R.Balasubramanian, J.: In S.C.No.27 of 1991 on the file of the Court of Sessions Judge acquitted A-7 and found the other accused alone guilty. All the accused were also acquitted of the graver offence falling under Sec.302, I.P.C. direct against A-2 and Sec.302, I.P.C. read with Sec.149, I.P.C. against all the other accused. Convicted accused A-1 to A-4 have filed C.A.No.718 of 1991 before this Court, convicted A-5, A-6, A-8 and A-9 have filed C.A.No.724 of 1991 before this Court aggrieved over the acquittal of all the accused of the offences, the State is before us in C.A.No.329 of 1992. Since all the three appeals relate to one Sessions Case, we are inclined to dispose of all the three appeals by a common judgment. As the appeal by the State is before this Court, in our opinion, it has kept alive all the issues which will enable us to re-appreciate the entire evidence. Therefore, we heard the learned Public Prosecutor for the State in the appeal against acquittal since it will comprehensively take us to the entire materials and consequently, we heard the learned counsel appearing for the convicted accused as well in their respective appeals. Heard Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Government counsel for the State for the appellant in C.A.No.329 of 1992 and for the respondents in the other two appeals; Mr.V.Gopinath, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in C.A.No.718 of 1991 and for respondents 1 to 4 in the State appeal and Mr.O.R.Abdul Kalam, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in C.A.No.724 of 1991 and for respondents 5, 6, 8 and 9 in the State appeal. None appears for the seventh respondent in the appeal against acquittal filed by the State though service has been completed. 2. The accused were tried for the following offences. A-1 to A-9 :: 148, I.P.C. A-1 to A-9 :: 447, I.P.C. A-1 to A-9 :: 427, I.P.C. A-1 :: 302, I.P.C. A-2 to A-4 and A-9 :: 302, read with 109, I.P.C. A-5 :: 307, I.P.C. A-3 and A-6 to A-8 :: 307 read with 109, I.P.C. A-7 :: 324, I.P.C. A-1 to A-9 :: 302 read with 149, I.P.C. 3. The learned Sessions Judge found A-1 to A-6, A-8 and A-9 guilty for the offence under Sec.148, I.P.C. and sentenced each one of them to pay a fine of Rs.500 carrying a default sentence; the above accused were also found guilty for the offence under Sec.325 read with 149, I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years together with a fine of Rs.500 of carrying a default sentence. All the accused were acquitted of all the other charges. 4. We briefly state hereunder the case of the prosecution: P.W.1 is the mother of P.W.2 and Thirumoorthy, since deceased. A-1 is the father of A-2 to A-4. A-5 to A-9 are residing in the same village where A-1 resides. A-1 was asserting a right to use the private pathway of P.W.1 which led to a strained relationship between the parties. Consequently, there was a complaint against the accused before the police and the prosecution party had also gone to the Civil Court for necessary reliefs, the occurrence was on 22.1.1989. At 6.30 a.m., A-1 to A-8 were found removing the fence across the pathway. P.W.1 asked them as to why they are doing like that. In reply to that the accused said that they have assembled there only to cut and kill them. The deceased was in the company of P.W.1 at that time and the accused picked up a quarrel with the deceased. A-1 with the stick M.O.1 in his hand, attacked on the head of the deceased once. P.W.2, the other sons of P.W.1 came running to save the deceased from further onslaught. A-3 and A-6 to A-8 caught hold of P.W.2 and A-9 with an Aruval in his hand attacked on the rear side of the head of P.W.2 who immediately fell down. Thirumoorthy, since deceased was already on the ground with injury. P.W.1 stepped into save her sons and at that time, A-7 dangerously neared her with a knife in his hand to stab her. As P.W.1 moved away, the said aim landed on her left hand ring finger resulting in an injury. All the accused, thereafter, ran away. The injured Thirumoorthy was transported in a Government Transport Corporation bus which was on its way from Poolathur towards Batlagundu. P.W.1 took her son Thirumoorthy to the Government Hospital at Batlagundu in the bus and enroute he died at about 8. All the accused, thereafter, ran away. The injured Thirumoorthy was transported in a Government Transport Corporation bus which was on its way from Poolathur towards Batlagundu. P.W.1 took her son Thirumoorthy to the Government Hospital at Batlagundu in the bus and enroute he died at about 8. a.m., when the bus was nearing a place called “Dum Dum Parai”. The body of the deceased was left in the hospital at Batlagundu. P.W.2 was given initial treatment there and he was referred to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. P.W.1 accompanied P.W.2 to the Government Hospital, Madurai where she also took treatment. From there, she went to the police station at Thandikudi at ground 1 p.m., and gave Ex.P-1 the information. Two persons by name Nathan and Subramani who accompanied her had signed in Ex.P-1 as witnesses. M.O.2, blood stained saree and M.O.3 blood stained blouse were handed over by her to the police. P.W.2 had corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 on all the material aspects. P.W.2 would also state that he lost his consciousness which he regained only at the Government Hospital at Madurai. M.Os.4 and 5, his shirt and banian were also handed over by him to the police. P.W.2 gave a statement to the Magistrate and Ex.P-2 is the injunction order obtained by him in the Civil Court against the accused. 5. P.W.4 has stated that around the time of occurrence, he heard a commotion in the garden of P.W.2 and he went there. He witnessed the occurrence thereof and his evidence is in corroboration to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.3 in his evidence has stated that at about 7 a.m.,, on the date of occurrence, he went to the scene of occurrence where he found D.W.1 having her son thirumoorthy, since deceased, on her lap and crying. He also noticed P.W.2 lying unconscious with a head injury and he saw the accused running towards west as he was nearing the scene of occurrence. He has also stated that he accompanied the injured to the Government Hospital at Batlagundu along with Chockanthan and Shanmugam and that the injured Thirumoorthy died enroute. He has further stated that he accompanied P.Ws.1 and 2 to the Government Hospital at Madurai in the same Ambulance Van where P.W.1 was given treatment. Thereafter, he along with others, went to Thandikudi police station where P.W.1 gave a complaint in which he has signed. He has further stated that he accompanied P.Ws.1 and 2 to the Government Hospital at Madurai in the same Ambulance Van where P.W.1 was given treatment. Thereafter, he along with others, went to Thandikudi police station where P.W.1 gave a complaint in which he has signed. P.W.7 was the driver of the Government Transport Corporation bus plying on that day from Poolathur to Batlagundu. As the bus was nearing Kumbaraiyur, the village of the accused and the deceased he found a crowd on the road and it was 7.30 a.m. The bus was stopped and an old lady got into the bus along with a few more who alighted near the Government Hospital at Batlagundu. 