of the rickshaw a chamber was kept locked and the Inspector of Police P.W.19 broke open the lock. The appellant-Arumugam pointed out the blood stained shirt M.O.10 and the lungi worn by the appellant- Arumugam were also seized under the same Mahazar Ex.P-20 in the presence of witnesses. (xxiv) The Inspector of Police P.W. 19 sent a requisition Ex.P-5 to examine the appellant-Arumugam. The appellant-Arumugam pointed out the blood stained shirt M.O.10 and the lungi worn by the appellant- Arumugam were also seized under the same Mahazar Ex.P-20 in the presence of witnesses. (xxiv) The Inspector of Police P.W. 19 sent a requisition Ex.P-5 to examine the appellant-Arumugam. P.W.5- Doctor on 29. 1988 at 3.15 p.m. examined the appellant-Arumugam and he found that he was not impotent and he was having the normal development for the secondary sexual characters. Ex.P-6 is the certificate issued for the examination of the appellant- Arumugam. (xxv) The other appellant- Arumainathan was arrested on 29. 1988 at 7.20 p.m. near Vijaya Hospital in Arcot Road; Vadapalani and he was also sent to P.W.5 with the requisition Ex.P-7 for con-. ducting examination for his sexual characters. P.W.5 examined him on 29. 1988 at about 2.30 p.m. and he was also found to have a normal development of the secondary, sexual characters and there was nothing to suggest that he was impotent Ex,P-8 is the certificate issued for his examination. (xxvi) The Inspector of Police P.W.19 sent a requisition to the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai under Ex.P-21, to send the articles for forensic examination. Ex.P-22 is the covering letter sent by the Magistrate along with the articles, (xxvii) The Forensic Laboratory after chemical examination sent the report Ex.P-23 along with the serologist report Ex.P-24. On the request of the Inspector of Police P.W.7 under Ex.P-14, the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, recorded the statement of P.W.1 under Sec.164 of Criminal Procedure Code, which is Ex.P-15. The Inspector of Police P.W.19 examined the witnesses and after completing the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the appellants on 22. 1989, under Secs.302,376 and 448 of Indian Penal Code. .4. After the committal of the case to the Court of Sessions the learned IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, framed charges for the offences under Secs.302,448 and 376 of Indian Penal Code and, when the appellants were questioned as to the charges framed against them, they pleaded not guilty of the offences. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 19 produced by the prosecution. After the evidence was over, the appellants were questioned under Sec.313 of Criminal Procedure Code with regard, to the incriminating circumstances found against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Both the appellants denied their complicity in the crime. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 19 produced by the prosecution. After the evidence was over, the appellants were questioned under Sec.313 of Criminal Procedure Code with regard, to the incriminating circumstances found against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Both the appellants denied their complicity in the crime. The appellant-Arumugam had admitted his relationship with the deceased and the separation between them on account of the interference of the other appellant-Arumainathan when they were residing in the house of one Chinnammal and thereafter taking their residence separately. He also would say that both the children, Gayathri and Devi were taken away by him at the time when they got separated and the child Gayathri was not with the deceased. The other appellant-Arumainathan stated that he himself surrendered before the police as he was in no way connected with the crime, and this case was foisted against him. They did not examine any witness on their side. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, after taking into consideration of the evidence placed before him has found, that the charges against the accused were proved beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore finding them guilty, has sentenced them to undergo imprisonment in the manner stated above. Challenging this judgement of the learned Sessions Judge, the appellants have come forward with the appeals separately. 6. The learned counsels for the appellants submitted that the whole case depends upon the testimony of the two eye-witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2, but their evidence is highly improbable and the evidence of P. W.2 is so unnatural and unbelievable and therefore the lower court has erred in relying upon the testimony of these two witnesses to accept the guilt of the appellants. The learned counsels further argued that when the past life of the deceased Uma is taken into consideration, she might have been murdered by some unknown persons within her hut and on suspicion these appellants should have been implicated in the crime. .7. As mentioned above, the relationship between the deceased Uma and the appellant-Arumugam is admitted by the appellant-Arumugam. Though they were not married, some how they had the cohabitation, by which they bore, two children by name Devi and Gayathri. .7. As mentioned above, the relationship between the deceased Uma and the appellant-Arumugam is admitted by the appellant-Arumugam. Though they were not married, some how they had the cohabitation, by which they bore, two children by name Devi and Gayathri. The evidence of P.W.4 discloses that originally the deceased Uma developed intimacy with one Sekar, through whom a child was born by name Magesh and within two or three months after the birth of the child there was misunderstanding