Mrs.Prabha Sridevan, J.: The appellants are the accused 2 and 3 who have been convicted with life imprisonment for offence under Sec.302 read with Sec. 34, I.P.C. for causing the death of one Balakrishnan on 6.7.1991 at 9.45 p.m. 2. The prosecution’s case is as follows: (a) P.W.1 Saroja is the wife of the deceased. They have 2 children. They were residents of Sundararajapuram. A-3 is the elder brother of the deceased. A-1 is the junior paternal uncle of the deceased. A-2 is A-1’s son. The deceased had another brother who is P.W.2, and two sisters also. (b) The family of the deceased owned a house. This was sold by the deceased and the other co-sharers for a consideration of Rs.30,000 to A-3. The deceased gave his sisters Rs. 10,000 totally as their share and the balance of Rs.20,000 was shared by the deceased and the other brothers. There were frequent quarrels between the deceased and A-3 because according to the deceased, A-3 had knocked off the property for a very low price. (c) P.W.2 had created an “othi” of his share of the to his sister Sitalakshmi and moved to another village. Just before the date of occurrence, he had come to Sundararajapuram where P.W.1 and the deceased resided. P.W.2 was negotiating the sale of his share of the to A-1. A-1’s wife Ponmadathi told P.W.2 that she also intended to purchase the share of the deceased in the (d) In the morning of the date of occurrence, i.e., on 6.7.1991, there was a quarrel between the deceased and A-1’s wife. In the evening, the deceased decided to go to his sister Sitalakshmi’s house to return the cycle belonging to her and thereafter to go over to A-1’s house in order to pacify him. When the deceased and P.W.I went to Sitalakshmi’s house, P.W.2 was also there. The deceased informed P.W.2 of the dispute with Ponmadathi. At that time, P.W.2 told the deceased that it is better to settle the matter peacefully. This was around 9.45 p.m. Then they went to the house of A-1; A-1 to A-3 were there. A-1 spoke in anger to the deceased and P.W.1. At that time, A-3 said that the deceased is constantly creating problems. Thereafter, a wordy quarrel ensued between A-1 and the deceased. P.W.2’s attempts to pacify failed. (e) A-1 took the stick M.O.1 and hit the deceased on the face. A-1 spoke in anger to the deceased and P.W.1. At that time, A-3 said that the deceased is constantly creating problems. Thereafter, a wordy quarrel ensued between A-1 and the deceased. P.W.2’s attempts to pacify failed. (e) A-1 took the stick M.O.1 and hit the deceased on the face. The deceased defended himself with his hand. Then A-2 and A-3 went to their houses and brought out M.O.2 dagger and M.O.3 spear respectively. Frightened by this, the deceased ran towards the west. All the three accused pursued him and blocked his way. A-2 took out the dagger and stabbed the deceased in the chest and near the side causing bleeding injuries. Then, A-3 took out the spear and stabbed the deceased on the left side of the abdomen; the intestines came out. The deceased holding it, fell down. Again, when A-2 attempted to stab the deceased, the deceased snatched the dagger with his hands. A-2 pulled out the dagger and chopped the deceased below his right knee and stabbed him again and again near his waist. (f) P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 pleaded with them not to kill the deceased. The accused ran away with the weapons. At that time, the street lamp was burning. (g) When P.W.1 went near her husband/deceased, she found him dead. She went to Sethur police station and gave Ex.P-1 complaint. At that time, it was about 10.30 p.m. (h) The police enquired P.W. 1 at the place of occurrence. P.W.8, the Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of Ex.P-1, registered Crime No.507/ 91 under Sec. 302,I.P.C. Ex.P-14 is the copy of the express F.I.R. which he forwarded to the Court and the highest authorities. On receipt of information, P.W.9, the Inspector went to the scene of occurrence at 12 p.m., and in the presence of P.W.5, the Thalayari, prepared Ex.P-2, the observation mahazar and Ex.P-15, the rough sketch map which were signed by P.W.5. (i) On 7.7.1991, at 00/45 a.m., P.W.9 seized the blood stained earth M.0.6 and the sample earth M.O.5 under Ex.P-3 mahazar in the presence of P.W.5 and other witnesses. Between 1.15 a.m. and 3.30 a.m., P.W.9 conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared inquest report Ex.P-16. He forwarded the dead body along with Ex.P-8 requisition for post-mortem to the Government Hospital, Rajapalayam. Between 1.15 a.m. and 3.30 a.m., P.W.9 conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared inquest report Ex.P-16. He forwarded the dead body along with Ex.P-8 requisition for post-mortem to the Government Hospital, Rajapalayam. (j) P.W.6 doctor, on receipt of Ex.P-8 conducted the post-mortem on 7.7.1991 at about 10.30 a.m. Ex.P-9 is the post-mortem certificate. The injuries are as follows: External Injuries: 1. An Eliptical stab wound close to left border of sternum. Vertically placed at the level of 3rd rib. Size: 2 x 1.5cm x deep fasia. 2. An eliptical stab wound 2 cm left of injury No. 1 situated obliquely extending from the upper border of 3rd rib to upper border of the 5th rib. The lower margin of the wound is 4 cm away from the left border of sternum size 7 x 2 cm x lung tissue. 3. An eliptical stab wound seen right side at the level of 7th rib seen at an anterior axillary line size 1.5 x 1 x 2.5 cm. 4. An eliptical stab wound over right hip at the level of iliac crest. Vertically placed. Size: 3 x 1 cm x bone deep. 5. A linear abrasion right arm close to right shoulder. Horizontally situated 15 cm x pin head breadth. 6. An abrasion lacerated wound over middle of right leg. Obliquely situated. Anterior size 13 x 1 cm x bone deep. 7. An abrasion seen over Right scapular region 2.5 x 0.5 cm. 8. An abrasion seen over the back of abdomen 4 x 3 cm. 9. A linear abrasion below the angle of scapular right. Obliquely situated extending upto right lower 12 x .5 cm. 10. An eliptical stab injury seen on the left side of abdomen over lumbar area with Protruding of small intestine. Size: 7 x 4 cm. 11. A cut injury left little finger at metacarophalanjeal joint horizontally placed 2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep. 12. A cut injury right thumb obliquely situated to prox. phalanx size: 3 x 0.5 cm x deep fasacia. 13. An abrasion over the front of the nose horizontally situated 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm. Internal injuries: Fracture of 3rd rib. Left 5 cm away from the left border of sternum. A stab wound surrounded by Haemorrhage was seen corresponding to External Injury No.2. 7 x 2 cm x lung tissue seen. 13. An abrasion over the front of the nose horizontally situated 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm. Internal injuries: Fracture of 3rd rib. Left 5 cm away from the left border of sternum. A stab wound surrounded by Haemorrhage was seen corresponding to External Injury No.2. 7 x 2 cm x lung tissue seen. A stab wound seen between 6th and 7th rib at mid clavicular line, size 1 x 1.5 cm x lung tissue seen corresponding to External injury 3." He certified that the death had occurred due to shock and Haemorrhage caused by injury to vital organs. (k) In the meantime, P.W.9 recorded the statements of P.Ws. 1 to 3. On 7.7.1991, at about 3 p.m. M.Os. 4 and 5, the clothes worn by the deceased were seized by P.W.9 under Ex.P-17. On 8.7.1991, at 1 p.m., P.W.9 arrested A-1 to A-3 near Mudukulam Sanmai. The admissible portion of the statements recorded from A-1 to A-3 are Exs.P-4, P-5 and P-6 respectively. (1) On the basis of information given by the accused A-1 to A-3, P.W.9 recovered M.Os.1, 2 and 3 respectively in the presence of witnesses under Ex.P-7. On 8.7.1991, he recorded the statements of P.W.4 and P.W.5. On 24.7.1991, he recorded the statement of P.W.6. The M.Os were thereafter sent for Serologist’s report with the requisition Ex.P-10. Thereafter, all the M.Os. were sent along with Ex.P-11 to the laboratory for testing. Ex.P-12 and Ex.P-13 are the chemical analyst’s report and Serologist’s report respectively. (m) P.W.10 took up further investigation and filed the chargesheet on 10.11.1991 before the learned Sessions Judge, Kamarajar District at Srivilliputhur. (n) P.Ws.1 to P.W. 10 were examined. Exs.P-1 to P-17 were marked and M.Os. 1 to 7 were produced. On examination, the accused denied their guilt. P.Ws.2 to P.W.4 turned hostile. (o) The learned Sessions Judge, on a consideration of the oral and material evidence, acquitted A-1 and convicted A-2 and A-3 under Sec. 302 read with 34,I.P.C., awarding them life imprisonment. The accused 2 and 3 have filed this appeal. The prosecution has not challenged the acquittal of A-1. 3. Mr.K.S. Rajagopalan, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there was very little proof regarding the prior enmity between the deceased and the accused, and the incident on the morning of the date of occurrence when Ponmadathi is supposed to have made the statements which provoked the anger of the deceased. 3. Mr.K.S. Rajagopalan, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there was very little proof regarding the prior enmity between the deceased and the accused, and the incident on the morning of the date of occurrence when Ponmadathi is supposed to have made the statements which provoked the anger of the deceased. He also pointed out that in Ex.P-1, P.W.1 had stated that A-2 had a “Veecharuval” whereas the prosecution’s case is that A-2 used the dagger M.O.2. According to the learned counsel, this would show that P.W.1 was not present at the scene of occurrence and therefore Ex.P-1 cannot be accepted. The learned counsel also pointed out that the evidence of P.W.5 cannot be accepted with regard to recovery of the M.O. weapons. Though in the chief examination, P.W.5 would state that the weapons were recovered near a bush under Ex.P-7, in cross examination, he had admitted that Exs.P-4 to P-7 were signed by him only in the police station. Therefore, the learned counsel pointed out that the recovery is not believable. The learned counsel also pointed out to the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.9 that the deceased had been involved in many dacoity cases. Therefore, he would have had no other enemies and the prosecution had falsely implicated accused 1 to 3. The learned counsel also submitted that P.Ws.2 to P.W.4 had turned hostile, so the conviction was based solely on the evidence of P.W.1 who was the wife of the deceased and whose evidence is not totally reliable. Learned counsel would submit that P.W.1 was unable to explain why she accompanied the deceased so late in the night to return the cycle and how by sheer chance, P.W.2, the brother of the deceased was already at his sister’s house. He also pointed out that no reason was given as to why they had borrowed the cycle. According to the learned counsel, therefore, the manner in which the witness had tried to explain why she and the deceased had gone to Sitalakshmi’s house and thereafter to the house of A-1 was very artificial and cannot be believed. 4. Learned counsel also relied on Periasami v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1997 S.C.C. (Crl.) 121. According to the learned counsel, therefore, the manner in which the witness had tried to explain why she and the deceased had gone to Sitalakshmi’s house and thereafter to the house of A-1 was very artificial and cannot be believed. 4. Learned counsel also relied on Periasami v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1997 S.C.C. (Crl.) 121. In this decision, it was held that when there is any reasonable doubt that the aggressor in the occurrence was not the accused, but the deceased, the benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused even if he did not let in any evidence in this regard. In this case, since it was the deceased who went across to the house of the accused and gave the provocation, then, even assuming without admitting that the occurrence had taken place as per the case of the prosecution, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Jayakumar, on the other hand, submitted that merely because the prosecution’s case depended on the solitary evidence of P.W.1, it cannot be rejected. When the evidence of P.W.1, the eye witness gets support from the medical evidence, then there was no reason to reject her evidence as unbelievable. The various overt-acts spoken to by P.W.1 were correlated in Ex.P-9 postmortem certificate and by the evidence of P.W.6 doctor. The doctor had given evidence that injury No. 10 can be caused by a weapon like M.O.3 and the other injuries could be caused by a weapon like M.O.2. He was also of the opinion that the external injuries 1 to 3 and the consequential injuries were definitely fatal. In the face of the evidence of the post-mortem doctor, correlating not only the overt-acts with the injuries, but also to the fact hat these injuries could be caused by the M.Os, the prosecution’s case had been amply proved. He also pointed out to Ex.P-13, the Serologist’s report. It shows that M.Os. 2 and 3 were stained with blood of the same group as the deceased. Therefore, this would also support the case of the prosecution. As regards recovery, he would submit that even assuming that the recovery was not effected in the manner spoken to, that will not weaken the prosecution’s case. 6. It shows that M.Os. 2 and 3 were stained with blood of the same group as the deceased. Therefore, this would also support the case of the prosecution. As regards recovery, he would submit that even assuming that the recovery was not effected in the manner spoken to, that will not weaken the prosecution’s case. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out to the promptness with which the F.I.R. was lodged when the complaint Ex.P-1 was given, that there was no delay. For all these reason, the prosecution’s case must be accepted. 7. We have heard the counsel at length and considered their submissions and perused the records. 8. Before dealing with the merits of the case, one relevant factor that should be kept in mind in this case is that the prosecution has not assailed the acquittal of A-1. It is A-1 and his wife who were alleged to have started the entire problem. In the morning of the date of occurrence, A-1’s wife is supposed to have said that she would also purchase the share of the deceased. This is the alleged root cause of what happened later in the evening. 9. P.W.4 Seeniammal, who was called in as a witness to give evidence regarding the incident in the morning, turned hostile. This is why the trial Court disbelieved that incident said to have occurred in the morning. P.W.2, the brother of the deceased and P.W.3, the person who was living opposite the house of A-1 also turned hostile. It is the case of P.W.1 that when the accused were attacking her husband, she P.W.2 and P.W.3 pleaded with the accused not to kill the deceased. Now, in view of the fact that the other two witnesses turned hostile, one is left with the solitary evidence of P.W. 1. 10. But the evidence of P.W. 1 does not appear to give the entire picture. It was 8.45 in the night when P.W.1 and the deceased are said to have gone to Sitalakshmi’s house. Sitalakshmi is the sister of the deceased. The ostensible reason is, they wanted to return her cycle. P.W.2 does not live in Sundararajapuram as per the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.2 also suggests to the deceased that in view of the ill-feeling that had developed in the morning, A-1 should be pacified. Sitalakshmi is the sister of the deceased. The ostensible reason is, they wanted to return her cycle. P.W.2 does not live in Sundararajapuram as per the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.2 also suggests to the deceased that in view of the ill-feeling that had developed in the morning, A-1 should be pacified. P.W.2 then, is supposed to have taken the deceased and P.W.1 to the house of A-1. This was about 9.45 in the night. 11. The evidence of P.W.1 is that as soon as the deceased went to A-1’s house, A-1 spoke to him angrily. There appears to have been a wordy quarrel between the deceased and A-1. P.W.1 and P.W.2 attempted to pacify, but in vain. Then A-1 is supposed to have hit the deceased with a stick which was defended by the deceased. When the intention of the deceased, P.W.1 and P.W.2 was to talk peace with A-1, there is absolutely no explanation as to why at this juncture, A-2 and A-3 should have rushed to their houses to bring out M.O.2 and M.O.3 weapons. It is not explained why the deceased in these circumstances, did not rush out with P.W.1 and P.W.2. The weapons according to the evidence of P.W.1 were brought by A-2 and A-3 from their houses. It is only after they brought the weapons, that the deceased ran away towards west according to P.W. 1’s evidence. The evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the manner in which the events took place is not entirely satisfactory. 12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out that the M.O. weapons bore the blood stain of the same group as the deceased. But it must be remembered that the recovery witness P.W.5 had said that he had signed the recovery mahazar only in the police station. Therefore, the recovery itself which is also from the open space is extremely unbelievable. 13. When serious doubts are raised regarding the recovery, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses should be free of doubt if the prosecution’s case has to be believed. But two of the eye witnesses, as stated earlier, turned hostile. The evidence of P.W.1 has gaps which are not explained. Since she is not able to explain why they brought the cycle from Sitalakshmi and went over to return it so late in the night, the doubt arises whether she was at all present at the scene of occurrence. But two of the eye witnesses, as stated earlier, turned hostile. The evidence of P.W.1 has gaps which are not explained. Since she is not able to explain why they brought the cycle from Sitalakshmi and went over to return it so late in the night, the doubt arises whether she was at all present at the scene of occurrence. If she was not present at the scene of occurrence, then it is clear that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of occurrence has not presented the true version. 14. In Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2263, the Supreme Court held thus: “Finally we might stress, even at the risk of repetition, that the genesis and the origin of the present occurrence appears to be shrouded in deep mystery. The dramatic manner in which the assault is said to have started and the appearance of the accused led by Jagdhari Singh without any rhyme or reason and their assault on persons against whom they had neither any concern or animus introduces an element of inherent improbability in the case.” 15. In this case also, the assault appears to have arisen without any warrant. The reason for the ill feeling on the date of occurrence was alleged to be the event that took place in the morning. This has been rightly rejected by the trial Court. Therefore, the provocation for the occurrence or the altercation between the deceased and A-1 is not supported by any evidence. 16. P.W.1’s evidence regarding the enmity between the deceased and A-3 is not proved. It is difficult to believe P.W.1’s evidence regarding her accompanying her husband to Sitalakshmi’s house and thereafter going to A-1’s house with P.W.2 Thonthiappan. But yet, P.W.1’s evidence was accepted to convict A-2 and A-3. If the evidence of P.W.1 that she went with her husband to Sitalakshmi’s house and thereafter along with Thonthiappan P.W.2 to A-1’s house is not acceptable, then her presence at the place of occurrence is itself in doubt. If so, the entire conviction based on a solitary eye witness namely P.W.1 is not legal. Without acceptable evidence that P.W.1 was present at the place of occurrence, her testimony cannot be believed. If so, conviction cannot be ordered merely because the Ex.P-1 is promptly lodged and medical evidence supports the prosecution’s case. 17. If so, the entire conviction based on a solitary eye witness namely P.W.1 is not legal. Without acceptable evidence that P.W.1 was present at the place of occurrence, her testimony cannot be believed. If so, conviction cannot be ordered merely because the Ex.P-1 is promptly lodged and medical evidence supports the prosecution’s case. 17. A-1 who is supposed to have started off the angry exchange on the fatal day was also acquitted since there is no evidence that he had taken part in the act or that he had inflicted the fatal injury. The prosecution had accepted the acquittal. When the presence of P.W.1, the solitary witness at the scene of occurrence has not been established beyond reasonable doubt, the accused A-2 and A-3 cannot be convicted. The conviction of A-2 and A-3 is therefore liable to be set aside. 18. Consequently, the appeal stands allowed. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges. The bail bonds if any standing in their names shall stand cancelled forthwith.