Judgment :- P. SHANMUGAM, J The accused is the appellant. The appeal is against the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence for life. 2. The facts of the case as per the prosecution are as follows : One Kaliappa Gounder and Subramania Gounder are brothers and sons of Sankarappa Gounder. They are residents of Somanathapuram Village, Pollachi Taluk. Sankarappa Gounder had four daughters, one of them being Rukmani, whose son is Mahesh @ Maheshkumar, the accused/appellant in this appeal. All the three male members of the family have partitioned their joint family property in the year 1961 under Ex.P.2. Thereafter, an extent of 5-1/2 acres of lands which fell to the share of the father namely Sankarappa Gounder was leased out to P.W.2 namely Subramania Gounder. Rukmani, the daughter of Sankarappa Gounder, after marriage, came away from her husband and was living with her father along with her three children for the past twenty years. Sankarappa Gounder, later on obtained a release of the lease from P.W.2 and from then on, there was a dispute between Rukmani and P.W.2 in reference to the land. Rukmani filed a suit O.S. No.735 of 1989 against P.W.2 for a permanent injunction, which was dismissed as per Ex.P.4 dated 2.3.1992. Her appeal A.S. No.24 of 1992 before the Sub-court was also dismissed as per Ex.P.6 dated 11.12.1992. Thereafter, on 31.12.1992, Sankarappa Gounder executed a sale deed, Ex.P.7 in favour of the son-in-law of Rukmani namely Sakthi Ganapathy. During this period of civil litigation, there were criminal cases filed by Rukmani against P.W.2 in Crime No.128 of 1990, in which P.W.2 was acquitted as per Ex.P.31. Ex.P.8 series are complaints given by P.W.2 against Rukmani. Ex.P.9 series are statements made by both the parties stating that they will settle the matter before the civil court. 3. On 21.3.1993 at 8.15 am, while the son-in-law of P.W.2, Thirugnanasambandamurthy @ Murthy was returning from his field through Somanathapuram Mudhiyamadai Road, the accused came behind from a bush, armed with a billhook, cut at the head, neck, leg and hand, one after another of Thirugnanasambandamurthy. At that time, P.W.1, who was coming 50 feet behind Thirugnanasambandamurthy and P.W.2, who was coming 100 feet in front of Thirugnanasambandamurthy, saw the occurrence. On their shouting, the accused ran away along with the billhook. At that time, P.W.1, who was coming 50 feet behind Thirugnanasambandamurthy and P.W.2, who was coming 100 feet in front of Thirugnanasambandamurthy, saw the occurrence. On their shouting, the accused ran away along with the billhook. Finding Thirugnanasambandamurthy dead on the spot, P.W.1 went to the Anaimalai Police Station, which is six kilometers away and gave a complaint, Ex.P.1. The First Information Report was prepared on the basis of this complaint. Crime No.113 of 1993 was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code at 9 am on 21.3.1993. P.W.9, the Investigating Officer, after getting the information and collecting the F.I.R., Ex.P.23, went to the spot at 10.30 am on 21.3.1993 and commenced the investigation. He prepared Ex.P.10, observation magazar, sketch, Ex.P.27, conducted inquest on the dead body between 11.30 am to 1.30 pm, prepared a report, Ex.P.28 and sent the body for post-mortem examination. He also recovered the blood stained soil under Ex.P.11. The accused was arrested on 22.3.1993 and on the basis of his confession, Ex.P.12, M.O.3, the billhook was recovered in the presence of witnesses under magazar, Ex.P.13. The Investigating Officer recovered, on the same day, the blood stained shirt and lungi under M.Os.6 and 7 before the attesting witnesses under Ex.P.14 magazar. 4. Ex.P.16 is the Post-Mortem Certificate. The injuries found on the dead body along with the doctor's opinion is extracted below :- "INJURIES : 1) A cut injury over the occipital bone 4" x 2" Bone depth with exposing the occipital bone and the skin come out separately. 2) Another cut injury below the wound No.(1), 1" below the Right ear lobe extending from the Right mandibula joint skin across the neck line and ends below the lower end of left ear lobe, cutting under lying muscles, arteries and 1st and 2nd vertebra and the spinal cord was completely cut off from the Head and separated 10" x 3" x 3". 3) Another cut injury 3" x «" x 3" - 3" below the wound No.2 over the Right side of the Back and neck cutting underlying muscles and arteries. 4) Another cut injury 1" away from the midline over the Right scapulla 2" x 1" x 1" cutting the underlying muscles. 5) Cut wound 1" x «" x «" over the left shoulder joint. 4) Another cut injury 1" away from the midline over the Right scapulla 2" x 1" x 1" cutting the underlying muscles. 5) Cut wound 1" x «" x «" over the left shoulder joint. 6) Cut injury 4" x 1" x 2" below the wound No.5 cutting the humuras bone upper head separately says about «" from the shoulder joint underlying muscles arteries of the left shoulder joint. 7) Cut injury over the back of the left Elbow joint cutting the lower end of homours bone 1" separately and the upper end of Radious bone «" separately cutting underlying muscles and arteries and the skin was hanging separately with the above said bone. Hyoid : bone intact, Stomach contain 3 ouv. Of coffee coloured fluid. Hands : No injury and clenched. Liver, spleen, kidneys all are pale. Heart : Both chambers empty. Intestines are normal. Bladder : Empty. No fracture of pelvic bones. Spinal Cord cut near the 1st and 2nd vertebral. P.M. Concluded at 4.45 P.M. Blood preserved in a blotting paper for chemical Analysis. Death would appear to have occurred 7 to 8 hours prior to Post mortem. Opinion as to cause of death : The deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage injury to vital organ spinal cord - brain and artery." 