Judgment : M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants A-1 to A-5, challenging the conviction under Sections 147, 148, 302 with 34, 302 read with 109,324 (2 counts) of Indian Penal Code imposed in Sessions Case No. 29 of i986 on the file of Sessions Judge, Thanjavur dated 2-12-1988 have preferred this appeal. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: P. W. 1 Veeramuthu is the son-in-law of the deceased Kaipillai P. W. 4. Radhikill is the wife of P. W. 1. P. Ws. 2 and 3 are the brothers of the deceased. The deceased Kaipillai was owning lands at Oorudaiyan Natham Village P. W. 1 who belongs to Eragram Village came and stayed with his father-in-law in order to help him to harvest the crops for one month, prior to the date of occurrence. There is a village called Karumbayiramthidal next to Oorudaiyana Natham. PW. 7 Mahalingam is owning lands there. Since P. W. 7 is residing in some other place the deceased Kaipillai was looking after the said lands on behalf of P. W. 7 Mahalingam. Some time prior to the date of occurrence, the accused persons (A 1 to A8) who belong to Oorudaiyan Natham trespassed into the lands belonging to P. W. 7 and plucked the teak and Eucalyptus saplings. With reference to this incident a complaint was given by P. W. 7 to the Taluk Police Station, Kumbakonam. All the accused were called to the Police Station arid warned severely. Because of the police interference there was misunderstanding between the deceased and the accused persons. In Karumbayiramthidal there is a pond situate at the land belonging to the said Mahalingam, P. W. 7. In the said pond Al, A3 and A4 tried to begin the fishing operations. But the deceased prevented them from doing so. This was also another cause for the ill-felling developed between the deceased and the accused. ( 3 ) THE occurrence had taken place on 17-3-1985 at 7. 30 p. m. At Oorudaiyan Natham Village. At that point of time the deceased Kaipillai was sitting in the pial of his house. A1 to A8 with the weapons such as spear aruval and rice-founder suddenly appeared in the scene. A1, A2 and A3 shouted at the deceased. So saying A4 caught hold of the deceased and A1 with spear stabbed on the stomach. At that point of time the deceased Kaipillai was sitting in the pial of his house. A1 to A8 with the weapons such as spear aruval and rice-founder suddenly appeared in the scene. A1, A2 and A3 shouted at the deceased. So saying A4 caught hold of the deceased and A1 with spear stabbed on the stomach. A2 and A5 attacked with aruval on the head and A3 with aruval caused injury on left shoulder. Left hand and right hand, A6. A7 and A8 were standing with the rice-founders. P. Ws 2 and 3 the brothers of the deceased intervened and tried to prevent the accused from further attacking the deceased. But. A2 attacked both PW2 and PW3 with aruval and caused injuries. P. Ws. 1 and 4 tried to come near the deceased. All the accused with the weapons threatened them not to come near them. ( 4 ) ON hearing the hue and cry made by the witnesses, the villagers gathered and rounded up the accused. When the villager chased, all the accused carrying their weapon took to their heels. At that time the deceased was gasping for life. He was taken in a bullock-cart to the Government Hospital. Kumbakonam. There P. W. 10 the doctor, on examination of the deceased declared that he was already dead. PW. 1 went to the Taluk Police Station, Kumbakonam and gave complaint Ex. P1 at about 10. 30 P. M. P. W. 8 Sub-Inspector of Police received the complaint and registered the case in Crime No. 61 of 1985 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 307 and 302 of Indian Penal Code. The printed First Information Report Ex. P. 2 and the other documents were sent to the Court as to the Senior Officials at about 12. 00 mid-night. ( 5 ) A2 who was admitted in the hospital with injuries gave a complaint which was received by PW 8 and the same was registered in Crime No. 62 of 1985 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 324 of Indian Penal Code and sent the printed First Information Report to the Court as well as to the other officials. ( 6 ) P. W. 14 the Inspector of Police took up investigation in both the cases and went to the scene at 11. 15 p. m. and prepared Ex. P4 observation mahazar and Ex. P30 rough sketch. ( 6 ) P. W. 14 the Inspector of Police took up investigation in both the cases and went to the scene at 11. 15 p. m. and prepared Ex. P4 observation mahazar and Ex. P30 rough sketch. He observed all the formalities and thereafter on 18-3-1985 from 7. 00 a. m. to 10. 00 a. m. he conducted inquest over the dead body in the hospital. Ex. P. 31 in the inquest report. P. W. 14 examined P. Ws. 1 to 4 and one Shanbagavatli during the course of inquest and then he sent the dead body with requisition Ex. P. 24 for postmortem. P. W. 12 Dr. Venkataraman commenced postmortem at 10. 45 a. m. on 18-3-1985 and on the internal examination he found a stab injury of itt x 1/2 x 4 below and right to the umbilicus frothy blood oozing out of the injury No. 2. The opinion given in Ex. P. 25 is that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained by him. ( 7 ) IN the meantime. P. W. 10 examined P. W. 3 and issued accident register Ex. P. 15 at 9. 