6. P.W.10 was the Casualty Medical Officer at the Government Hospital at Batlagundu. At 9 a.m., on 22.1.1989, he examined P.W.2 who was accompanied by P.W.1 his mother. He treated P.W.2 and he found the following injuries on P.W.2. “1. Lacerated injury at the top of the scalp 3 cm x 1/4 cm x bone deep. 2. A lacerated injury right thigh of 1 cm x 1/ 2 cm x 1/4 cm. 3. A lacerated injury left knee of 1 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm.” Complained of head ache, Vomiting, Suspecting head injury, he was referred to Madurai Rajaji Hospital. Ex.P-10 is the wound certificate. The opinion received from the Government Hospital, Madurai shows that injury No.1 is a fracture and therefore, it is grievous in nature and the other injuries are simple. Injury No.1 could have been caused by a weapon like Aruval and injury Nos.2 and 3 could have been caused by coming into contact with a rough surface. P.W.8 was the Ambulance Driver of the Ambulance at Government Hospital at Batlagundu, on direction from the Medical officer, he transported the identified patient along with his mother to the Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai. 7. P.W.11 was the casualty Medical officer at the Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai. At 11 a.m., on 22.1.1989 he examined P.W.2 in the Head Injury Ward. P.W.11 was informed that P.W.2 sustained injuries by the use of sticks and stones. X-ray was taken and a fracture was noticed on the skull. P.W.2 discharged from the Hospital on 5.4.1989 and Ex.P-11 is the case sheet relating to P.W.2. P.W.18 is another Doctor in the Government Hospital at Madurai. P.W.11 was informed that P.W.2 sustained injuries by the use of sticks and stones. X-ray was taken and a fracture was noticed on the skull. P.W.2 discharged from the Hospital on 5.4.1989 and Ex.P-11 is the case sheet relating to P.W.2. P.W.18 is another Doctor in the Government Hospital at Madurai. He examined P.W.1 for injuries sustained by her around 6.39 a.m., on that day. He found at that time a cut in the interdigital space of her left hand finger, between the ring finger and the middle finger. Ex.P-18 is the Accident Register. 8. P.W.14 was the Sub Inspector of Police at Thankudi Police station and he was at the Police Station at 1 p.m., on 22.1.1989. P.W.1 appeared before him at that time and her oral narration was reduced into writing which is Ex.P-1 in this case. He registered Ex.P-1 in Crime No.22 of 1989 for offences under Secs.147, 148, 341, 323, 307 and 302, I.P.C.. Ex.P-12 is the printed First Information Report. Exs.P-1 and P-12 were sent to the Court as well as the high officials. P. W.20 was the Investigating officer. He received Information around 1 p.m., on 22.1.1989 from Thandikudi police station about the crime that had taken place in the village near Kumbaraiyur. He directed the material records to be kept at the Batlagundu police station and reached that police station around 3.30 p.m., on that day. He collected the material records from P.W.15, the police constable, who brought it there and went to the Government Hospital at Batlagundu. Between 3.45 p.m., and 6.45 p.m., on that day, he conducted inquest over the body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses and Panchayatdars. Ex.P-21 is the inquest report. P.W.15 carried the material records and reached the Judicial Magistrate at Nilakottai at 2 p.m., Noticing that he was on leave, he reached the Judicial Magistrate’s Court at Periyakulam, who was the incharge Magistrate and handed over the material records there P. W.20, after inquest, sent the deed body along with the requisition to conduct post-mortem. 9. P.W.9 was the Medical officer at the government Hospital at Batlagundu. On receipt of Ex.P-8 the requisition to conduct post-mortem, she conducted post-mortem over the body of the deceased. She found the following Symptoms during post-mortem: “Rigor mortis present in all the four limbs. 1. 9. P.W.9 was the Medical officer at the government Hospital at Batlagundu. On receipt of Ex.P-8 the requisition to conduct post-mortem, she conducted post-mortem over the body of the deceased. She found the following Symptoms during post-mortem: “Rigor mortis present in all the four limbs. 1. A lacerated wound 2” x 1/2" x bone deep at the junction of left parietal with occipital region of scalp. 2. A lacerated wound 1/2” x 1/4" bridge of nose. 3. Abrasion 2 1/2” x 1" right side of forehead. 4. Abrasion 2” x 1" right temple. 5. An abrasion 2 1/2” x 2" left knee front. Internal: Abdomen uniform Thorax; No fracture ribs. Heart chambers empty. Congested Lungs - congested. Cut Section excludes blood stained frothy fluid. Hyoid bone intact. Stomach empty. Mucosa normal. Liver normal. Spleen congested. Kidneys -normal Intestines normal. Bladder empty. Pelvis No fracture. On opening of head: Extravasation of blood underneath the scalp depressed fracture Right temporal fracture of upper part of left side of occipital bone extending forward and upward on to the right parietal bone upto posterior aspect of depressed fracture right temporalbone. Membranes congested. Brain Ihhkg. Collection of blood over oath cemebral helmspheres cut section congested. 50 ml of blood found in the oranial body. I am of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to injury to vital organ such as brain and death would appear to have occurred about 21.27 hours prior to autopsy. External injury No.1 is necessarily fatal. External injury No.1 could have been caused by hitting with heavy force with stick M.O.1 External injuries Nos.2 to 5 could have been caused by coming into contact with rough surface. Ex.P-9 is the post-mortem certificate External injury No.1 is necessarily fatal. Though she has stated in her evidence in chief examination that the said injury could have been caused by hitting with heavy force with a stick like M.O.1, yet in her evidence in cross-examination she has deposed that if a person forcibly comes into contact with a big irregular granite stone and falls down on a rough surface and rolls, all the external injuries could have been caused. P.W.12 police constable was present throughout postmortem. After post-mortem, he recovered M.Os.10 to 13 from the body of the deceased and handed over the same at the police station and the dead body to the relatives. P.W.12 police constable was present throughout postmortem. After post-mortem, he recovered M.Os.10 to 13 from the body of the deceased and handed over the same at the police station and the dead body to the relatives. 10. On 23.1.1989, the Investigating officer went to the scene of occurrence at 7 a.m., and in the presence of P.W.5 observed the same. He prepared the observation mahazar and the plan. At 9 a.m., he recovered M.Os.1 and 6 under Ex.P-4 from the scene of occurrence attested by witnesses; at 9.30 a.m. he recovered M.O.7 from that place; at 10.15 a.m., M.Os.8 and 9 were recovered under Ex.P-6 attested by witnesses. He proceeded to the Government Hospital at Madurai and examined P. W. 12 and recorded his statement. He recovered M.Os.4 and 5 from him under Ex.P-9 attested by P. W.6 and another. He arrested the second accused at 6. p.m., on that day at the Government Hospital itself. He examined P.W. 19 and recorded his statement. The arrested accused was brought to the police station and sent for Judicial remand on 24.1.1989. 11. P.W.19 treated the first accused for injuries found on either side of his stomach and Ex.P-19 is the Accident Register and the injuries found on the first accused were simple in nature. He also examined the second accused and found an abrasion on his left palm and he injury was simple in nature. Ex.P-20 is the Accident Register for A-2. According to him, injuries found on A-1 and A-2 could have been self-inflicted. P. W.20 arrested the first accused at the Hospital in the presence of Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal and sent A-1 for judicial remand. He also registered the complaint given by the first accused under Ex.P-23 in Crime No.23 of 1989, Ex.P-24 is the printed First Information report for that crime. He investigated that complaint and filed a referred report on 31.8.1989 and Ex.P-25 is the referred report. Ex.P-26 is the report to the Court. He came to know that A-3 and A-4 had surrendered before judicial Magistrate No.IV, Trichy on 25.1.1989 and A-5 to A-9 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatti. He gave a requisition to the Court on 25.1.1989 to send the case properties for chemical analysis. 12. Ex.P-26 is the report to the Court. He came to know that A-3 and A-4 had surrendered before judicial Magistrate No.IV, Trichy on 25.1.1989 and A-5 to A-9 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatti. He gave a requisition to the Court on 25.1.1989 to send the case properties for chemical analysis. 12. P.W.16 was that Magisterial clerk and on receipt of the requisition from the Investigating Agency, he sent the case properties for chemical analysis as an enclosure to Court’s letter Ex.P-15. Exs.P-16 and P-17 are Chemical Examiner’s Report and Serologist’s Report. P.W.20 examined P.W.18 on 25.4.1989 and recorded his statement. He collected Exs.P-19 and P-20, the Accident Registers. He also examined the Magistrate who recorded the dying declaration and after completing investigation, filed the final report in Court against the accused on 31.8.1989 for the offences referred to earlier. 13. When the accused were questioned under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. on the basis of the incriminating materials made available against them, they denied their involvement generally. The first accused stated that on the date of occurrence at 6.30 a.m., he and A-2 went outside and at that time, they say P.W.2 and the deceased blocking the pathway belonging to the accused ancestrally with the use of irregular stones. He pushed the stones so arranged aside and at that time, P.W.2 stabbed on him on his chest with a knife and that deceased pelted stones and consequently, A-1 and A-2 sustained injuries. Thereafter, the accused, P.W.2 and the deceased were involved in a quarrel each pushing the other and trying to overpower and in that the deceased and P.W.2 fell down. Thereafter, A-1 and A-2 left for their house. From there, they went to the Government Hospital at Madurai and got admitted as in-patients. The Investigating officer, had taken his signature in two or three blank papers. A-1 has filed a written statement in which he has stated about the proceedings taken before the Civil Court. The other accused have not stated anything else in addition to what A-1 has stated in his written argument. On the side of the defence, two witnesses were examined as D.Ws.1 and 2. D.W.1 was the Judicial Magistrate of Madurai. A-1 has filed a written statement in which he has stated about the proceedings taken before the Civil Court. The other accused have not stated anything else in addition to what A-1 has stated in his written argument. On the side of the defence, two witnesses were examined as D.Ws.1 and 2. D.W.1 was the Judicial Magistrate of Madurai. On receipt of Ex.D-2, the intimation from the hospital to record at 1.15 p.m., on 22.1.1989, the dying declaration, he reached the Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai at 1.3S p.m., and ascertained whether P.W.2 was in a position to give a statement by examining the situation as well as by examining the Doctor. On being satisfied that P.W.2 has in a fit state of mind, he recorded his statement which he read it over to him. After that, he took P.W.2’s left thumb impression on it as well as the signature of the Doctor as an attestation to the same. Ex.D-3 is the statement of P.W.2 in which it is stated that at 7 a.m., when he was in the garden, all the accused were found removing the fence put up across the path and when he prevented that they threw sticks and stones at him. D.W.2 was the Doctor on duty at the Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai. He spent an intimation to the Court on 22.1.1989 to record the dying declaration of P.W.2 and D.W.1 recorded the dying declaration in his presence. He stated that P.W.2 was in a sound state of mind and he was in a position to give the statement. 