5. The following are the results of the chemical examination on the material objects seized, as set out in Ex.P.21 :- "----------------------------------------------------------- Item Description of Origin Group Remarks No. ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Earth Human ... Result of grouping test inconclusive 2. Shirt Human B .... 3. Lungi Human B .... 4. Jatty Human ... Result of grouping test inconclusive 5. Chappals Human ... Not sufficient grouping test 6. Billhook ... ... Disintegrated 7. Shirt Human ... Not sufficient grouping test 8. Lungi Human ... Result of grouping test inconclusive -----------------------------------------------------------" 6. The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence, documents and the material objects, found that the accused is guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. and awarded life imprisonment. The present appeal is against this judgment. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. K.S. Ramachandran would submit the following in support of his plea for an acquittal : (1) In the light of the admitted enmity, the highly interested testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 without corroboration should not be accepted to be true. The present appeal is against this judgment. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. K.S. Ramachandran would submit the following in support of his plea for an acquittal : (1) In the light of the admitted enmity, the highly interested testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 without corroboration should not be accepted to be true. (2) The dead body of the deceased had been shifted to a place 20 feet away from the scene of occurrence and this creates serious doubt on the prosecution case. There is no explanation as to who had removed the body to the place in which it was found as per the evidence and the sketch. (3) There is no human blood or grouping in the material objects and therefore, they should not be relied upon to link the accused with the murder. (4) When the inquest report along with the evidence of P.W.1 was received by the Magistrate on 23.3.1993 with a Tapal Receipt Number, there is no such Tapal Receipt Number for the receipt of Ex.P.1, complaint along with the F.I.R. (5) There are glaring contradictions and improbabilities in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while seeking to sustain the conviction, submitted that the F.I.R. was received within 45 minutes of the occurrence; it was sent by 11 am without any delay; there is clinching evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 along with the seized and recovered material objects in support of the prosecution and therefore, the judgment of the court below does not call for any interference. 9. We have heard the counsel for the appellant, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, gone through the records and considered the matter carefully. 10. Insofar as the motive alleged namely the land dispute by the prosecution, it is not only admitted by the appellant, but he goes a step further and says that there is enmity between his family and the family of P.Ws.1 and 2 for nearly 20 years. This fact of enmity cannot be disputed even though the parties are closely related. P.Ws.1 and 2 are brothers on the one hand and the mother of the accused namely Rukmani and her father Sankarappa Gounder is the group on the other hand, who are having serious dispute in reference to the property. This fact of enmity cannot be disputed even though the parties are closely related. P.Ws.1 and 2 are brothers on the one hand and the mother of the accused namely Rukmani and her father Sankarappa Gounder is the group on the other hand, who are having serious dispute in reference to the property. It is in evidence that originally, Sankarappa Gounder had leasted out an extent of 5-1/2 acres of land to P.W.2 and thereafter, he had obtained a registered release deed of the lease. However, P.W.2 continued to hold on the land, refusing to hand over possession and therefore, Rukmani, who was living with her father along with her three children, having come away from her husband for nearly 20 years, had filed the suit for a permanent injunction against P.W.2, her own brother. She lost in the District Munsif Court as well as the appellate court. However, within 20 days of the judgment, Sankarappa Gounder executed a sale deed in reference to 5-1/2 acres of land in favour of Rukmani's son-in-law, Sakthi Ganapathy. 11. Earlier, Rukmani had given a criminal complaint against P.W.2 under Crime No.128 of 1990 under Sections 325 and 326. However, P.W.2 was acquitted as per Ex.P.31 dated 25.4.1990. Thereafter, there were four complaints filed by P.W.2 against Rukmani and her son-in-law as per Ex.P.8 series within a short span of ten days. As per Ex.P.9 series, both the parties admitted that there were land disputes between them and as they were warned by the Inspector of Police, they had agreed that they will settle the matter in a civil court. In one of the letters, both P.Ws.1 and 2 have signed in a statement, wherein it is stated that in reference to a land, there were disputes between them and that since they had a discussion and as per the civil court judgment, P.Ws.1 and 2 themselves would raise cultivation and that no further proceedings were required. The said statement is extracted below :- In Ex.P.1, complaint given by P.W.1, he has stated as follows :- From the above evidence and documents, it is made out that there is serious enmity between P.Ws.1 and 2 on the one hand and the accused, his mother and her father Sankarappa Gounder on the other hand. 12. In this context, the judgment in STATE OF BIHAR VS. RAM PADARATH SINGH (1998 CRI. 12. In this context, the judgment in STATE OF BIHAR VS. RAM