Judgment :- M. THANIKACHALAM, J. The accused are the appellants. 2. The respondent police have filed a case against the accused/appellants, in S.C.No.143/93 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Nagapattinam, praying for appropriate punishment under Section 302 I.P.C., alleging that the accused have committed the murder of one Barathi by stabbing, indiscriminately, on 11.3.1993 at about 9.30 p.m. near Gandhiswaran land at Thiruthuraipoondi-Attur Road, with intention to commit the same, due to previous enmity. 3. Upon consideration of the materials placed before the trial Court, the trial Court felt that there was prima facie case, to proceed further and on that basis, framing charges under Section 302 I.P.C. against both the accused, when questioned, both pleaded not guilty, thereby throwing the burden upon the respondent/complainant, to prove the guilt, beyond all reasonable doubt. 4. The respondent police realising its duty, to make out a case, marched in 12 witnesses before the trial Court, armed with 19 documents and 13 material objects. 5. The scanning of the above materials brought to surface, according to the assessment of the learned trial judge, that the charges framed against the accused were proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Thus concluding, questioning the quantum of sentence also, as mandated under the Criminal Procedure Code, and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the injuries caused to the deceased by the accused, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced to undergo, both the accused for life imprisonment, which is challenged before us. 6. The prosecution case in brief: (a) The accused/appellants belong to Pandaravadai Village whereas P.Ws.1 to 4 belong to Attur Padugai, which are separated by one furlong or so. Though the two villages are separated, they come under one Panchayat unions. It seems, when the Panchayat Union had auctioned the tamarind trees, it was taken in the auction by Attur Padugai Village, for the benefits of both the villages, on the basis of contribution, by each family, at the rate of Rs.3/-. In this auction, Barathi, who belonged to AIADMK, took the active role, which is not liked by the accused/appellants, who belonged to communist party. (b) In Pandaravadai Village, people used to celebrate Kamandi Festival annually, under the leadership of Muthuvelu, the father of the first accused. In view of the dispute between Muthuvelu and the villagers, that festival was not conducted for two years. (b) In Pandaravadai Village, people used to celebrate Kamandi Festival annually, under the leadership of Muthuvelu, the father of the first accused. In view of the dispute between Muthuvelu and the villagers, that festival was not conducted for two years. But, at the instance of Barathi, the festival was celebrated, which caused irksome to the accused. In view of the above ill-feelings and misunderstanding arose, and the accused had developed enmity against Barathi. One day when Natarajan (P.W.2) and the accused were proceeding, in fact, the accused had warned Barathi. (c) On 11.3.1993, Barathi and Anbazhagan (P.W.1) were returning from Thiruthuraipoondi, through Attur Road, after seeing a film, at about 9.30 p.m. near Gandhiswaran land. The accused intercepting them, stabbed Barathi with M.Os.9 & 10, causing multiple cut injuries all over his body. On seeing this gruesome incident, apprehending danger to his life, when P.W.1 ran towards the village, he noticed the presence of P.Ws.2 to 4. (d) Thiru Natarajan (P.W.2), Mahendran (P.W.3) and Senthil Kumar (P.W.4), who belong to Attur Village, were proceeding to Thiruthuraipoondi, in order to see a film i.e. second show. On their way, they had noticed the incident, i.e. stabbing of the deceased, by the accused. On seeing, P.Ws.2 to 4 in the moon light, both the accused took their heels and escaped from the scene of crime. Thiru Anbhazhagan on return, found that Barathi was done to death, immediately, he rushed to the police station and narrated the incident to the Head Constable, who was in charge of the police station. (e) P.W.9, on the information furnished by P.W.1, at about 10.30 p.m., reduced the same into writing (Ex.P.1) and on that basis, he registered a case in Cr.No.310/93 for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C., for which he submitted the printed F.I.R., Ex.P.11 to the court concerned, along with Ex.P.1, which was received by the Court on the same night. (f) The investigating officer, P.W.12, on receipt of the copy of Ex.P.11 at about 12.30 a.m. on 12.3.93 itself, took the case for investigation and in that process, he rushed to the scene of crime at about 1.00 a.m., prepared Ex.P.2 mahazar and the sketch Ex.P.17, in the presence of P.W.5 and one Manian. From the scene of crime, he collected M.Os.1 to 5 including the cover of knife, under Ex.P.3 in the presence of the same witnesses. From the scene of crime, he collected M.Os.1 to 5 including the cover of knife, under Ex.P.3 in the presence of the same witnesses. Between 5.00 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. on 12.3.1993, he conducted an inquest over the body of Barathi, in the presence of the Panchanyatdars and others, who were summoned and its result is Ex.P.18. In continuation of the investigation, P.W.12 examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and other witnesses, recorded the statements. To ascertain the cause of death, scientifically, the body of Barathi was sent for postmortem along with the requisition, Ex.P.9 through the police constable, P.W.11. (g) Dr. Adhiyaman (P.W.8), at the request of the Investigating Officer, under Ex.P.9 and upon the identification of the body by the constable, conducted autopsy, on 12.3.1993 at about 9.00 a.m. The postmortem and other observations revealed the following external injuries: 1. Stab injury over the lateral aspect of the right chest wall corresponding to the 7th intercostal region measuring 1.5 c.m. x 1 c.m. 2. Stab injury over the mid line of the back corresponding to the TS Vertebra measuring 2.5 cms x 1/2 cm x 1 cm. 3. Stab injury on the left side of the back closed to the T-7 Vertebra about 1 cm away from the mid line measuring 2 cms x 1/2 cm x 1 cm. 4. Stab injury on the left side of the back about 4 cm below inferior angle of the scapula measuring 2 cms x 1 cm x 10 cms. 5. Stab injury on the right of the back about 8 cms. below the inferior angle of the right scapula and 4 cms away from the mid line corresponding to the 7th intercostal space measuring 8 cms x 2.5 cms x 9 cms. 6. Stab injury on the left gluteal region about 10 cms. below the anterior superior iliac spins measuring 2.5 cms. x 1 cm x 6 cms. 7. Abrasion over right forearm region about 5 cms. below the olecranon process measuring 2 cms x 1/2 cm. In addition, the doctor had also noticed, the following internal injuries corresponding to some of the external injuries: 1. Lower lobe of the left lung injured and collapsed. 2. Right lung lower lobe injured and collapsed. 3. Left verticle of the heart punctured. below the olecranon process measuring 2 cms x 1/2 cm. In addition, the doctor had also noticed, the following internal injuries corresponding to some of the external injuries: 1. Lower lobe of the left lung injured and collapsed. 2. Right lung lower lobe injured and collapsed. 3. Left verticle of the heart punctured. Analysing the effect of the above injuries, the doctor opined, that the injuries to the heart and both the lungs would have caused hemorrhage, leading to shock, resulting death, in Ex.P.10, postmortem certificate. (h) On 14.3.1993, on information, P.W.12 apprehended the second accused in the village Overkudi. When the second accused was examined by the investigating officer, he confessed under Ex.P.4, regarding the concealment of weapon, M.O.9, in the presence of P.W.6, which was recovered under Ex.P.5. Thereafter, on the basis of the information supplied by the second accused, P.W.12 arrested A1 at about 8.30 a.m., on the same day near Pondi Railway Station in the presence of P.W.6 and another witness. The first accused also confessed under Ex.P.6, about the weapon and its whereabouts and on that basis, M.O.10 was recovered under the cover of Mahazar, Ex.P.7 in the presence of P.W.6 and another. The investigating officer, then taking both the accused to the station, noting the blood stain in their dresses, giving substitute, recovered M.Os.11 & 12 from A1 and M.O.13 from A2 under the Mahazar. (i) The investigating officer, noticed some injuries upon A2 and therefore, he sent A2 to doctor, P.W.7, who examined him on 14.3.1993 at about 12.45 p.m.. Before the doctor, it seems, the second accused has informed, that he sustained the injuries, when Raghupathy assaulted one person and the said assault fell on him, by mistake. P.W.7 had issued the accident register copy, Ex.P.8. The material objects seized during the investigation were sent, for chemical analysis through Court. As disclosed under Ex.P.15, M.Os.9 & 10 as well as M.Os.11 and 13 do contain human blood of Group 'B'. The investigating officer, further examining the witnesses including the doctors, while concluding the investigation, came to the opinion that the accused alone should have committed the murder of Barathi, due to enmity and on these lines, he brought both the accused, to face the trial, which ended in conviction, as aforementioned, and challenged before us, on various grounds. The investigating officer, further examining the witnesses including the doctors, while concluding the investigation, came to the opinion that the accused alone should have committed the murder of Barathi, due to enmity and on these lines, he brought both the accused, to face the trial, which ended in conviction, as aforementioned, and challenged before us, on various grounds. (j) The learned trial Judge, upon the appreciation of the evidence, has come to the conclusion that the motive projected by the prosecution, viz. due to the enmity, both the accused have stabbed the accused, using M.Os.9 & 10, which was witnessed by P.Ws.1 to 4 in the moon light, is proved to his satisfaction and that the weapons were recovered only on the basis of the confession statement given by both the accused and thus concluding, he felt that the accused should be dealt with severely and the result is the life imprisonment. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. K. Srinivasan and the learned additional Public Prosecutor. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the alleged motive is not only improbable and unacceptable, but the same is also not proved, that P.Ws.1 to 4 would not have witnessed the incident and they are planted witnesses, that there would not have been any possibility for the witnesses, to identify the accused with weapons, since the incident had taken place during the night hours and that as per the evidence of P.W.1, the complaint was given only at about 1.00 a.m., whereas the complaint available, on which basis, the case was investigated, is said to have been given at 10.30 p.m. on 11.3.1993, which should create an indelible doubt in the minds of the court, but unfortunately, the trial Court has not taken into account all these, which resulted injustice, should be rectified. 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the accused are known to P.Ws.1 to 4 and therefore, there would not have been any difficulty for them to identify the accused during the moon light. He further points out, that untainted evidence are available to prove the motive, as well as the incident, which are properly sifted and legally appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge, requiring confirmation and in this view, he had supported the reasoning and findings. 10. He further points out, that untainted evidence are available to prove the motive, as well as the incident, which are properly sifted and legally appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge, requiring confirmation and in this view, he had supported the reasoning and findings. 10. Barathi, who belonged to Attur Village was murdered on 11.3.1993 at about 9.30 p.m., is not very much in dispute. At the request of the investigating officer, P.W.8, who conducted the autopsy over the body of Barathi had catalogued as many as 7 injuries, including stab injuries and cut injuries. Some of the injuries pierced through the body and caused internal injuries also. According to Dr. Adhiyaman, P.W.8, the injuries to the heart and both the lungs caused hemorrhage, leading to shock and death of Barathi. When the doctor had given evidence regarding the nature of injuries and its deadly effect, they were not challenged. It is not the case of the defence also, as seen from the cross examination of P.W.8, that the deceased would have died, due to some other reasons, not connected with the injuries noticed, which are incorporated in postmortem certificate Ex.P.10, as indicated supra. Therefore, we find no difficulty in concluding that Barathi died due to homicidal violence, on 11.3.1993 at about 9.30 p.m. 11. It is the case of the prosecution that the injuries noticed by the Doctor P.W.8, over the body of Barathi were inflicted by both the accused, due to enmity and therefore, they should be dealt with under Section 302 I.P.C. The case of the prosecution as such was accepted by the trial Court. In order to see the correctness of the lower Court's verdict, we have to see the motives, and whether the above said injuries had been caused by the accused, using M.Os.9 & 10. If it is established beyond all reasonable doubt, as required under law, then we may not have any other option, except to confirm the conviction, since no alternative plea is projected before us, except total denial of the involvement of the accused. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the motives alleged, are not only flimsy, but also not proved due to its inherent improbability. Two kinds of motives are alleged, one relating to the tamarind tree auction and another to the festival of a temple. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the motives alleged, are not only flimsy, but also not proved due to its inherent improbability. Two kinds of motives are alleged, one relating to the tamarind tree auction and another to the festival of a temple. It is an admitted position that the deceased and P.Ws.1 to 4 are the residents of Attur, whereas the accused belong to Pandaravadai, not far away. 13. P.W.1, who is treated as hostile, would admit that the auction conducted for tamarind trees was only for Attur Padugai village. If that is so, ordinarily Pandaravadai Village people may not have any grievance. But, the reality appears to be otherwise. P.W.2 would state that the tamarind trees, which are on the road side at Attur, Pandaravadai and Kothamangalam were auctioned by Panchayat Union, and the same were taken in the auction, on behalf of the villages. This evidence is not challenged, as seen from the cross examination, except formal denial. 14. It is the specific case of P.W.2, that Barathi took active role not only in taking auction, but also in collecting the amount from the houses. According to P.W.2, the collection of amount was questioned by the accused, which appears to be correct, since the deceased belonged to AIADMK, whereas the accused belong to Communist Party. Another motive spoken by P.W.2 also appears to be acceptable, since we find no contra evidence. As pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, P.W.2 has given evidence, that the village (Pandaravadai) festival, not celebrated, for two years was celebrated at the instance of the deceased and they same was questioned by the accused, with warning. We find no reason, to discard the oral testimony of P.Ws.2 & 3 in this regard and therefore, we feel further that the accused would have committed the murder of Barathi because of these motives. Even in the absence of motive, if the incident and the involvement of the accused are otherwise, clinchingly proved, law does not prevent, imposing punishment upon the person, who committed murder and in this view, we have to scan the evidence. 15. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is enmity, between the prosecution witnesses and the accused and therefore, placing reliance upon their oral testimony, is unsafe. 15. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is enmity, between the prosecution witnesses and the accused and therefore, placing reliance upon their oral testimony, is unsafe. It is true, P.W.4 during cross examination, once admitted that he is inimically disposed towards the accused, though later changed. It is also elicited from P.W.2, that there were some enmities between his father and the family of the second accused. These enmities, are not so strong, to implicate the accused falsely in a murder case. In our considered opinion, the animosity brought to surface, may be due to political rivalry, which will not take us to the conclusion, to exclude the oral evidence in toto, since we find much truth in their oral testimony. 16. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, that there are material contradictions and omissions in the evidence given by P.Ws.1 to 4 and in this view, they are not trustworthy. Witnesses are not recording machines or video cameras, to reproduce or replay the incident as recorded, without even slightest variation or deviation as the case may be. The capacity of the witnesses to reproduce or to reenact the incident, which they have seen, always would depend upon their observing capacity, reproducing capacity, indelible memory, passage of time, stress and strain undergone by the witnesses, through the cross examination, etc. Therefore, according to the calibre of witnesses, whether it is rural based or town based, as the case may be, there bound to be discrepancies in the oral testimony of any eyewitnesses. In this view, contradiction, or omission alone shall not be the criterion to test the veracity of one's oral testimony. 17. It is the dictum of the Apex Court also in Ugar Ahir & others s. The State of Bihar reported in AIR 1965 SC 277 and Nathu Singh Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in JT 2002 (9) SC 591 that: "The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in ombinus (false in one thing, false in everything) is neither a sound rule of law nor a rule of practice. Hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggerations, embroiders or embellishments. It is therefore, the duty of the Court to scrutinise the evidnece carefully and, in terms of the felicitous metaphor, separate the graim from the chaff. Hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggerations, embroiders or embellishments. It is therefore, the duty of the Court to scrutinise the evidnece carefully and, in terms of the felicitous metaphor, separate the graim from the chaff. But, it cannot obviously disbelieve the substratum of the prosecution case or the material parts of the evidence and reconstruct a story of its own out of the rest". In the light of the above principle alone, the veracity of the eyewitnesses should be tested and their testimony could not be thrown out, only on the basis of the contradictions and omissions alone, if any. 18. The learned counsel for the appellants further pointed out, that there are discrepancies regarding the arrest, recovery as well as in preferring Ex.P.1 complaint also, and on these grounds, the accused are entitled to an acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. When the ocular witnesses satisfied the requirements of proof, inspiring the confidence of the Court, the inconsistency or contradiction or omission in the subsequent proceedings which are irrelevant, takes only minor role, and in our view, that contradiction would not weaken the case or eclipse the case of the prosecution, which was established otherwise by adducing inspiring evidence. The main thrust of the learned counsel for the appellants, is that the foundation for the case itself is, shaky, doubtful and therefore, the investigation said to have been done and the edifice of the prosecution case on that basis, shall be doubtful. 19. P.W.1 has given evidence, as if he went to the police station and preferred a complaint at about 1.00 a.m. i.e. on the early morning of 12.3.93. It is also elicited from him, that his statement was recorded at Thiruthuraipoondi Police Station at 1.30 a.m. Since this witness has been treated as hostile, it is difficult to accept the above statement, as correct. There are clinching evidence to prove that Ex.P.1 complaint should have been given only at about 10.30 p.m. on 11.3.1993. In preferring Ex.P.1 complaint and in registering the case, in pursuance of the same, as well as in submitting the printed F.I.R. to the Court, we find practically 'No' delay of any kind. Ex.P.1 does contain, all the relevant particulars, including the presence of the witnesses, naming the accused also. In preferring Ex.P.1 complaint and in registering the case, in pursuance of the same, as well as in submitting the printed F.I.R. to the Court, we find practically 'No' delay of any kind. Ex.P.1 does contain, all the relevant particulars, including the presence of the witnesses, naming the accused also. Therefore, a general presumption would arise, that there was no deliberation before preferring the complaint, thereby avoiding the false implication of the accused, or the intentional inclusion of the witnesses, etc. In order to overcome this difficulty alone, taking advantage of the fact that P.W.1, who turned hostile, has given evidence as if Ex.P.1 was given at about 1.00 a.m., a submission was made on behalf of the appellants that Ex.P.1 would not have come into existence, as narrated and it should have come into existence only at 1.00 a.m. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that the investigation said to have been commenced by P.W.12 at about 1.00 must be incorrect. We are unable to agree. 20. The printed F.I.R. and the complaint Ex.P.1 reached the residence of the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi, on the same night, and we find the initial of the Magistrate also regarding the receipt of these two documents, noting the time, 1.25 a.m. The observation mahazar-Ex.P.2, as well as the recovery mahazar-Ex.P.3 also would, indicate that they were prepared on the same night and to that effect, P.W.12 has also given evidence. When P.W.12 was cross examined, except suggesting to him, that he went to the scene of crime only on 12.3.1993 at about 6.00 a.m., nothing is elicited to discard the evidence given by him, which is supported by the documents prepared as well as the receipt of the printed F.I.R. and the complaint by the judicial officer at about 1.25 a.m. on the same night. P.W.1, if at all, would have spoken about the time of the complaint, as 1.00 a.m. due to ignorance or because of the fact that he had shown the hostility towards the prosecution for the reasons not disclosed. Taking advantage of the same, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants, failed to persuade us, to accept the same, ignoring or eschewing, the impressive nature of the evidence, in pursuance of the register as well as the evidence of P.W.12, the investigating officer. Taking advantage of the same, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants, failed to persuade us, to accept the same, ignoring or eschewing, the impressive nature of the evidence, in pursuance of the register as well as the evidence of P.W.12, the investigating officer. In our view, the inconsistency pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, short of power, to weaken the case of the prosecution in any way or in other words, it would not lend support to the defence, to read Ex.P.1 doubtfully, thereby creating a spontaneous doubt in our mind. In this view, we conclude, immediately, without lapse of any time, seeking redress, complaint was preferred, and the investigating agency also acted swiftly, in commencing the investigation. There is no possibility to infer, that after due deliberation or consultation with others, the accused would have been implicated as the culprit or the witnesses name would have been included in Ex.P.1 due to enmity, whatever may be its base. As spoken by P.W.13, he conducted inquest on 12.3.1993 between 5.00 a.m. and 9.30 a.m. The fact that he had examined the eyewitnesses also, evident from the reading of Ex.P.18 and therefore, it is impossible to say, that the witnesses were planted later on or they would not have seen the occurrence. Thus, ruling out the possibility of false implication of the accused, we have to proceed further. 21. Ex.P.1 gives a graphical picture, regarding the incident from the point of starting, till the end. It also recites the motive, as well as the actual narration of the incident, such as the persons, who have seen the incident, act of the accused etc. P.W.1 to certain extent, P.Ws.2 and 3 to the entire extent, and P.W.4 to certain extent have confirmed the averments in Ex.P.1, specifically implicating the accused. The fact P.W.4 has not spoken about the actual involvement of A1 in the commission of the offence, in our view, is an ordinary omission and the same should be ignored, since it would have happened, due to failure in memory or as aforementioned for want of reproducing capacity, which was observed by him, being the associate of P.Ws.2 and 3. 22. We have gone through the entire oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, Ex.P.1, and other connected documents, thoroughly as pointed out by either counsel. 22. We have gone through the entire oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, Ex.P.1, and other connected documents, thoroughly as pointed out by either counsel. Except some minor contradictions and omissions, we find no substantial material contradictions or significant omission, in implicating the accused. The enmity, admitted by some of the prosecution witnesses as mentioned supra, would not, in our considered opinion, nullify their evidence, which are convincing, inspiring and in fact deserves, meritorious acceptance. Despite the fact P.W.1 turned hostile, law permits that his evidence also could be taken into consideration, to the extent, which implicates the accused. In fact, when P.W.1 was cross examined by the prosecution, after treating him hostile, he would admit the statements, given before the investigating officer, implicating the accused, explaining reasons, why he has not spoken so, during the examination in chief. Even ignoring that part, it is not possible to eschew his entire evidence, branding the same as imbalanced one, since his mind was vacillating. During examination in chief, he had categorically spoken about his going to Cinema along with the deceased, then returning to the village, at about 9.30 p.m. through Attur Road, the presence of the accused at about 9.30 near Gandhiswaram land and their attack also. It stands reason, to believe as spoken to by P.W.1, that on seeing the accused with weapons, he ran away from the place and on his way, he had seen P.Ws.2 to 4 also. He had further deposed, that on that day, there was moon light, which is verified with calendar, as correct, since 8.3.93 was a full moon day. He had further deposed, that he has seen both the accused, while stabbing the deceased also. It is also elicited from him, that his statement was recorded at Thiruthuraipoondi Police Station. This evidence is fully corroborated by P.W.2, and supported by P.Ws.3 & 4. Especially, the oral evidence of P.W.3 is quite convincing, since has no axe to grind, against the accused. In fact the evidence given by him, appears to be more natural and acceptable, since he has generally spoken, that when he witnessed the incident, both the accused were stabbing Barathi and thereafter, both ran away from the scene of crime. In fact, he had exhibited his ignorance, regarding the motive, thereby coming within the meaning of independent witness also. In fact the evidence given by him, appears to be more natural and acceptable, since he has generally spoken, that when he witnessed the incident, both the accused were stabbing Barathi and thereafter, both ran away from the scene of crime. In fact, he had exhibited his ignorance, regarding the motive, thereby coming within the meaning of independent witness also. In our considered view, the evidence given by P.Ws.1 to 4, implicating the accused, that is how they have caused injury to the accused, fits in with the medical evidence also and we find no inconsistency in this regard, to doubt about the veracity of the oral testimony. 23. Thiru Natarajan, the second witness claiming to be the eye witness, for the incident, which we accept, has given a detailed account, not only regarding the previous motive, but also the involvement of the accused and their overt act, at the time of the incident. It is the evidence of P.W.2 that there was moon light and in the moon light, he had seen the first accused catching hold of Barathi and the second accused stabbing him, over the buttocks and all over the body, which caused him to fall down. He has further catalogued, how even thereafter, the first and second accused have assaulted the deceased, which was witnessed by other witnesses also. The said evidence, in our opinion, undoubtedly corroborated by P.Ws.3 and 4, whose evidence need not be extracted once again. 24. After the arrest of the second accused, the investigating officer, noticing some injuries, sent him to the Medical Officer. It seems as seen from Ex.P.8, the second accused confessed that when they have assaulted Barathi, by mistake, he also sustained injuries from the co-assaulter. True, the injury said to have been sustained by A2, is not clearly spoken by the prosecution witnesses, Despite this fact, when A2 was examined by the doctor, it seems, he confessed his involvement. Though it is belated in a way, strengthens the case of the prosecution and we are not solely depending upon the statement given by A2, before the doctor, to rope in him as an accused and it is only an additional piece of evidence. 25. Though it is belated in a way, strengthens the case of the prosecution and we are not solely depending upon the statement given by A2, before the doctor, to rope in him as an accused and it is only an additional piece of evidence. 25. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the contradictory statements given by P.W.3 and P.W.4 regarding, their going to cinema, jointly previously or thereafter, does not deserve acceptance and this contradiction being not directly related to the incident, could be ignored. Thus, accepting the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion, that the accused alone had assaulted the deceased Barathi, causing multiple injuries, as narrated in the postmortem certificate, which took away his life prematurely, thereby the accused in our opinion, landed themselves within the arena of 302 I.P.C. 26. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit, that there is clinching evidence against the accused to rope in them, with the incident, since blood stains were noticed not only in the weapons recovered on their confession, but also in the dresses worn by the accused, at the time of the incident. True, P.W.6 has not supported the case of the prosecution regarding the arrest and the confession said to have been given by the accused, leading to the recovery of the material objects. The fact P.W.6 failed to support the case of the prosecution, could not be the reason to ignore the oral evidence of the investigating officer. The investigating officer has no personal animosity, against the accused, except his interest in the investigation. In this view, even ignoring the evidence of P.W.6, there is nothing wrong, in believing the oral evidence of P.W.12, who has spoken in crystal terms, regarding the arrest of both the accused, as well as the recovery of material objects. 27. According to P.W.12, he had arrested the second accused on 14.3.93 in the presence of P.W.6 and one Ilangovan, at about 6.00 a.m. at Overkudi village. He has further deposed, about the disclosure statement given by the second accused under Ex.P.4, which lead to the recovery of M.O.9 under Ex.P.5. 27. According to P.W.12, he had arrested the second accused on 14.3.93 in the presence of P.W.6 and one Ilangovan, at about 6.00 a.m. at Overkudi village. He has further deposed, about the disclosure statement given by the second accused under Ex.P.4, which lead to the recovery of M.O.9 under Ex.P.5. It is the further case of P.W.12, that on information by the second accused, on the same day at about 8.30, he arrested the first accused and he also gave the disclosure statement Ex.P.6,leading to the recovery of M.O.10 under Ex.P.7. He has further testified, that giving substitute cloth in the station, M.Os.11 & 12 were recovered from the 1st accused and M.O.13 was recovered from the second accused under Ex.P.19, where we find the description of these material objects also. As submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants, true P.W.6 has not spoken about the seizure of these material objects from the accused. That does not in our view, affect the case of the prosecution, in any way. The above material objects were subjected to chemical examination, through court, which revealed the presence of blood, as disclosed by Ex.P.15, Serologist's report. As seen from Exs.P.14 and P.15, the blood group of the deceased is 'B'. Same blood group was detected, not only in the weapons recovered on the basis of the confession given by A1 and A2, but also in the dresses worn by the deceased, seized by P.W.12, in the police station viz., M.Os.11 to 12. This fact would indicate that these accused alone would have committed the murder and at that time, the dresses stained with the blood of the deceased, which was disclosed by the chemical examination. The fact, that M.O.9 and 10 do contain human blood Group 'B' as that of the deceased, would further strengthen the case of the prosecution, that the accused should have deployed these weapons, to cut and commit the murder of the deceased Barathi. The involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence, is brought to surface by scientific proof also, without any shade of doubt or in other words beyond all reasonable doubt, without giving any chance to entertain doubt also, spontaneously. The involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence, is brought to surface by scientific proof also, without any shade of doubt or in other words beyond all reasonable doubt, without giving any chance to entertain doubt also, spontaneously. As aforementioned, from the scene of crime, a cover of a knife (M.O.5) was recovered, which would indicate that at the time of the incident, the accused might have missed this cover, while using the weapon. The learned trial Judge considering all the above facts and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, had recorded a just finding, legally, correctly and without committing any error, which does not require any interference, whereas it requires confirmation. For the foregoing reasons we are constrained to confirm the findings, leading to conviction and sentence. In the result, confirming the conviction and sentence of the trial Court, we would choose to dismiss the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. It is reported that the accused are on bail and therefore, the trial Court is directed to take appropriate steps, to secure the accused, to undergo the remaining period of sentence.