between them, that when the deceased Uma was living with her parents in Moolakkadai and was carrying on the business of sale of tender coconuts, she came into contact with the appellant Arumugam and was living with him. The evidence also discloses that throughout he was suspecting the fidelity of the deceased Uma, as she had occasions to move with other men, as she was associated with Rajinikanth Fans Association as Vice President. There is also evidence to the effect that when the deceased and the appellant-Arumugam were living in the parents house of Arumugam, appellant-Arumugam suspected the conduct of the deceased as she developed intimacy with one Mari and therefore, they came out to live in Kollan Thottam, in the house of One Chinnammal, aunt of the other appellant-Arumainathan. There also the trouble arose, as the appellant-Arumugam was accusing this woman of having intimacy with the appellant-Arumainathan and on account of the quarrel between them the house owner Chinnammal asked them to vacate and ultimately the deceased Uma came with her child Gayathri to the house of P.W. 12, who is related to her through her mother. 8. P.W. 12, who is residing at No. 9, Jamuna Bai Street, in a hut, had provided a portion of the hut for the deceased and after making a partition with thatches, he was living with his wife P.W.3, in the southern portion, whereas the deceased was occupying the northern portion of the hut. There is no dispute with regard to these facts. 9. There is no dispute with regard to these facts. 9. On account of the separation between the deceased and the appellant- Arumugam, the evidence of P.W.4 is that the appellant-Arumugam approached the mother of the deceased to mediate so that they could live together, but as the mother of the deceased and P.W.4 suggested for a Panchayat in the presence of a Police Officer and also for an undertaking by the appellant-Arumugam not to harass the deceased accusing her of infidelity, the appellant-Arumugam had shouted that he being the husband has got right to live with her and he would not allow her to go with others. .10. Evidence also has been let in through P.Ws. 10 and 11, who are employed in Odeon Mani Theatre at Moolakkadai, to show that on 19. 1988 the deceased Uma came to witness a cinema and scenting this, appellant- Arumugam also came to the same theatre and finding that the deceased was sitting along with another person picked up a quarrel and created a scene, for which they were asked to go out of the theatre. The Prosecution case is that the appellant-Arumugam on account of this grievance had decided to murder her and therefore on the night of 19. 1988 he came with the other appellant-Arumainathan and even on that night when he attempted to have sexual intercourse with the deceased Uma, she refused to yield, and the appellant- Arumugam with the assistance of the other appellant- Arumainathan stabbed her. 11. P.W.9 is the sister’s son of the deceased and he has spoken about his part on 19. 1988. According to him, as the deceased and P.W. 1 were going to the hospital for the treatment of Gayathri. daughter of the deceased, on the request of the deceased, he also accompanied and when they were returning and purchasing medicine in a pharmacy, the appellant-Arumugam saw them and the deceased requested him to accompany her as the appellant- Arumugam was furious from the evening onwards after his quarrel in the Cinema theatre. P.W.9 would say that as requested by the deceased, he accompanied her up to her house. Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that there was motive for the appellant- Arumugam to murder this woman for the reason that she was having contact with other men apart from the fact that she refused to join him and give the conjugal pleasure. Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that there was motive for the appellant- Arumugam to murder this woman for the reason that she was having contact with other men apart from the fact that she refused to join him and give the conjugal pleasure. However, no motive is brought out for the participation of the other appellant- Arumainathan, even though it is now represented that the appellant- Arumugam should have poisoned the mind of the other appellant-Arumainathan by stating that the deceased had rejected both of them and therefore she deserved to be annihilated. 12. As the occurrence had taken place in the midnight by 2.00 a.m. on 19. 1988 within the hut, it would not have been possible to see the occurrence unless there was light within the hut. 13. P.Ws. 1 and 2 in their evidence would say that a Chimney lamp was burning within the hut when the deceased and PW.1 were sleeping inside the hut and only in the light of the Chimney lamp, the witnesses were able to identify the culprits and see the occurrence. P.W.2, is residing on the northern side of the hut of the deceased. The inmates on the northern side namely, P.W.3 and her husband P.W. 12 have not witnessed the occurrence or heard anything about the night incident and they came to know about the occurrence only in the next day morning. 14. P.W.12 would say that even by 1 O’clock in the mid-night he left the house as he had to got to the slaughter house at Kanakkan Chatram and he was not available in the house after 1.00 a.m. His wife, P.W.3, would say that though she was sleeping in the next adjacent portion on the northern side, she came to know about the incident only on the next day morning around 5.00 a.m. when P.W.1 told her about the incident. Though P.W. 1 being the sister of P.W. 12, came to assist P.W.3 as she delivered a child two months prior to this occurrence, the evidence is that P.W. 1 was asked to take bed with the deceased as the appellant-Arumugam once came and persuaded the deceased Uma to join him and as the deceased was in apprehension that the appellant-Arumugam would came and trouble her, P.W.1 was staying with her during night time only. 15. 15. Now we have to find out the reliability of the testimonies of these two witnesses. P.W.2 would say that he heard the noise from Uma and came out of his hut and when he saw through the entrance of the hut of the deceased the first appellant- Arumugam was stabbing the deceased while the other appellant- Arumainathan was holding the deceased that Arumugam threatened him that if he made noise he would be killed and therefore afraid of them he returned back to his hut. However, he would say that he was able to see thereafter also through the wholes in the thatches erected in between his portion and the portion of the deceased the subsequent event, namely, the rape of P.W.1 also. It is also the case of P.Ws.1 and 2 that after the murder and also the rape both the appellants were sitting outside the hut till 5.00 a.m. and only thereafter they left the place. P.W.1 thereafter informed P.W.3, her brother’s wife, and took her to P.W.4, the sister of the deceased, and P.Ws.1 and 4 went to Sembium police station and lodged the complaint Ex.P-1 with the Sub Inspector of Police-P.W.18. 16. The learned counsels for the appellants contended that giving of the complaint by P.W. 1 itself creates a very great suspicion in view of the reason that no male members accompanied them, though P.W.4 would say that her husband Perumal and her sister’s son were present at the time when P.Ws.1 and 3 came to her house, and that when male members were available in the house, it is highly artificial that these two women alone went to the police station to lodge the complaint Ex.P-1. The learned counsels further argued that P.W.1 was aged about 15 years at the time of the occurrence and it is highly improbable that this girl would have given Ex.P-1 in such a narrative form giving all minute details with every aspect and therefore P.W. 1 could not be the author of this complaint, but prepared at the instance of somebody. P.W.4 has admitted presence of two male members in her house, but says that when the news of the murder of her sister came to her, she decided to go to the police station to lodge a complaint. P.W.4 has admitted presence of two male members in her house, but says that when the news of the murder of her sister came to her, she decided to go to the police station to lodge a complaint. We also fee that without taking the male members from the house, they alone could not have gone to the police station. However, P.W.18 would say that P.Ws.1. and 4 alone came to the police station and lodged the complaint. 17. As a matter of fact, P.W.2 in his evidence would say that the Police Officers when came to the scene of occurrence enquired P.W.1 and obtained her thumb impression. When his piece of evidence is taken in to consideration along with the circumstances referred to, it is unlikely that P.W.18 had recorded the complaint in the police station as stated by him at 5.30 a.m. Further P.W.1 would say that she was in the police station only for two minutes. This means, to record Ex.P-1, which is an elaborate complaint, it required only two minutes as stated by her cannot be true. Therefore, the complaint Ex.P-1 should have been prepared through somebody after gathering certain particulars from P.W.1 or P.W.4 and others. 18. The learned counsels for the respective appellant had argued upon the improbability of these two appellants coming together to the house of the deceased Uma to commit the murder jointly, one stabbing the deceased while the other holding her legs and this conjoint action of the appellants is not probable for the reason that they had misunderstandings and animosity as the appellant- Arumainathan had intimacy with the deceased Uma. .19. P.W.4 has narrated that when the deceased and the appellant- Arumugam were living in Kollan Thottam in the house of One Chinnammal, appellant- Arumugam was accusing the deceased that she had developed intimacy with the appellant-Arumainathan. When he suspected that the appellant- Arumainathan was an intruder in his family life developing intimacy with his wife, it is needless to mention the animosity which he might have developed against the appellant- Arumainathan. Further, on account of the frequent quarrel between the deceased and the appellant- Arumugam, implicating the appellant-Arumainathan, the husband and wife were even driven out, by the house owner Chinnammal. Further, on account of the frequent quarrel between the deceased and the appellant- Arumugam, implicating the appellant-Arumainathan, the husband and wife were even driven out, by the house owner Chinnammal. Therefore, when such animosity prevailed between them, the learned counsels would argue that both these appellants would not have joined together that too within a period of two week. On a reading of the complaint Ex.P-1 it reveals that the appellant-Arumugam had come there only to gain sexual pleasure from the deceased Uma. He entered into the house and kicked her and asked to submit for the sexual intercourse, for which the deceased Uma refused stating that she had severed her connection with him and she had the right to choose her life. It is also narrated in Ex.P-1 that thereafter the deceased was beaten by the appellant-Arumugam, and again attempted to have sexual intercourse, but when the deceased shouted at him and asked him to get out of the house, the appellant-Arumugam enraged by her conduct decided to terminate her life and called the other appellant-Arumainathan, who was sitting outside the house to assist him and plunged the knife repeatedly on her chest. So, the narration of facts in Ex.P-1 would make it clear that the appellant-Arumugam would not have come with the intention of murdering the deceased Uma but as she refused to yield for the sexual intercourse and also insulted him by asking him to get out of the house, he stabbed her. If these facts are to be accepted, then there was no reason for the appellant-Arumugam to bring the other appellant-Arumainathan with him when he came to his wife’s hut only for the purpose of sexual intercourse. Secondly even if the appellant-Arumainathan was asked to accompany him and some how he came to the house of the deceased, he would not have immediately assisted the appellant-Arumugam in murdering her by holding her legs as stated by the eye-witnesses. Arumainathan was simply commanded by the appellant-Arumugam to come and hold her legs. There was no reason for the appellant-Arumainathan to be obedient to Arumugam to submit to his command immediately by holding the legs of the deceased when especially it was a gruesome murder of a woman, with whom the appellant-Arumainathan was having sexual favours. Arumainathan was simply commanded by the appellant-Arumugam to come and hold her legs. There was no reason for the appellant-Arumainathan to be obedient to Arumugam to submit to his command immediately by holding the legs of the deceased when especially it was a gruesome murder of a woman, with whom the appellant-Arumainathan was having sexual favours. Therefore in all probabilities the other appellant-Arumainathan would not have even assisted and cooperated with the appellant- Arumugam by holding the legs of the deceased for killing her brutally. .20. Another part also is portrayed in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. After the appellant-Arumugam had thrust the knife on the chest of the deceased repeatedly, Arumainathan and he plunged it on the thighs and also in the stomach for his part in the role. When already the knife was plunged in the vital part namely, chest repeatedly and there is nothing to show that the deceased was resisting or attempting to run away from the hut. There was no necessity for the appellant- Arumainathan to plung the knife on the non-vital parts namely, thighs and the stomach. Some times there may be instances wherein one may have deep enmity and to quench the vengeance may stab on the deceased person only for his satisfaction. But in this case, there was no chance at all for the appellant-Arumainathan to develop any grievance or ill-feeling against the deceased Uma, because even according to the statement of the appellant-Arumugam, the deceased was having intimacy with the second accused-Arumainathan. Therefore, appellant-Arumainathan would not have joined hands with Arumugam to stab the woman with whom he was having intimacy. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsels, these versions portrayed by the prosecution witnesses seem to be highly artificial and unnatural and improper to accept that, the appellant- Arumainathan also was a party to this gruesome offence of murder. 21. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.S.Anbalagan, referring to a decision in Chandkhan and another v. State of U.P., (1995)5 S.C.C. 448 , wherein it is held that the absence or insufficiency of motive is immaterial to accept the guilt of the. accused person would submit that the appellant-Arumainathan would have assisted the other appellant even without any motive against the deceased. No doubt, there may be instances wherein a person might have been killed even without any direct motive. accused person would submit that the appellant-Arumainathan would have assisted the other appellant even without any motive against the deceased. No doubt, there may be instances wherein a person might have been killed even without any direct motive. But this case stands on a different footing, because the deceased woman was loved by the appellant-Arumainathan and was also having sexual intimacy with her. In that aspect unless he had developed a grievance or motive against this woman, there was no necessity for him to come along with the husband of the deceased and assist him in the commission of the offence of murder, especially in the circumstances that appellants had fallen out among themselves on the suspicion of the appellant-Arumugam that Arumainathan was a villain against him by developing intimacy with his wife. So, when this aspect is considered in this back ground without any reason or grievance for the second appellant-Arumainathan, he would not have immediately obeyed the direction of the appellant-Arumugam to assist him in the murder of the deceased Uma. So this circumstances makes us to hesitate to accept the prosecution case that the appellant Arumainathan also had come along with the other other Appellant Arumugam and both of them had jointly committed the murder of the deceased Uma. .22. The learned counsel for the second appellant-Arumainathan brought out certain other suspicious circumstances also as to the participation of the appellant-Arumainathan. According to him, P.W.8 was examined to speak about the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant-Arumugam on 19. 1988 morning by about 5.30 a.m. and P.W.8 would say that the appellant-Arumugam came in a cycle-rickshaw, telling him that he had murdered his wife and also raped a girl and was handing over the rickshaw with him. When he had made such a confession to P.W.8, naturally he might have mentioned about the other appellant-Arumainathan also, as he joined in both the offence, namely, murder and rape, however, P.W.8 would say that the first accused-Arumugam told him that he alone had committed the murder and rape. So, this aspect also improbabilises the possibility of the appellant Arumainathan joining with the first accused- Arumugam in committing the murder of Uma and also rape of P.W.1. 23. There is also a circumstance, namely, the Police Officers disinterest to recover and clothe from the appellant-Arumainathan at the time Of his arrest. So, this aspect also improbabilises the possibility of the appellant Arumainathan joining with the first accused- Arumugam in committing the murder of Uma and also rape of P.W.1. 23. There is also a circumstance, namely, the Police Officers disinterest to recover and clothe from the appellant-Arumainathan at the time Of his arrest. P.W.19 the Inspector of Police would say that soon after the arrest of the first appellant-Arumugam on 20.9.1988; a confession statement was recorded from him and his shirt M.O.10 and lungi M.O.9 were recovered from him as they were suspected to contain blood stains. The second appellant-Arumainathan was arrested on the next day i.e., 29. 1988, but we do not know why the Inspector of Police did not suspect that his clothes also should contain the blood stains and no efforts were made to recover the clothes worn by him at the time of the occurrence. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the Investigating Officer did not suspect anything incriminating from the appellant-. Arumainathan and therefore no efforts were made by him and this circumstances also should indicate his non-participation in the occurrence. .24. Another improbability in the prosecution case is the presence of the appellants outside the hut from 2.00a.m. to 5.00 a.m. after committing the offence. The learned counsels submitted that when these two men had committed such a gruesome offence of mur-der and rape of a young girl P.W.1, they would not have intended to remain there for three hours when especially the neighbour P.W.2 had seen them while the offences was being committed, there was no reason for these two men remaining till dawn and this artificial nature of the prosecution case exposes the whole case without any truth behind it and therefore the prosecution has to be thrown out. Naturally any person who committed the offence will not dare to remain there when especially the occurrence had taken place in the city limits, where the movements of the police is common and further both the appellants are not the residents of the locality but strangers and therefore, neighbours and others living in that area would not have been keeping quiet when especially they came to know that a young girl was raped by these two men and they also murdered a woman and therefore, these two men would not have had the courage to remain there without any purpose when especially their purpose was over and this piece of evidence coming from P.Ws.1 and 2 also appears to be too much artificial and unbelievable. Probably to cover up the delay in case if the occurrence had taken place early; P.W.1 might have been asked to say that she was unable to come out afraid of the culprits and therefore this version has been introduced in the prosecution case. But we are not convicted of this version for the inability of P.W.1 to Come out and inform her brother’s wife P.W.1 about the occurrence immediately or as spoken to by P.W.1. there is also an entrance from entrance from one portion to other portion within the hut itself and P.W.1 could have made use of that entrance to go to the other portion for conveying the incidence to others. Therefore, we are not satisfied with the prosecution version that the appellants were staying outside the hut till the morning at 5.00 a.m. 25. The artificial nature of the evidence of P.W.2 also has to be mentioned here. P.W.2 being the neighbour on the northern side would say that hearing the voice of the deceased Uma when she quarrelled with the appellant-Arumugam, he came out of his hut, that he was able to see these appellants engaged in the commission of offence of murder on the deceased Uma and according to him as the appellant-Arumugam threatened him to kill, he had not made any effort to disclose the incident to others but returned back to his house. Thereafter he saw the subsequent occurrence also through the thatches, but this man would say that after witnessing all these events fell asleep and got up only at 5.00 a.m. He did not tell this to his neighbours or even to his wife till next day morning when the police came and this conduct of P.W.2 seems to be highly artificial and normally when such gruesome murder has taken place within a portion of a hut and he being the adjacent portion occupier who had witnessed the entire events, it is impossible to get sleepness and he would not have keep quiet even without informing his wife and other neighbours. When he says that he did not inform to others including his wife, it only shows that he could not have known about this occurrence till morning when all others came to know about the murder and therefore, he was unable to mention about this occurrence before others came to know about that. 26. The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Peddireddy Subbareddi v. State of A.P., 1991 Crl.L.J. 1391, wherein the Supreme Court would hold that when a witness had not reported about the occurrence to the villagers for about 15 hours, his evidence, is suspected to he false and the implication of the accused persons were also considered, false. But the learned Additional Public Prosecutor countered this argu-ment by citing a decision of the Apex Court in Rang Partap v. State of Haryana, 1983 Crl.L.J. 1272, The Apex Court would hold that every person who witness a murder reacts in his own way and some are stunned become speechless and stand rooted to the spot and some become hysteric and start wailing and some start shouting for help, whereas others may run away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible. It would further add that only a few may rush to the rescue of the victim even going to the extent of counter-attacking the assail-ants and therefore every one reacts in his own special way and there is no set rule of natural reaction and in view of the conduct of the individual peculiar to this, the conduct of P.W.2 for not informing this cannot be a ground to suspect his evidence. It is true that a person when sees an occurrence may react in the manner mentioned above. P.W.2 also might have experienced the same feelings that moment he saw the occurrence. But he remained in his hut for the while night after seeing this occurrence and says that he fell asleep even after seeing this gruesome murder. But we fee that this is unnatural, when especially he was frightened on seeing the occurrence, his conscience would not have allowed him to sleep. Secondly he was safe in his hut, therefore, when strangers had come and murdered his neighbour and also raped a girl, his conduct was quite strange by confirming himself within the hut, when initially, he came out and saw the culprits when they were committing the offence. Therefore, atleast after the commission of the offence he might have told the neighbours or other residents about this occurrence. Therefore, we are not satisfied with the testimony of P.W.2 and we feel that he is a tutored witness brought for the purpose of filling up the gap as he happened to be the neighbour. 27. From the medical evidence, there is possibility for the commission of the offence much earlier to the time mentioned by the witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2. In the postmortem report Ex.P-3, the Doctor has mentioned the presence of partly digested food of 150 grams. Even though there is no evidence from P.W.5 that how long it would take for the complete digestion of the food the Medical Jurisprudence of Dr. Moti reads that normally the food would be digested in 2 to 5 hours. Of course, there is no evidence in this case as to when the deceased took her food. It may be stated that as the deceased returned back only about 11.00 p.m., as spoken by P.W.9, that she had been to the Doctor for the treatment of her child Gayathri she might have taken her dinner at 11 p.m. but there is no evidence to show that she took any food after her return to the house. In the absence of such evidence we have to take it that the deceased might have taken her food in the normal time i.e, supper time between 8.00 and 9 p.m. In that case as the food was partly digested she might have bene murdered within 2 or 3 hours. In the absence of such evidence we have to take it that the deceased might have taken her food in the normal time i.e, supper time between 8.00 and 9 p.m. In that case as the food was partly digested she might have bene murdered within 2 or 3 hours. Therefore, the death must have been before 12.00 o’clock mid-night. In that case, there was possibility for P.W.12 also present in his house, as he left the house only by 1.00 a.m. on that night. However, none came out of the house inspite of the quarrel between the deceased Uma and the appellant - Arumugam and also the shouting of the deceased as spoken to by P.W.1 and P.W.2. 28. There is also discrepancy between the complaint Ex.P-1 and the evidence of P.W.1 In Ex.P-1, it is stated that when the appellant- Arumugam entered into the house, he kicked the deceased and quarrelled with her for having sexual contact with her, that he also beat her insisting for sexual intercourse. But in the evidence P.W.1 has not stated about the kicking or beating of the deceased by the appellant- Arumugam. Therefore, this also creates doubt as to whether P.W. 1 would have given the complaint Ex.P-1 or whether she could have seen the occurrence. It is the case of the appellants that P.W.1 could not have been in the but along with the deceased and some one in the night had committed the offence under the cover of darkness. Anyhow, these omissions also create the doubt whether P.W.1 could have witnessed the occurrence when especially so much versions have been narrated in Ex.P-1. 29. There is also discrepancy with regard to the recovery of Rickshaw M.O.12 and the shirt M.O.10. It is the prosecution case that the first appellant-Arumugam, soon after the commission of the offence went to P.W.8 and handed over the rickshaw M.O.12, which contained his shirt M.O.10 within a chamber under the seat and according to P.W.19 the Inspector of Police, P.W.8 and P.W.13 the rickshaw M.O.12 and M.O.10 were seized from P.W.8 only on 20.9.1988 i.e., after the arrest of the appellant- Arumugam. But P.W.8 though would say that these things were recovered from him on 20.9.1988, in the cross-examination he would say that he was taken to the police station even on 19. But P.W.8 though would say that these things were recovered from him on 20.9.1988, in the cross-examination he would say that he was taken to the police station even on 19. 1988 morning by about 7.30a.m. and he saw the appellant-Arumugam in the police station. Even though the learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that P.W.8 might have wrongly stated the date as 19. 1988 instead of 20.9.1988, that was not clarified in the re-examination and P.W.8 was very specific in his cross-examination by repeating that on 19. 1988 between 7.30 a.m. and 9.30 a.m., he was in the police station and that the Inspector also was in the police station at that time. When he was not treated as hostile witness and the date mentioned by him in the cross-examination was not clarified in the re-examination, we have to necessarily accept that the date was given by him consciously, otherwise it will amount to denial of the benefit which the accused is entitled to. So, from the evidence of P.W.8 it is clear that he was taken to the police station on 19. 