PADARATH SINGH (1998 CRI. L.J. 4007) can be usefully referred to. The Supreme Court, in that judgment, has held that no implicit faith could be placed on the testimonies of persons who are inimical. In that case, the High Court had rejected the evidence of three of the prosecution witnesses on the ground that they were partisan witnesses being inimical to the faction of the accused. The evidence of the two remaining eye-witnesses was discarded on the ground that their names were not mentioned in the F.I.R. The Supreme Court, while agreeing with the finding of the High Court, held that three of the prosecution witnesses were inimical with the accused and therefore, no implicit faith could be placed on their evidence. But, however, the Supreme Court held that it was not proper to reject the evidence of the two remaining eye-witnesses on the ground that their names were not mentioned in the F.I.R. as eye-witnesses. The ratio laid down in this judgment is that there should not be any implicit faith on the testimonies of witnesses who are inimical with the accused. In SUKHAR VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [2000 S.C.C. (CRI.) 419], while considering the question as to whether the testimonies of inimical witnesses can be accepted without corroboration, the Supreme Court held that the evidence of P.W.2 in that case who was admittedly inimically disposed towards the accused cannot be held to be of such unimpeachable character on whose testimony alone the conviction can be based without any corroboration. Their lordships observed as follows : "On the other hand, the witness being inimical to the accused and on account of what has been elicited in his cross-examination, his evidence requires corroboration before being accepted. Admittedly, there is no an iota of corroboration either from any oral evidence or from any other circumstances. In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the conviction based on the unreliable and shaky evidence of P.W.2 without corroboration cannot be sustained." In SHANKARLAL VS. Admittedly, there is no an iota of corroboration either from any oral evidence or from any other circumstances. In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the conviction based on the unreliable and shaky evidence of P.W.2 without corroboration cannot be sustained." In SHANKARLAL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [1996 (2) C.C.R. 164 (S.C.)], the Supreme Court held as follows : "It is a well settled proposition that evidence of the eye-witnesses who are said to be close relatives, cannot be discarded only to the ground that they are close relatives of the deceased. This court has time and again held that in such a situation all that is needed is that the Court must put itself on guard and the evidence of such eye-witnesses be appreciated with close scrutiny." In SHIVAJI SAHABRAO BOBADE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [1973 S.C.C. (CRI.) 1033], it was held by the Supreme Court that regarding reliability of the testimony of inimical witness, it may be said that it is tainted by bias and interestedness and so, his testimony must be warily evaluated. However, witnesses who are neutral, may well testify the truth and need not be condemned out of hand, provided in basic features, their deposition is direct, probable and otherwise corroborated. In the absence of such re-assuring factors, his evidence may have to be eschewed. Certainly, this somewhat interested witness must be subjected to serious corroboration in material particulars before his evidence can be acted upon. 13. Applying the above principles, we are having only two eye-witnesses in our case, both of them being brothers and the deceased is the son-in-law of one of them, namely P.W.2. The brothers have enmity with the family of the accused and therefore, their evidence requires close scrutiny and corroboration before it could be accepted. We find that there are material contradictions in their evidence. Both of them speak about the attack on the deceased by the accused. According to P.W.2, the moment the deceased was attacked once, he fell down and thereafter, the accused consecutively dealt with six to seven cuts on the deceased. He further says that once the deceased fell down, he could not get up. The occurrence, according to him, took place on the same road. According to P.W.2, the moment the deceased was attacked once, he fell down and thereafter, the accused consecutively dealt with six to seven cuts on the deceased. He further says that once the deceased fell down, he could not get up. The occurrence, according to him, took place on the same road. P.W.1 also says that when he went there, he saw the deceased lying in a pool of blood and that the place of the occurrence is the Ittery. Whereas, in Ex.P.1, complaint, it is stated that the deceased fell down near the fence of Chinna Gounder Garden and in the observation magazar, it is stated that after being attacked within the earthen road (kz; nuhL), the deceased attempted to run, in which process he fell down near the fence. As per Ex.P.27 magazar, there is no marking of the fence on either side of the earthen road. On the other hand, as found in the observation magazar, it is stated that on either side of the earthen road, which has got a width of 15 feet, there is a parallel road adjoining the earthen road to a width of 9 feet on the northern side of the road and 22 feet on the southern side of the road. There is no thick fence as stated in the observation magazar. In any event, if there is thick fence beyond the 22 feet from the edge of the earthen road, then the accused should have traveled 26 feet to reach the deceased in order to attack him. 14. Yet another important factor is that P.W.1 was admittedly coming behind the deceased, within a