30 p. m. on 17-3-1985. As 9. 45 P. M. he examined A2 and issued wound certificate Ex. P. 16. At 10. 00 p. m. he examined A4 and issued wound certificate Ex. P. 17. At 10. 15 p. m. he examined A8 and issued wound certificate Ex. P. 18 and at 11. 45 p. m. , he examined P. W. 5 and issued wound certificate Ex. P. 19. ( 8 ) ONE Ramayi wife of A8 was examined at 11. 00 p. m. , and Ex. P. 20 was issued. At 12. 00 noon P. W. 10 examined Sivasamy P. W. 2 and issued wound certificate Ex. P. 21. On 18-3-1985 at 2. 00 a. m. , he examined one Raju and issued wound certificate Ex. P. 22. In 18-3-1985 at about 7. 00 a. m., he examined P. W. 6 Sivanandam and issued wound certificate Ex. P. 23. ( 9 ) THE injuries found on all the persons were found to be simple, except the injuries sustained by P. W. 5, which were found to be grievous. P. 22. In 18-3-1985 at about 7. 00 a. m., he examined P. W. 6 Sivanandam and issued wound certificate Ex. P. 23. ( 9 ) THE injuries found on all the persons were found to be simple, except the injuries sustained by P. W. 5, which were found to be grievous. ( 10 ) ON 19-3-1985 P. W. 11 inspector of Police arrested A4 and A 7 and the rice founders were recovered from them on their confession on 21-3-1985 he arrested A2 and A8. From A2 aruval was recovered and from A8 rice founder was recovered. ( 11 ) THEN, he sent all the M. Os. For analysis After completing the investigation, he filed charge- sheet on 28-10-1985 in respect of Crime No. 61 of 1985 which was given by P. W. 1 in this case and referred the complaint in Crime No. 62 of 1985, which was given by A2 as mistake of fact. Ex. P. 32 is the final report sent in respect of the counter complaint. ( 12 ) AFTER committal, the prosecution, examined P. Ws. 1 to 14, through whom Exs. P. 1 to P. 32 were filed and M. Os. 1 to 8 were marked. On the side of the defence, D. Ws. 1 to 3 were examined. ( 13 ) ON conclusion of trial when the incriminating materials were put to the accused persons, all the accused would state that false case had been foisted against them, and the prosecution party only attacked A2, one Ramayi, the wife ofa8 and that prosecution put up the said false case, in order to escape from the counter-complaint given by the accused party against them. For establishing the theory of defence D. Ws. 1 to 3 were examined. ( 14 ) AFTER consideration of the entire materials placed before the Court, the trial Court convicted the appellants for the offences referred to above, but acquitted A6, A7 and A8. Aggrieved over this conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been filed before this Court. ( 15 ) MR. Sudhandhiram. learned counsel for the appellants took us through the entire evidence. Aggrieved over this conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been filed before this Court. ( 15 ) MR. Sudhandhiram. learned counsel for the appellants took us through the entire evidence. He would contend that the prosecution has not come with clean hands, as it has not given details as to how the occurrence had started and that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case, in view of the innumerable inherent improbabilities found in the case as projected by the prosecution especially when the injuries on the accused have not been explained. ( 16 ) 111 reply to his submissions, Mr. N. R. Elango, Government Advocate appearing for the respondent, would contend that there are four eye witnesses, whose evidence had not been shattered in the cross-examination and that out of four eye witnesses, two witnesses P. Ws 2 and 3 are the injured witnesses, and their evidence had been aptly corroborated by the medical evidence adduced by P. Ws 10 and 12. Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court for convicting the appellants is proper and justifiable. ( 17 ) WE have carefully considered the rival contentions made on either side. We have also carefully scrutinized the materials placed by both the parties before this Court. ( 18 ) AT the outset, we shall mention that in this case, when both parties sustained injuries by using dangerous weapons like, aruval and iron rods, the prosecution has to prove as to how the occurrence had started. In our view, the prosecution has not only discharged its duty to narrate about the whole occurrence but also suppressed the origin of the occurrence. ( 19 ) THE motive in the murder case, that too, when eye witnesses are available, may not play vital role especially when the ocular testimony projected through the eye witnesses had been corroborated by the medical evidence. But, when there is a doubt in the genuineness of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, then the motive assumes significance. ( 20 ) BEFORE going into the credibility of the eyewitnesses, let us now go into the aspect of the motive as projected by the prosecution. ( 21 ) IT is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Kaipillai was looking after the lands of Mahalingam P. W. 7. ( 20 ) BEFORE going into the credibility of the eyewitnesses, let us now go into the aspect of the motive as projected by the prosecution. ( 21 ) IT is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Kaipillai was looking after the lands of Mahalingam P. W. 7. Since the accused party trespassed into the lands belonging to the said Mahalingam P. W. 7 and plucked out the saplings planted, there was a quarrel ensued. Therefore, P. W. 7 gave a complaint against the accused in Taluk Police Station, Kumbakonam, P. W. 7 was supported by Kaipillai, the deceased. The deceased also had developed misunderstanding with the accused, since the accused attempted to take the fish from the pond, belonging to P. W. 7, which was timely prevented by the deceased. These are the two instance shown to be the motive for the instant occurrence. ( 22 ) ADMITTEDLY, these two instances took place some weeks earlier to the instant occurrence. There is no reason for the accused persons to come and attack the deceased on the date of occurrence, especially, when there is no material to show that there was any immediate motive, which impelled the accused to come to the house of the deceased to attack. ( 23 ) LEAVE alone that, even with regard to the earlier occurrences projected by the prosecution motive has not been proved in this case because P. W7 Mahalingam for whom the deceased was stated to have fought with the accused had become hostile. In the light of these things, we have to see whether anything happened to impel the accused persons who are the residents of the same village to come to the scene of occurrence to attack the deceased. ( 24 ) IT is the case of the prosecution that at 7. 30 p. m. when the deceased was sitting on the pial of the house the accused suddenly appeared with weapons and attacked him by shouting. The eye witnesses in this case are P. Ws. 1 to 4. P. Ws. 2 and 3 sustained injuries, while they attempted to prevent the accused from further attacking the deceased. However, it is strange to see that P. Ws. 1 and 4 who are equally related to the deceased did not sustain any injury. The eye witnesses in this case are P. Ws. 1 to 4. P. Ws. 2 and 3 sustained injuries, while they attempted to prevent the accused from further attacking the deceased. However, it is strange to see that P. Ws. 1 and 4 who are equally related to the deceased did not sustain any injury. So, in the absence of any reason for the immediate motive for the accused to attack the deceased, we have to scrutinize the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 4 with care and caution. ( 25 ) NO doubt, It is settled law that T1merely because the witnesses are related to the deceased their evidence cannot be rejected in toto. However, this Court has to take into consideration of the earlier ill-feelings between the accused party and the prosecution party. ( 26 ) THOUGH as indicated earlier immediate motive has not been established there are two aspects to be seen in this case. P. Ws. 1 to 4 consistently and categorically have given the details as to how P. Ws. 2 and 3 and the deceased were attacked. They have also given details of the overtact attributed to each of the accused. According to them. A-1 caused injury with the spear on the stomach. A2 and A-5 attacked on the head of the deceased and A4 caught hold of the deceased and A3 caused injury on the left shoulder, left and right hands. ( 27 ) BUT, it is the case of the prosecution that apart from P. Ws. 2 and 3 P. Ws S and 6 as well as the deceased also were attacked during the same occurrence by the accused. P. Ws. S and 6 were examined as prosecution witnesses. However, they did not support the prosecution case and, therefore they were treated as hostile. As a matter of fact P. Ws, S and 6 along with one Raju on the side of the prosecution were treated by the doctor for whom wound certificates have also been issued. Doctor opined that the injury on P. W. S was found to be grievous. But there is no material either from the First Information Report or from the evidence of P. Ws 1 to 4 as to when these witnesses were attacked and by whom. Doctor opined that the injury on P. W. S was found to be grievous. But there is no material either from the First Information Report or from the evidence of P. Ws 1 to 4 as to when these witnesses were attacked and by whom. No doubt it is true that P. Ws 1 and 2 were examined by defence to show that during the course of occurrence, there was no light burning and most of the injured witnesses did not know as to how they sustained injuries and by whose hands the injuries were inflicted. However, we need not give much importance to D. W. 1 and D. W. 2, in view of the fact that the witnesses and the Police Officer P. W. 14 who prepared observation mahazar would state that there was street light, burning during the relevant time. But. D. W. 3 would give a different story relating to the occurrence, which is not inconsonance with the counter-complaint Ex. P. 3 which had been given by A-2. Therefore there is no difficulty to reject the entire defence theory in toto. ( 28 ) BUT, it is well-established principles of law in Criminal Jurisprudence that the prosecution cannot stand in the weakness of the defence and it shall stand on its own legs by proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. If the said principle is applied in the instant case, we have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to place the entire materials before the Court to come to a just conclusion. ( 29 ) THE Inspector of Police P. W. 14 would admit that all the injuries sustained by the accused persons were inflicted during the course of occurrence registered in Crime No. 61 of 1985. If that is so, the prosecution has to establish as to how these injuries have been sustained, especially when P. W. 14 would say during the course of cross-examination that the investigation revealed that injuries were inflicted during the course of main occurrence. ( 30 ) IT is seen from the records that A2 immediately went to the hospital along with other injured persons and got themselves admitted. When P. W. 8 Inspector of Police, went to the hospital, he recorded the statement given by A2 in which there is reference about the injuries on the accused person and also others. ( 30 ) IT is seen from the records that A2 immediately went to the hospital along with other injured persons and got themselves admitted. When P. W. 8 Inspector of Police, went to the hospital, he recorded the statement given by A2 in which there is reference about the injuries on the accused person and also others. P. W. 14 would admit in the cross-examination that the Crime No. 62 of 1985 was referred. Since statement given by A2 Veeramuthu under Ex. P3 was not supported by other witnesses. This cannot be the correct reason for referring it. ( 31 ) P. W. 14 ought to have investigated the counter complaint also properly and come to the conclusion as to who was the aggressor and if it was found out that the injuries sustained by the accused were only in the occurrence Crime No. 61 of 1985, then the Investigation Officer ought to have produced materials to explain those injuries. As a matter of fact, A2 and one Ramayi the wife of A-8 sustained head injury. There is no attempt on the side of the prosecution to explain those injuries even though P. W 14 would admit that the injuries sustained by the accused were only during the course of occurrence in Crime No. 61 of 1985. He would however state that the eyewitnesses did not say as to how the accused sustained injuries. The learned Government Advocate would point out that the First Information Report and the evidence of P. W. 1 reveal that after the occurrence was over, the accused were chased and drove out from the place. This would not be sufficient to hold that the injuries on the accused were properly explained, merely because there is a material to show that accused were chased from the place of occurrence. It is also stated by P. W. 1 that they also used some weapons to drive them out. If it is so, there is no reason as to why those weapons used by the eyewitnesses have not been recovered. Moreover, injuries were inflicted not only on the accused but also on several persons such as Ramayi, the wife of A8. Raju and P. Ws 5 and 6. If it is so, there is no reason as to why those weapons used by the eyewitnesses have not been recovered. Moreover, injuries were inflicted not only on the accused but also on several persons such as Ramayi, the wife of A8. Raju and P. Ws 5 and 6. So, in the absence of any explanation the side of the prosecution about the injuries found on A2, A4 and A8 and wife of A8, it is very difficult for this Court to accept that the case of the prosecution was true. ( 32 ) THE Apex Court repeatedly held that when the genesis is suppressed the entire case has to be thrown out. In fact, A-6 to A8 have been acquitted by the trial Court. Admittedly. Al did not sustain any injury. If P. W. 1 is statement is true that they took weapons to drive out the accused, then naturally Al, who is the main accused in this case also would have sustained injuries. ( 33 ) IT is the case of A-1 that at the time of occurrence he was attending his Telephone Exchange office where he was working. Though this aspect of alibi has not been established by the accused. it is clear that prosecution has not come out with clean hands by placing all the materials before the Court. When the prosecution had chosen to mark counter-complaint and also the wound certificate relating to the accused and P. Ws. 5 and 6, it ought to have placed materials as to how those injuries were inflicted on those persons. ( 34 ) TO reiterate further P. Ws. 5 and 6 sustained very serious injuries. But there is no reference with regard to the injuries sustained by them in the evidence of, P. Ws. 1 to 4. Therefore, in the light of the various suspicious factors indicated above we are unable to accept the prosecution case. ( 35 ) IN the result, the accused persons are entitled to the benefit of doubt and consequently, the appeal is allowed. All the accused persons are acquitted and the conviction and sentence imposed upon them are set aside. The bail bond if already executed stands cancelled. Appeal allowed.