1988 itself by 7.30 a.m. and the accused was also in the police custody on that day. If the appellant-Arumugam was arrested on 20.9.1988 as mentioned by the Inspector of Police, it is not explained how P.W.8 was traced by the Police for being taken to the police station for interrogation even on 19. 1988 morning. Therefore, the recovery of M.O.10, M.O.12 and also the knife M.O.1 1 at the instance of the appellant-Arumugam appears to be false. From the evidence of P.W.8 it is clear that the appellant-Arumugam was in the Police custody even on 19. 1988. 30. With regard to the other findings, namely, rape on P.W.1, the Doctor P.W.6 had examined P.W.1 on 19. 1988 at 2.15 p.m. and in Ex.P-10 she would state that there was no external injury including nail mark or lacerations, no matting of hair, no evidence of any injury in the vagina, no dried up semen and vagina admitted one finger. Hymen was not intact but fourchette was intact. P.W.6 would say that fourchette is usually ruptured in the first sexual union and usually in rape laceration and bruising in vagina occurs or swelling and inflammation may be found in vagina. P.W.6 was also of the opinion that P.W. 1 was accustomed for sexual intercourse. Hymen was not intact but fourchette was intact. P.W.6 would say that fourchette is usually ruptured in the first sexual union and usually in rape laceration and bruising in vagina occurs or swelling and inflammation may be found in vagina. P.W.6 was also of the opinion that P.W. 1 was accustomed for sexual intercourse. So from the evidence of P.W.6, absolutely there was no sign of rape on P.W.1. However, P.Ws.1 and 2 would say that both these appellants have committed rape one by one. P.W. 1 her evidence has stated that she had no sexual intercourse before this occurrence. However, the Doctor was of the opinion that she was accustomed for sexual intercourse. It is true that P.W.1 was sent to the Doctor only on 19. 1988 at 2.15 p.m. though she lodged the complaint even on 19. 1988 at 7.30 a.m. When she had specifically mentioned that she was raped by two persons, the duty of the Police Officer, who recorded the complaint was to immediately send her to the Doctor for vaginal examination. The examination at the earliest point of time may reveal the signs of rape or the presence of the semen and the physical conditions also may throw considerable light on the accusation against the accused persons. But in this case, deliberately, the Police Officers, both the Sub Inspector of Police who registered the case and the Inspector of Police, who conducted the investigation, did not realise the importance of sending P.W. 1 immediately for medical examination and allowing the important materials that might have been available on her body to vanish. It was argued for the prosecution that P.W.1 might have taken bath and therefore the matting of the hair, the seminal stains on her body was not available and even the spermatozoa in the vaginal part might have been washed by her. If that was so, the Investigating Officers were responsible for such disappearance of evidence on account of their deriliction of duty. 31. If that was so, the Investigating Officers were responsible for such disappearance of evidence on account of their deriliction of duty. 31. In State of Punjab v. Bhajan Singh, A.I.R. 1975 S.C.258, the view expressed by the Apex Court is that when the Doctor did not send the dead body to Anatomy Expert for examination of the body and the failure on the part of the Doctor cannot be a ground for drawing an inference adverse to the accused and he cannot be made to suffer for the omission on the part of the officials. It further adds that accused and not the prosecution would be entitled to get benefit of any gap or lacuna in the prosecution case. 32. If at all P.W. 1 was raped by these appellants, the important materials, namely, the stains of the spermatozoa must have been detected immediately by sending the victim to the Doctor. When this was not done and only on the next day she was sent to the doctor, naturally, the lapses on the part of the Police Officers shall not affect the innocence of the accused, who is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. But the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would rely upon the decision in Chand Khan v. State of U.P., (1995) 5 S.C.C. 448 and submit that failure of the Investigating Officer to seize the knife is not fatal to the prosecution case and in the present case even if the victim was not sent to the Doctor immediately on account of which the evidence is disappearing, the Court is bound to assess the testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 as to this aspect of the prosecution case and as the evidence of P.W.1, the victim girl itself is sufficient without any corroboration for the rape on her it will prove the guilt of the appellants. He also cited a decision reported in Prem Chand v. State of Haryana, 1989 Crl.L.J. 1246, wherein it has been held that though the Medical examination did not bring out any evidence, the court had accepted the testimony of the victim girl and therefore, in this case according to the Additional Public Prosecutor, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 for the rape on her. It is true that the Apex Court has repeatedly held that in the case of rape without any corroboration the testimony of the victim girl itself is sufficient, provided the evidence is acceptable. But in this case, already we referred to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the same appears to be highly artificial and improbable. Further, there was also inconsistency as between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.1 would say that even while the appellant-Arumainathan was trying to come out after the murder of Uma, expressed his desire to the other appellant-Arumugam to rape P.W.1, for which the first appellant-Arumugam had immediately consented and thereafter both of them had raped her, the evidence of P.W.2 is that after the murder of the deceased Uma, both of them came out and were waiting for half-an-hour and only thereafter, the appellant-Arumainathan expressed his inclination to rape P.W.1. Further, both of these witnesses would say that when these appellants had raped P.W.1 they were having the knife M.O.11 in their hands. This appears to be highly unnatural. No doubt they might have threatened P.W.1 after the murder of Uma, if P.W. 1 was there witnessing the occurrence, there was no further necessity to threaten her with the knife and also to hold the knife in one hand till the beastly act of rape was completed. In view of the inconsistency and the artificial nature of the evidence and also the improbability of both these appellants coming together and in the light of the medical evidence of P.W.6, we were unable to hold that P.W.1 was raped by these appellants. The hymen was not intact and it has been elicited in the cross-examination that it may have been due to so many other causes. But the fourchette was intact and the Doctor P.W.6 has stated that normally the fourchette would be ruptured at the first intercourse. Even though in this case the Doctor would say that inspite of this girl, who was accustomed to have the sexual intercourse, her fourchette was intact, the question is whether the same could have been intact if both the appellants had raped her one after the other. This is also creating a serious doubt in the prosecution case. Even though in this case the Doctor would say that inspite of this girl, who was accustomed to have the sexual intercourse, her fourchette was intact, the question is whether the same could have been intact if both the appellants had raped her one after the other. This is also creating a serious doubt in the prosecution case. P.W.1 was a young girl of 15 years at the time of the occurrence and we doubt whether the fourchette could have been intact inspite of the rape by two persons. Therefore, we suspect the veracity of the testimony of P.W.l and it is needless to repeat that the evidence of P.W.2 is more artificial for the reasons already expressed. Therefore, the appellants are certainly entitled to the benefit of doubt for the reasons given above. 33. It was argued by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that why P.W. 1 should falsely implicate the appellants in the case of murder and rape and she being a young girl of 15 years at the time, would not have falsely stated that she was raped and therefore the prosecution case has to be accepted. Even if it is accepted that P.W. 1 was raped in the hut in which she was sleeping, unless there was light within that hut it would not have been possible for P.W.l to identify the persons who committed the rape on her. In the absence of any light, only by inference or surmises P.W. 1 could have thought of the person who committed the crime. So, all the other circumstances show the remote possibility of these two persons coming together, especially for the murder of the deceased Uma, the participation of these two appellants is doubtful. There is no chance for holding in this case that "Falsus in uno. falsus in omnibus" as the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 cannot be bisected with regard to the participation of the appellant-Arumainathan and other appellant-Arumugam. "The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is that both the appellants conjointly committed the offence of murder and rape. As per the evidence, when the appellant-Arumugam was stabbing the deceased, the other appellant- Arumainathan was holding her legs. Therefore, both of them had conjointly committed the offence. Similarly, the rape also was committed one by one. "The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is that both the appellants conjointly committed the offence of murder and rape. As per the evidence, when the appellant-Arumugam was stabbing the deceased, the other appellant- Arumainathan was holding her legs. Therefore, both of them had conjointly committed the offence. Similarly, the rape also was committed one by one. From the person as such, we feel that it is intermingled and the evidence against the one appellant cannot be separated from the version against the other appellant. Therefore, the only conclusion that we can arrive at is, that the participation of both the appellants in the crime of murder and rape conjointly, is doubtful and therefore, the view taken by the court below that the appellants are guilty of all the offences alleged against them, does not appear to be correct. Even though, the learned Session Judge has given reasons of his own to support the prosecution case, we are unable to agree with his conclusions and we feel that it is not safe to act upon the unconvincing and uninspiring testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 for occurrence alleged, as it may lead to dangerous consequences in convicting the appellants. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that the prosecution has not brought home the guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt and giving the benefit of doubt to the appellants, we find that they are not guilty of the offences. The result of it is, that both the appeals have to be allowed acquitting the appellants. 34. In the result, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants, the appellants are acquitted and the appeals are allowed. The appellant- Arumugam is directed to be released forthwith. The bail bond of the other appellant-Arumainathan is cancelled.