distance of 50 feet on the same road and P.W.2 was coming from the opposite direction, about 100 feet in front of the deceased. After the attack by the accused, the accused is said to have run towards the east, in which case, he would have definitely passed by P.W.2. In the evidence of P.W.2, he has stated that he has not made any attempt to get hold of the accused. P.W.2 says that he did not make any attempt to prevent the accused from running away. On the other hand, he has stated that since the accused was holding the billhook, he did not go near him. 15. In the evidence of P.W.2, he has stated that he has not made any attempt to get hold of the accused. P.W.2 says that he did not make any attempt to prevent the accused from running away. On the other hand, he has stated that since the accused was holding the billhook, he did not go near him. 15. One more aspect of the case is that if at all the accused had any grievance, it must be only against P.W.2 and P.W.1 and not against the deceased, who is the son-in-law of P.W.2. When his arch rival P.W.2 was coming from the opposite direction, there is no acceptable explanation as to why the accused had chosen to attack the son-in-law of P.W.2 in the gaze of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Though an attempt has been made on the side of the prosecution that the deceased had helped P.W.2 in getting the registered copy of the sale deed executed by Sankarappa Gounder, the father of P.W.2 in favour of the son-in-law of Rukmani, we do not find it a sufficient enough reason or motive on the part of the accused to commit the murder of the deceased. 16. The recovery of M.O.3 from a place 14 kilometers away from the place of occurrence, as per the evidence of P.W.4, the Village Administrative Officer, is difficult to believe. It is crucial here to mention that in the cross-examination, he has admitted that the billhook was lying on the fence, "ntypapy; me;j mUths; fple;jJ". As rightly pointed out, the fact that the billhook was found lying in a public place like the fence would show that there was no effort on the part of the accused to hide the weapon. The said place was accessible to public and it cannot be related to the weapon used in the crime. It is pertinent to mention here that the report of the chemical examination has clearly found no evidence of blood on the weapon. The remark is 'disintegrated'. Similarly, on the shirt said to have been worn by the accused at the time of the occurrence, the result of the grouping test was 'inconclusive'. In this context, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court inKANSA BEHERA VS. The remark is 'disintegrated'. Similarly, on the shirt said to have been worn by the accused at the time of the occurrence, the result of the grouping test was 'inconclusive'. In this context, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court inKANSA BEHERA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [1987 S.C.C. (CRI.) 601], wherein in a recovery under Section 27, the shirt and dhoti were found to have been stained with human blood and it was held therein that if there is no mention of the blood group in the serologist report, those clothes cannot be connected with the deceased. In the light of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the grievous injury suffered by the deceased and the deceased having been found lying in a pool of blood, the serologist report having found that the blood stains on the shirt, lungi, jatty, chappal namely M.Os.1, 2, 8 and 9 respectively, recovered from the dead body of the deceased are not sufficient, and the result of the grouping test being inconclusive, it would only show that there is no evidence in the report about the group of the blood and therefore, it could not positively be connected with that of the accused. 17. The above infirmities coupled with the failure to note the Tapal Receipt Number for the receipt of Exs.P.1 and P.23, the complaint and the printed F.I.R. respectively, by the Magistrate, while the inquest report having contained the same, there is a doubt as to the time of the receipt of Exs.P.1 and P.23. Yet another aspect is that along with the inquest report, the statement of P.W.2 has not been enclosed. In these circumstances, we find much force in the submission of the counsel for the appellant that two inferences could be drawn. Firstly, the place of occurrence and the place where the body was found is not definite and therefore, a serious doubt has been created as to the testimony of the eye-witnesses; secondly, the failure to send the statement of P.W.2 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. along with the inquest report on the third day to the court also raises a serious doubt on the veracity of the investigation and the prosecution evidence. 18. 18. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are inimically disposed towards the accused and who are close relatives of the deceased, is not reliable in the light of the serious infirmities and contradictions found and in the absence of corroboration of their evidence. It is highly doubtful whether they have actually witnessed the occurrence. Therefore, it is not safe to accept the testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 2 alone in order to find the accused guilty of the offence. 19. For all these reasons, we have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned Sessions Judge has not considered these vital contradictions and deficiencies in the prosecution case. Hence, the judgment of the Sessions Court is hereby set aside and the appeal is accordingly allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. The bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant shall stand canceled and the appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith.