M. Karagavinayagam, J.: The appellants (A-1 to A-3) were convicted for the offences under Secs. 341, 302 and 302 read with 34, I.P.C. for having murdered the deceased 1 to 3. Challenging the same, they have preferred this appeal. 2. The facts in brief are as follows: "(a) The first appellant and the second appellant are brothers and the third appellant is the cousin brother of first and second appellants. On 22.3.1997, one Ramasamy Konar, father of the appellants 1 and 2 was murdered by Eliyan alias Mariappan and Vetrivel, deceased 1 and 2 respectively. With regard to the murder of Ramasamy Konar, a case was registered under Sec. 302, I.P.C. against them and they were arrested and subsequently, they came out on conditional bail and they were reporting to the Srivilliputhur Court. (b) On 30.7.1997, when all the three deceased viz., D-1-Eliyan, D-2-Vetrivel and their relative Kilikittan-D-3 were travelling in a TVS moped in Alangulam Road at bout 1.30 p.m., all the appellants (A-1 to A-3) intercepted them. The first appellant Paulraj (A-1) with a stick made all the deceased to fall on the ground, who were travelling in the moped. The second appellant Selvaraj (A-2) attacked the second deceased Vetrivel and the third appellant Mariappan (A-3) attacked Eliyan, the first deceased. On noticing that, the third deceased Kilikittan tried to escape from the scene. The first appellant Paulraj chased him to a distance of 100 feet and attacked him with aruval. All the three persons died at the spot. All the accused ran away from the scene. This was witnessed by P.W. 2 Rackappan who is the brother of the third deceased. (c) On receipt of the information from the Village Assistant that there were three dead bodies near Alangulam Road, P.W. 1 V.A.O. of Alangulam came to the scene and enquired the persons gathered there and found out the identity of all the three deceased. (d) Thereafter, P.W. 1 went to the police station and gave a report Ex.P-1 to P.W. 10 Sub-Inspector of Police. P.W. 10 after registering the case for offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C. sent intimation to the Inspector of Police, P.W. 11. On receipt of the information P.W. 11 came to the spot and conducted inquest on the three dead bodies from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. The inquest reports are Exs.P-23, P-24 and P-25 respectively. P.W. 10 after registering the case for offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C. sent intimation to the Inspector of Police, P.W. 11. On receipt of the information P.W. 11 came to the spot and conducted inquest on the three dead bodies from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. The inquest reports are Exs.P-23, P-24 and P-25 respectively. Thereafter, he sent requisitions Exs.P-10, P-14 and P-26 requesting for postmortem. (e) P.W. 7-Doctor and P.W.8 - Doctor and one Chitra Devi conducted post-mortem on the dead bodies and issued post-mortem certificates Exs.P-11, P-12 and P-15 respectively. (f) In the meantime, P.W. 11, the Inspector of Police prepared Observation Mahazar and recovered sample earth and blood stained earth from the spot. On 2.8.1997, P.W. 11 Inspector of Police arrested all the three accused and in pursuance of their confession, M.Os. 8, 10, and 12 aruvals were recovered from them along with blood stained clothes. He continued further investigation and examined other witnesses. After finishing the investigation, he filed the charge-sheet against all the accused for the offences referred to above." 3. During the course of trial, P.W. 1 to P.W. 11 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-26 were filed, M.O. 1 to M.O. 21 were marked. When the accused were questioned under Sec. 313, Crl.P.C., they simply denied their complicity in the crime. 4. The trial Court on appreciation of the evidence available on record found all the accused guilty for offences under Secs. 341, 302 and 302 read with 34, I.P.C. and thereby convicted and sentenced them thereunder. 5. Assailing the said judgment of conviction and sentence, Mr.R. Raghupathy, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the evidence of P.W. 2, the eye-witness is completely contradictory to the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 11, Inspector of Police and as such, the evidence of P.W. 2 cannot be considered to be reliable. The documentary evidence produced by the prosecution through P.W. 1 and P.W. 11 would make it clear that P.W. 2, the eye-witness could not have been present at the time of occurrence. P.W. 11, the Inspector of Police would admit that till the inquest report was prepared, he was not able to find out the identify of the culprits, who committed the murder. P.W. 11, the Inspector of Police would admit that till the inquest report was prepared, he was not able to find out the identify of the culprits, who committed the murder. It is further contended that according to the prosecution, the motive is that the deceased 1 and 2 had murdered the father of the appellants 1 and 2, but only due to that motive a false case has been foisted against the appellants and therefore, the accused are liable to be acquitted. 6. In reply to the above submissions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the evidence of P.W. 2, eye-witness, who was examined during the course of inquest, can be relied upon and if his evidence is reliable, the conviction on the appellants is legal. 7. We have assessed the inherent merits of the respective contentions urged by the counsel for. the parties and gone through the records. 8. As correctly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, if P.W. 2, the sole eye-witness is believed, then the prosecution case can be accepted to be true On the other hand, if there are infirmities so as to entertain any doubt with regard to the presence and participation of the accused in the occurrence, then there is no difficulty in holding that the benefit of doubt shall be given to all the accused. 9. Keeping the same in our mind, if we look at the evidence on record, we are unable to hold that P.W. 2 is a reliable witness. Totality of the circumstances, as noticed in this case, Would make it obvious that P.W. 2 could not have been present at the time of the occurrence. 