14. Mr.R.Karthikeyan, learned Government counsel would contend that the learned Sessions Judge having found the accused guilty for the offence under Sec.325 read with 149, I.P.C. so far as the injuries on P.W.2 are concerned has erred in law and on facts in acquitting the accused of the offences including the graver offence under Sec.302 read with 149, I.P.C.. Even assuming without conceding that there may be discrepancies about the identify of the appellants who caused the injury on the head of the deceased, yet there being a charge under Sec.302 read with 149, I.P.C. against all the accused, there cannot be any difficulty in giving a conviction for the said offence as well as in as much as the finding is that the prosecution has established the presence of all the accused. Likewise the conviction of all the accused except A-7 for the offence under Sec.148, I.P.C. would also give enough legal basis to convict the accused for the offence under Sec.302 read with 149, I.P.C. To convict the accused for the said offence with the aid of Sec.149, I.P.C., the prosecution need not establish that any particular accused caused any particular injury and it is enough if the unlawful assembly of the accused is established besides a common object. Therefore, the learned Government counsel would contend that this Court by re-appreciating the entire evidence which the Court is entitled to do in the appeal against acquittal, would be in a position to interfere with the judgment under challenge and find the accused guilty for the appropriate offence and give appropriate punishment. Mr.V.Gopinath, the learned senior counsel appearing for the convicted appellants as well as the acquitted respondents in the appeal would contend that the learned Sessions Judge has doubted Ex.P-1. If that is accepted, which call for acceptance at the hands of this Court also, then it is clear that the actual occurrence has been suppressed by the prosecution. Learned senior counsel by taking us through the statement of A-1 found at page 63(A) of the typed set of papers would submit that there is a civil dispute relating to the use of the pathway; there is an injunction order in favour of the accused obtained by them in the suit filed by the prosecution witnesses against the accused; that injunction order was in force; in violation of that injunction, the prosecution witnesses were attempting to block the pathway and when the accused were in the process of removing that obstruction, it was the prosecution party who attacked the accused. Learned senior counsel would also contend that only in that process, the prosecution witnesses including the deceased would have sustained injuries when there was a free-for all quarrel. On the faces of this case, the learned senior counsel would submit that it cannot be stated with any amount of certainty that the accused had any common object in their mind either to cause hurt to the witnesses or to cause the death of the deceased. If that is so, them each of the accused should be found guilty for their individual act only. The evidence placed by the prosecution do not establish beyond doubt about the individual act of the accused. If that is so, them each of the accused should be found guilty for their individual act only. The evidence placed by the prosecution do not establish beyond doubt about the individual act of the accused. Therefore, even the conviction of the accused for the offence under Sec.325 read with 149, I.P.C. for having caused injury on P.W.2 is open to serious doubt as there is no legal material to support the same. In the same breadth, learned senior counsel would also contend that the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge for acquitting the accused of the graver offence including the minor offence are well supported by legal reasons. It is well settled that while hearing the appeal against acquittal, this Court would not normally interfere simply because on the same set of facts, more than on conclusion is possible. Thereafter, even assuming for a minute that this Court can arrive at a different conclusion on the same set of facts, yet this Court would seldom interfere with the judgment of acquittal. When the conclusion of the trial Court is also possible. Mr.O.R.Abdul Kalam, learned counsel appearing for the convicted accused in one of the appeals and for acquitted accused in the appeal against acquittal expressed his desire to adopt the arguments of the learned senior counsel as referred to earlier. 15. Having regard to the arguments advanced on either side, we carefully went through the records. Since the state is before this Court in the appeal against acquittal, we are of the considered opinion that our decision in the appeal against acquittal would hold the field in the appeal filed by the convicted accused as well. We are also fully conscious about the powers of this Court while hearing the appeal against acquittal as brought to our notice by the learned senior counsel and there cannot be two opinions about the same. Therefore, we applied our mind very carefully to find out whether the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge for acquitting the accused of the offence under Sec.302 read with 149, I.P.C.; 302, I.P.C.; 307, I.P.C.; 427 and 447, I.P.C. could be said to be grounds supported by legal principles or could it be said that the conclusion reached by the learned Sessions Judge is not possible at all and the only conclusion that can be arrived is the guilt of the accused. Having the broad principles as extracted above in our mind, we went into the materials. 16. Ex.P-23 is the complaint lodged by the first accused before the police. The accused in the complaint are P.Ws.1, 2 and the deceased in the case namely Thirumoorthy Ex.P-24 is the printed first information report for that crime. This came to be registered as could be seen from Ex.P-23 at 2 p.m., on 24.1.1989. Ex.P-1 is the complaint given by P.W.1 to the Sub Inspector of Police and Ex.P-12 is the printed first information report for that crime. It is see that the said complaint had come to be registered at 1 p.m., on 22.1.1989. Ex.D-3 is the dying declaration recorded around 1.35 p.m., on 22.1.1989 D.W.1, the Judicial Magistrate from P.W.2. Therefore, we have three sets of information before the Court and all the three information relate to only one occurrence namely the occurrence that had taken place around 6.30 a.m., to 7 a.m., on 22.1.1989. Therefore, we have no doubt in our mind that the occurrence had in fact taken place around that time on 22.1.1989. But the question is whether the occurrence had taken place as disclosed by Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-3 on the one hand, i.e., as put forward by the prosecution or could it have taken place in the manner spoken to by the accused. It is no doubt true that the accused had taken a stand that Ex.P-23 is not the complaint given as it is by the first accused and a question has been put to the Investigating Officer that he had taken the signature of the first accused in two or three blank papers in which Ex.P-23 had come to be recorded. But we are not impressed with this suggestion put forward on behalf of the first accused about the manner in which Ex.P-23 had come to be recorded. Admittedly, Ex.P-23 had come to be recorded when the first accused was in the hospital and we find that there are no materials at all to doubt about the manner and the time at which Ex.P-23 had come to be recorded. Still the question that looms large for decision is as to how and in what manner the occurrence could have taken place. Still the question that looms large for decision is as to how and in what manner the occurrence could have taken place. There is no dispute between the parties that in respect of the pathway, through which the accused have access to their lands situated a little away from the pathway, there is strained relationship between the parties. Ex.P-2 is the order in C.A.No.708 of 1988 in O.S.No.848 of 1988 filed before the District Munsif, Periyakulam by the deceased in this case against the daughter and daughter-in-law of the first accused. The property described in Ex.P-2 relates to the suit property and it shows that there was an ad-interim injunction in favour of the petitioner in that application till 22.12.1989. The written statement filed on behalf of the accused shows that the prosecution party besides the above suit had also filed two more suits namely, O.S.Nos.570 of 1988 and 190 of 1988 relating to the same property and between the same parties. The statement of the first accused also shows that in O.S.No.190 of 1988 filed by the deceased against the opposite party, The opposite party had filed I.A.No.443 of 1988 relating to the very same property and got an injunction in their favour. That injunction order came to be granted a few days prior to the date of occurrence. However, a perusal of that order do not show that the injunction order which was initially limited to a certain period was ordered to be continued even after the expiry of the initial period. But, however, it is seen that long after the occurrence date, that injunction order was continued to be in force by a specific order. Whatever it may be, there appears to be two rival claims, one put forward by the prosecution that they have the injunction order and the other put forward by the accused that they have the injunction order, both relating to the same property. A perusal of the records shows that in close proximity to the date of occurrence, there was an injunction order only in favour of the accused and not in favour of the prosecution party. 17. In the factual background of the above position, we analysed, as to how the occurrence could have taken place. A perusal of the records shows that in close proximity to the date of occurrence, there was an injunction order only in favour of the accused and not in favour of the prosecution party. 17. In the factual background of the above position, we analysed, as to how the occurrence could have taken place. The case of the prosecution as spoken by the witnesses is that the obstruction in the pathway (may be in the form of a fence or may be in the form of a wall made up to stones) was attempted to be removed by all the accused and when P.Ws.1, 2 and the deceased questioned the accused about that act, they were attacked. At this stage, we are not going into the overtact attributed to each of the accused as we will refer to the same, a little later. The case of the accused is that despite the order of injunction, P.W.2 and the deceased were attempting to put up obstruction in the free use of the pathway and when the accused questioned them, they were attacked. Therefore, it is clear that in the purported exercise of their respective rights to the pathway, the occurrence had taken place. Exs.P-1 and P-20 are the wound certificates for A-1 and A-2 and P.W.19 is the Doctor who treated A-1 and A-2 and issued the respective wound certificates as well. Therefore, it is certainly established that in the course of the transaction referred to above, A-1 and A-2 had sustained injuries. The positive case of the defence consistently throughout is that it was A-1 and A-2 who questioned P.W.2 and the deceased as to why they were obstructing the pathway despite there being an injunction order against them. 18. The prosecution have examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and 13 as eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Though P.W.13 was examined as an eye-witness in this case, his statement recorded under Sec.161, Crl.P.C. had reached the Court only on 16.10.1989 and it is spoken to by P.W.16, the Magistrial Clerk. P.W.16 would categorically state in his evidence that only the statement of those witnesses who had been examined during inquest reached the Court on 23.1.1989 along with the inquest report and the statement of all the other witnesses reached only on 16.10.1989. P.W.13 was not examined during inquest. His name do not find place in Ex.P-1 also as a witness to the occurrence. P.W.13 was not examined during inquest. His name do not find place in Ex.P-1 also as a witness to the occurrence. Therefore, we are not in a position to accept the evidence of P.W.13 as a safe piece of evidence to decide the case of the prosecution and accordingly, we eschew the evidence of P.W.13 from our consideration. 19. Then we went to the evidence of P.W.3 who also claims to be an eye-witness. Govindasamy is the father of P.W.3. In Ex.P-1 one R.Subramani has signed as a witness. P.W.3 was examined to show that he accompanied P.W.1 to the Government Hospital at Madurai along with injured P.W.2 and from there, except P.W.2, all went to the police station at Thandikudi where P.W.1 gave a complaint in which P.W.3 attested as a witness. But going by the father’s name of the person who attested Ex.P-1 and the father’s name of P.W.3 we find that there are two persons having the same name Subramani. P.W.3 in his evidence in cross-examination, would state that there is one other witness shown in the charge-sheet having the name R.Subramani. There is every possibility to hold that it is only the said R.Subramani cited as a witness in the charge-sheet who had attested Ex.P-1 as a witness and not P.W.3. This reason is a sound reason and in any event, a plausible, reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.3 as an eye-witness. It is more so because P.W.3 is a resident of the same village and he belongs to the same community of P.Ws.1, 2 and the deceased. Though, he might have been examined during inquest, we are of the considered opinion that in view of the discrepancy noticed by us earlier, it would not be safe to act upon his evidence. In fact, the learned Sessions Judge has also applied his mind to this aspect. According to him, the evidence of P.W.3 also goes out of consideration in deciding the guilt or otherwise of the accused and their complicity in this case. This leaves us with the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 alone. 20. To believe the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 we have to necessarily find out whether Ex.P-1 is true or not or whether it is a concocted version as suggested by the learned senior counsel appearing for the accused. Ex.P-18 is the wound certificate of P.W.1. This leaves us with the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 alone. 20. To believe the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 we have to necessarily find out whether Ex.P-1 is true or not or whether it is a concocted version as suggested by the learned senior counsel appearing for the accused. Ex.P-18 is the wound certificate of P.W.1. P.W.1 along with P.W.2 had gone to the Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai where she was treated. P.W.18 is the Doctor who treated P.W.1 at the Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai. We perused Ex.P-18. It shows that P.W.1 was seen by P.W.18 at 12.45 p.m., on 22.1.1989. However, this time as stated above was corrected as 10.45 p.m., The evidence of P.W.10, the Casualty Medical officer at Batlagundu is that he examined P.W.2 at 9 a.m., on that day and referred him to the Government Hospital at Madurai. P.W.8 is the ambulance driver who had transported P.W.2 in the company of P.W.1 to the Government Hospital at Madurai. His evidence shows that all the injured reached the Government Hospital at Madurai at 10.30 a.m., on 22.1.1989. Going by the evidence of P.Ws.10 and 8, we cannot have any doubt in our mind that if at all P.Ws.1 and 2 would have been seen by the Doctor at Madurai, they would have been seen only during the day time and definitely not during the night time on 22.1.1989. P.W.18 would assert in his evidence that Ex.P-18 contains the correction relating to the time at which P.W.1 was seen and he is not the author of those corrections. If Ex.P-18 is read with out the correction relating to the time, it is clear to us that P.W.1 was seen by P.W.18 only at 12.45 p.m., on 22.1.1989 and she could not have been seen at 10.45 p.m., on that day in any event. The person who had made the correction from 12.45 p.m., to 10.45 p.m., failed to carry out the corresponding correction to show that it was forenoon, namely 10.45 p.m., while the correction is made from 12.45 p.m., to 10.45 p.m., the correction from p.m., to a.m., has not been made, P.W.20 in his evidence would state that Madurai is at a distance of 50 kms from Batlagundu and Batlagundu is at a distance of 35 kms from Thandikudi police station. Out of this 35 kms Sector, 25 kms Sector is Ghat Section. In other words, the distance from Madurai to Thandikudi is around 85 kms out of which the last 25 kms or so is in Ghat Section. P.W.1 nowhere says that from the Government Hospital at Madurai, she went in a taxi to Thandikudi police station. If that is so, it is humanly impossible for P.W.1 to reach Thandikudi police station at 1. p.m., on 22.1.89 leaving the hospital at Madurai any time after 12.45 p.m., on that day. When that is the position, we have our own doubt, as contended by the learned senior counsel and as also observed by the learned trial Judge Himself that Ex.P-1 could not have come into existence at 1 p.m. as alleged by the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge himself has accepted the defence case that there is every possibility for false implication. Therefore, we have the least doubt in our mind that Ex.P-1 could not have come into existence at the time and in the manner alleged. 21. Ex.P-1 had reached the Court only at 9 p.m., on 22.1.1989. The inquest was admittedly over between 3.45 p.m., and 6.45 p.m. on 22.1.1989. In other words, Ex.P-1 had reached the Court only after the inquest was over. We have also noticed that the relationship between the accused on the one hand and the prosecution party on the other hand is very much strained and they have been fighting over a property right for well over sometime. The parties were not only before the police in respect of the transaction, but they were also before the Civil Court in respect of the same cause of action. The defence has shown that in in close proximity to the date of occurrence, they had obtained an order of injunction against the prosecution party. Therefore, it is not possible to totally rule out the possibility of the prosecution party coming out with an exaggerated and distorted version about the occurrence itself. Probably only having this in mind the learned Sessions Judge himself has found that there is every possibility for false implication in this case. In the context of the above, we perused Ex.D-3. Ex.D-3 though styled as dying declaration, cannot be used as a dying declaration since the author of the same had survived the attack. Probably only having this in mind the learned Sessions Judge himself has found that there is every possibility for false implication in this case. In the context of the above, we perused Ex.D-3. Ex.D-3 though styled as dying declaration, cannot be used as a dying declaration since the author of the same had survived the attack. It is not a statement to the police as well. But, however, that being an earlier statement of a witness, it can be used only for the purpose of contradicting that witness, namely P.W.2 when he gave evidence to Court. We have also noticed that Ex.D-3 had come to the recorded at 1.15 p.m., on 22.1.1989. We have also expressed our doubt that Ex.P-1 could not have come into existence at 1 p.m., on 22.1.1989. We perused Ex.D-3 and it is extracted in the judgment under challenge itself. We find from Ex.D-3 that the presence of A-7 and P.W.1 has not been mentioned at all. Relying upon this alone about the omission to mention the presence of A-7 in Ex.D-3, the learned Sessions Judge was inclined to give the benefit of the same to A-7 when he was acquitted. In Ex.D-3, it is stated that all the named accused therein threw sticks and stones at P.W.2 and A-1 and A-5 with an Aruval cut on his head. It is also found stated therein that the deceased in this case was attacked by A-2 to A-4 by throwing sticks and stones. 22. As against this, with reference to the injury on him, P.W.2 would site that A-5 cut on his head with the Aruval. He fell down unconscious. He has not stated in his evidence that A-1 caused any injury on him. Therefore we find that his evidence on a material aspect with reference to the involvement of A-1 vis-a-vis the injury found on him is totally inconsistent with his version as found in Ex.D-3. With reference to the attack on the deceased also, we find from Ex.D-3 that it was A-2 to A-4 who threw stick and stones at the deceased. But, however, in his oral evidence, he would stated that initially A-2 to A-4 were involved in a tussle for power with the deceased and at that time, A-1 attacked on the head of the deceased with a stick. M.O.1 is that stick. But, however, in his oral evidence, he would stated that initially A-2 to A-4 were involved in a tussle for power with the deceased and at that time, A-1 attacked on the head of the deceased with a stick. M.O.1 is that stick. This overtact attributed to A-1 in the evidence of P.W.2 is not found reflected in Ex.D-3. Though M.O.1 had been recovered, yet it had not been subjected to any chemical analysis to all which might give some clue about the use of the said weapon in the attack on the head of the deceased. Therefore, we find that Ex.D-3 definitely contradicts the oral evidence of P.W.2 on the two aspects, namely as to who caused the injury on the head of the deceased and as to who caused the injury on the head of P.W.2. We find from the wound certificate of P. W.2 that he has suffered only one injury on the scalp. Even the deceased has only one injury on the head. In Ex.D-3, we find that A-2 to A-4 are responsible for attacking the deceased by throwing sticks and stones while in the oral evidence of P.W.2, he points out that the first accused along was the person who caused injury on the head of the deceased. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion, that it is not possible to totally eliminate this inconsistency in the evidence of P.W.2 when compared to his earlier statement as found reflected in Ex.D-3. It is no doubt true that the oral evidence of P.W.2 as given by him in Court stands fully corroborated by the oral evidence of P. Ws.1 and 4 with reference to the overtacts attributed to the various accused in causing injuries on P.W.2 and the deceased. In view of the fact that the oral evidence of P.W.2 on that aspect is not free from doubt, on the same reasoning, we are also not inclined to accept the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 also on that aspect. 23. In the light of the above discussion, we addressed ourselves to the next question as to whether the accused could have had any common object at all as spoken to by the prosecution. 23. In the light of the above discussion, we addressed ourselves to the next question as to whether the accused could have had any common object at all as spoken to by the prosecution. As rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the convicted accused as well as for the acquitted accused that the accused were at the scene of occurrence in their own right to protect their right to use the pathway. They claim to be armed with an injunction order in their favour and against the prosecution party. Though we find from the records that the injunction order came to be passed in close proximity to the date of occurrence, yet we find that the said injunction order which came to be passed in close proximity to the date of occurrence was only for a limited period and that period expired very close to the date of occurrence itself. Records do not show that during the time of occurrence, the injunction order was extended and it came to be extended only long after that, But, however, we are in a position to visualise that the extension of the injunction order need not be necessarily done in the presence of the parties themselves and the Court is situated at Periyakulam. There are no materials to show that the accused were put on notice through any source that the injunction order which was initially granted for a limited period was not extended. Therefore, there may be every chance for the accused to be under the bona fide impression that the injunction which was initially granted could have been extended as well. If that is the position, then the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence cannot be said to be with any criminal intention of causing hurt to any of the prosecution witnesses. In other words, we agree with the learned senior counsel that the accused were present at the scene of occurrence to protect their right with reference to the use of their pathway. 24. The first accused has admitted the presence of himself and A-2 alone at the scene of occurrence. The learned Sessions Judge himself has found that there is bright scope for false implication. As false implication cannot be ruled out, equally, an exaggerated version cannot also be totally ruled out. 24. The first accused has admitted the presence of himself and A-2 alone at the scene of occurrence. The learned Sessions Judge himself has found that there is bright scope for false implication. As false implication cannot be ruled out, equally, an exaggerated version cannot also be totally ruled out. Viewing the entire incident in that angle, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not established satisfactorily the presence of the accused besides A-1 and A-2 at the scene of occurrence. This gets strengthened from the fact that A-1 and A-2 alone has sustained injuries and not any of the other accused. The evidence of P.W.9 the Doctor who did post-mortem on the body of the deceased shows that the fatal injury found on the occipital region of the head of the deceased is quite possible if the said person comes into contact with a certain amount of force with an irregular granite stone and falls down on a rough surface. The evidence let in by the prosecution itself would show that the prosecution witnesses and the accused were trying to over power each other while the former were trying to obstruct the passage by stacking stones, and the latter were attempting to prevent the obstruction from being completed. The presence of large stones at the scene of occurrence establishes this. Ex.P-18 is the wound certificate for P.W.1. It only shows a small cut injury in the web space between two fingers of her left palm. The nature of the injury is so trivial and it is also possible for P.W.1 to have suffered that injury only in the course of the transaction when P.W.2 and the deceased on the one hand and A-1 and A-2 on the other hand were trying to overpower each other. 25. In the light of the above discussions, we applied our mind to the reasons given by the learned Sessions judge for acquitting the accused of the offences referred to earlier. The learned Sessions Judge himself has adverted his mind as to whether P.W.3 could have signed Ex.P-1 as a witness. He has taken his evidence into account regarding his father’s name. The learned Sessions Judge has also found that it is possible that Ex.P-1 could have been given only after 4 p.m., on the date of occurrence. The learned Sessions Judge himself has adverted his mind as to whether P.W.3 could have signed Ex.P-1 as a witness. He has taken his evidence into account regarding his father’s name. The learned Sessions Judge has also found that it is possible that Ex.P-1 could have been given only after 4 p.m., on the date of occurrence. The learned Sessions Judge has accepted the defence that there was a dispute between the two groups regarding the property and there is every force in the argument of the counsel for the accused that there is possibility for false implication. However, the learned Sessions Judge, relying upon the averments contained in Ex.D-3 has found that the offence under Sec.148, I.P.C. is made out. The learned Sessions Judge failed to note that Ex.D-3 cannot be substantive evidence and it is only in the nature of the earlier statement of P.W.2. The learned Sessions Judge any other he has not found acceptable material on record to show that all the accused as mentioned in Ex.D-3 were with Aruvals and other weapons. Therefore, the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the accused are guilty of the offence under Sec.148, I.P.C. is not based on any legal material. The learned Sessions Judge himself found that the injunction order passed in favour of the accused was in force till 25.10.1988 and it was extended only with effect from 18.11.1999. The finding of the learned Sessions Judge is that the occurrence had taken place in the background of the quarrel regarding the fence found on the pathway. 26. Regarding the recovery of M.O.1, the learned Sessions Judge accepted the defence case that the recovery could not have taken place in the manner spoken to by the prosecution. According to the prosecution witnesses, M.O.1 was dropped at the scene of occurrence itself and the accused ran away. However, M.O.1, is shown to have been recovered from different place and the weapon of offence, namely Aruval has not been recovered at all. Normally, the failure to recover the weapon by itself would not effect the case of the prosecution. But on the totality of the circumstances available in this case and as notice above, the failure to recover the Aruval is an additional factor which went into the mind of the learned Sessions Judge while acquitting the accused of the graver offence. Normally, the failure to recover the weapon by itself would not effect the case of the prosecution. But on the totality of the circumstances available in this case and as notice above, the failure to recover the Aruval is an additional factor which went into the mind of the learned Sessions Judge while acquitting the accused of the graver offence. It is also true that every injury found on the accused need not be explained but the fact remains that the injuries found on A-1 and A-2 have not been explained, at all in this cases. These injuries are no doubt, simple in nature. But, however, the prosecution witnesses have not given any explanation at all about the injuries found on A-1 and A-2. This failure coupled with other infirmities noticed above earlier would be a ground that can be taken into account in favour of the accused. The learned Sessions Judge has found that at every stage, P.W.2, has improved his evidence with reference to the overtact that has been attributed to various accused. The learned Sessions Judge himself has found that P.W.2 was trying to improve his evidence at every stage and his oral evidence does not get support from the oral evidence of P.Ws.4 and 13. The learned Sessions Judge has also found that the oral evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 13 are opposed to each other regarding the manner in which P.W.2 could have sustained the injuries. The learned Sessions Judge also doubted the very presence of P.W.1 at the scene of occurrence and in fact, he has rejected the evidence of P.W.1. On the materials noticed above, the learned Sessions Judge, also found that the prosecution has not established that it was A-1 who attacked the deceased on his head. Likewise, the learned Sessions judge has also found that the prosecution has not proved the offence under Sec.307, I.P.C. against A-5 for having caused injury on P.W.2. Though the learned Sessions Judge has found that the presence of accused 1 to 8 stands established by the oral evidence of P.Ws.2, 4 and 13, we have already held that the evidence of P.W.13 cannot be relied upon at all and the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4 are not safe to be acted upon. Though the learned Sessions Judge has found that the presence of accused 1 to 8 stands established by the oral evidence of P.Ws.2, 4 and 13, we have already held that the evidence of P.W.13 cannot be relied upon at all and the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4 are not safe to be acted upon. The learned Sessions Judge has himself found that the accused had no common object to cause the death of anyone to start with. In other words, as seen from the records, the aim of the accused was only to prevent the prosecution party from obstructing the pathway and nothing more than that. There is no material to show that the accused arrived at the scene already armed. The learned sessions Judge himself has found that the prosecution party and the accused have suffered injuries only in a commotion that had taken place at the time. In view of the finding by the learned Sessions Judge that the accused had no common object at all, it is needless to state that each of the accused can be found guilty only for their individual acts. The learned Sessions Judge has; also found that the prosecution has not established that it was A-1 who caused the fatal injury on the deceased. We have already found that the evidence of P.W.2 is inconsistent with D-3 as to the persons who caused injuries on him. If that is so, none of the accused can be found guilty even for their individual acts since the same has not been established by any acceptable legal evidence. 27. Therefore, the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge for acquitting the accused of the offences referred to earlier cannot be said to be totally erroneous and they can still be supported by some reasons. We sum up our conclusion by stating that the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the accused of all the offences referred to earlier on reasons which are supported by materials on records. The conviction of the accused for the offence falling under Sec.325 read with 149, I.P.C. and the offence under Sec.148, I.P.C. is not supported by any legal evidence. Therefore, the conviction of the accused in respect of these offences should also fall to the ground. 28. Consequently, we find no merits in the appeal C.A.No.329 of 1992 filed by the State and it is dismissed. Therefore, the conviction of the accused in respect of these offences should also fall to the ground. 28. Consequently, we find no merits in the appeal C.A.No.329 of 1992 filed by the State and it is dismissed. We find that the appellants in C.A.No.718of 1991 and 724 of 1991 have definitely made out a case for interfering with the judgment under challenge in each of these appeals, so far as if it is against them. Accordingly, the convicted accused in C.A.Nos.718 of 1991 and 724 of 1991 are acquitted of all the offences for which they were found guilty. The fine amount, if any, paid by them is directed to be refunded. The bail bonds, if any, executed by them will stand terminated forthwith.