10. According to P.W. 1 V.A.O, on receipt of the information from the Village Assistant that three dead bodies were lying down in the Alangulam Road, he came to the spot. At that time, 10 persons were found near the dead bodies. P.W. 1 would state that they were not able to state anything about the reason for the death of the deceased. In fact, he was not able to get the particulars of the identity of the deceased as well. Only later, P.W. 1 was able to know the names of the deceased on enquiring another V.A.O. of a different village and then sent a report Ex.P-1 to P.W. 10 Sub-Inspector of Police regarding the death of the three deceased. In fact, he was not able to get the particulars of the identity of the deceased as well. Only later, P.W. 1 was able to know the names of the deceased on enquiring another V.A.O. of a different village and then sent a report Ex.P-1 to P.W. 10 Sub-Inspector of Police regarding the death of the three deceased. In the report, he did not mention about the accused. Ex.P-1, the complaint given by P.W. 1 was received by P.W. 10 at about 3 p.m. Thus, it is clear that till 3 p.m., P.W. 1 was not able to collect information regarding the identity of the culprits involved in the murder of the deceased. 11. According to P.W. 11 Inspector of Police, on receipt of the information from P.W. 10, he came to the spot at 4 ‘O’ clock and conducted inquest on the bodies of the deceased from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. It has been specifically admitted by P.W. 11 Inspector of Police that only during the course of inquest, P.W. 2 came to the spot and gave the statement stating that the deceased was attacked by the three accused, the appellants. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants has pointed out that P.W. 11’s evidence is contradictory to the evidence of P.W. 2. It has been stated by P.W. 2 during the chief-examination as well as cross-examination that after the occurrence was over, he was staying at the scene throughout and as soon as V.A.O. P.W. 1 came to the spot, he narrated to him the details of the occurrence and also the particulars of the names of the accused. He would further state that by the time when he narrated such a statement to P.W. 1 V.A.O., P.W. 11-Inspector of Police also came to the spot and obtained a statement from him, which was reduced into writing and P.W. 2, then signed in that statement. 13. Virtually, this statement of P.W. 2 has not been supported by P.W. 1 and P.W. 11. On the other hand, P.W. 1 did not refer to the presence of P.W. 2 at the scene at all. P.W. 11 would state in the cross examination that P.W. 2 came to the spot only during the course of inquest and not before. Virtually, this statement of P.W. 2 has not been supported by P.W. 1 and P.W. 11. On the other hand, P.W. 1 did not refer to the presence of P.W. 2 at the scene at all. P.W. 11 would state in the cross examination that P.W. 2 came to the spot only during the course of inquest and not before. This would make it clear that the statement of P.W. 2 that he was at the spot throughout from 1.30 p.m. till the arrival of P.W. 1 and P.W. 11 cannot be accepted to be true. 14. Yet another suspicious feature which can be noticed is this. According to P.W. 11, he sent the requisitions for post-mortem after the inquest was over. The requisitions sent for post-mortem by P.W. 11 are Exs.P-10, P-13 and P-16. On going through the cross-examination, it is clear that these requisitions were sent only after the inquest was over. But strangely, in the requisition reports accompanied with the history of the case, he did not mention anything about the particulars of the identify of the accused. If actually inquest reports have been prepared at the relevant point of time, that is, between 4.p.m. and 8 p.m. in which P.W. 2 was said to have been examined, there is no difficulty for P.W. 11 to mention the identify of the accused in the history of the case. That apart, though the inquest reports were said to have been prepared from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. on 30.7.1997, the said inquest reports have been sent to the Court only on 2.8.1997. Hence, we are of the view that the inquest reports must have been prepared and the statements must have been obtained from P.W. 2 and other witness not on 30.7.1997, but on later date prior to 2.8.1997. 15. In the above circumstances, we are not able to believe the evidence of P.W. 2, who would not have been present at the time of occurrence. Had he been present at the scene, either he would have gone to the police station to give a complaint or he would have narrated these things to P.W. 1, who came to the spot at 3 p.m. In that event, P.W. 1 or P.W. 11 would have obtained statement at the spot itself. Had he been present at the scene, either he would have gone to the police station to give a complaint or he would have narrated these things to P.W. 1, who came to the spot at 3 p.m. In that event, P.W. 1 or P.W. 11 would have obtained statement at the spot itself. But the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 11 would not refer to the presence of P.W. 2 at the scene during the relevant point of time. This aspect of the evidence cannot be brushed aside, since their evidence is supported by contemporaneous records. 16. On going through the entire records, it is noticed that, since the father of the appellants 1 and 2 were said to have been murdered by the deceased 1 and 2 four months prior to the date of occurrence, this case has been filed against the accused only on suspicion on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 2, who had been subsequently procured during the course of investigation. The evidence of P.W. 3, who stated that he saw the accused coming from the scene of occurrence with blood stained clothes and going away and then he came to spot and on seeing the dead bodies at the scene he wept by sitting near the same, cannot also be accepted, since he did not choose to state anything at the spot to V.A.O.-P.W. 1, who stated that nobody was able to give the details of the occurrence or the culprits. 17. The only remaining piece of evidence is the recovery of weapons. Recovery of weapons alone would not be sufficient to hold that the accuses are guilty for the offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C. 18. For the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants (A-1 to A-3) and consequently they are acquitted of all the charges. The appellants (A-1 to A-3) are directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless they are required in any other case.