Judgment :- M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. Appellants (A-1 to A-4) were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment and life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each respectively. In addition to that, appellant No.4 (A-4) was convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment. The sentences imposed on the accused were directed to run concurrently. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed. 2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows : (a) Vaithialingam (A-1), Selvam (A-2) and Kutty (A-3) are the sons of Natarajan (A-4). They belong to Nadar community. The deceased Appiranantham is a resident of Arunachalaperi village. The accused are the residents of Kasiapuram village. Both Arunachalaperi and Kasiapuram are adjacent villages near Alangulam Town. P.W.1 Issaikidurai and P.W.4 another Issaikidurai are the relatives of the deceased. P.W.7 Parameswari is the wife of the deceased. The deceased Appiranantham was doing finance business. About three years prior to the date of occurrence, he had joined the chit run by A-2. Though he became the highest bidder in the chit and took the amount, he defaulted in making periodical payments of chit. When A-2 demanded the deceased to make payment, the deceased told him that unless he repays the loan of Rs.8,000/-, which the deceased had given to him about five years back, he would not make the regular payments. Regarding this, there was a misunderstanding. A-2 issued a lawyer's notice to the deceased for default in payment of chit amounts. (b) During the month of September, 1994, A-1 Vaithialingam, the elder brother of A-2, came to Arunachalaperi in a tractor to load paddy. When he saw the deceased walking along the road, he tried to hit the deceased. The deceased jumped and escaped. The tractor fell down in a ditch, by which A-1 sustained injuries. With regard to this, A-1 made a complaint to the police against Appiranantham, the deceased, and his wife. The said complaint is Ex.P-19. This complaint was referred as "a mistake of fact". Thus, there had been enmity between the deceased and the accused. (c) On 12.01.1995 at about 08.15 p.m., the deceased Appiranantham was riding his Rajdoot Motorcycle, in the Nettor Road in Alangulam Town, P.W.4 Issaikidurai was the pillion rider. The said complaint is Ex.P-19. This complaint was referred as "a mistake of fact". Thus, there had been enmity between the deceased and the accused. (c) On 12.01.1995 at about 08.15 p.m., the deceased Appiranantham was riding his Rajdoot Motorcycle, in the Nettor Road in Alangulam Town, P.W.4 Issaikidurai was the pillion rider. P.W.1 Issaikidurai was following the deceased in his TVS Champ, keeping one Govindasamy in the pillion. They were proceeding towards their village Arunachalaperi. While crossing Subramania Nadar's house, A-1 to A-4 suddenly appeared at the scene with aruvals in their hands and restrained the deceased from proceeding further. When the deceased stopped the vehicle, the accused began to attack the deceased. A-4 Natarajan gave a cut with the aruval on the back of P.W.4. Then, P.W.4 ran away from the scene of occurrence. Thereupon, the accused continued to attack the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased died on the spot. P.W.1 and Govindasamy made a hue and cry. The public gathered. All the four accused ran towards north with aruvals. Then, P.W.1 came near the old Police Station and found the injured P.W.4 standing nearby. He asked Muthudurai, cousin of P.W.4, to take P.W.4 to the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital in a hired van. Accordingly, the said Muthudurai took P.W.4 to the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital and admitted him at 9.00 p.m. In the meantime, P.W.1 went to the Alangulam Police Station and gave a complaint at 08.45 p.m. to P.W.12 Sub-Inspector of Police. Ex.P-1 is the complaint and Ex.P-14 is the F.I.R. A case was registered for the offences under Sections 302 and 324 IPC. (d) P.W.13 Doctor, attached to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, examined P.W.4 at 9.00 p.m. He issued Ex.P-15 Accident Register and gave treatment. P.W.13 then sent Ex.P-16 intimation to the Out-post Police Station attached to Tirunelveli Medical college Hospital. (e) In the meantime, P.W.14 Inspector of Police, on receipt of F.I.R. from P.W.12 Sub-Inspector of Police, took up investigation at about 09.30 p.m.. He went to the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P-12 Observation Mahazar and Ex.P-17 Rough Sketch. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P-18 is the Inquest Report. He examined P.W.1 Issaikidurai, Govindasamy, P.W.7 Parameswari and another. Thereafter, he arranged for sending the dead body for post-mortem. He went to the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P-12 Observation Mahazar and Ex.P-17 Rough Sketch. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P-18 is the Inquest Report. He examined P.W.1 Issaikidurai, Govindasamy, P.W.7 Parameswari and another. Thereafter, he arranged for sending the dead body for post-mortem. (f) P.W.2 Doctor conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased on 13.01.1995 at 11.00 a.m. He noticed as many as 28 injuries on the body of the deceased; issued Ex.P-3 Post-mortem certificate and opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries and head injuries. (g) On 13.01.1995 at about 02.30 a.m., P.W.14 Inspector of Police came to the spot and recovered blood stained earth (M.O.11), sample earth (M.O.12) and Rajdoot Motorcycle (M.O.6). Then, he went to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital and obtained a statement from P.W.4. Thereafter, P.W.14 took steps to arrest the accused. On 18.01.1995, when he came to know that all the accused surrendered before the Court at Koilpatti, he took all the four accused under police custody on 27.01.1995. He was able to get confession only from A-1 and A-2 and in pursuance of the same, he recovered M.O.3 aruval from A-1 and M.O.4 aruval from A-2. Then, the accused were sent for judicial custody. He arranged to send all the material objects for chemical examination. After completing the investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 341, 302 read with 34 and 324 IPC. 3. After framing the charges, the trial went on against the accused. During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined, Exhibits P-1 to P-19 were filed and M.Os.1 to 12 were marked. 4. During the questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused stated that they had no enmity against Appiranantham, the deceased, and his family and on the other hand, they have been falsely implicated in the murder case, at the instance of Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W.12, since they filed a private complaint against P.W.12 Sub-Inspector of Police. On the side of defence, Exs.D-1 and D-2 were marked. 5. On the side of defence, Exs.D-1 and D-2 were marked. 5. The trial Court, on an appraisal of the evidence available on record, concluded that the prosecution had established its case beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted the appellants (A-1 to A-4) for the offences under Sections 341 and 302 read with 34 IPC and also A-4 under Section 324 IPC and sentenced them thereunder. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, this appeal has been filed. 6. Mr.Sriramulu, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.R.Nadanasabapathy on behalf of the appellants/accused, would contend that P.Ws.1 and 4 eye witnesses would not have seen the occurrence in view of several suspicious features in their evidence and the evidence of P.W.4 is completely contradictory to the evidence of P.W.13 Doctor, who gave treatment to P.W.4 and as such, the materials projected by the prosecution would not be sufficient to prove that the accused had participated in the crime in question and consequently, they are liable to be acquitted. 7. In reply to the above submissions, Mr.A.Raja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would submit that there is no valid reason to reject the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4, who are the eye witnesses, especially when P.W.4 is an injured eye witness and the medical evidence given by P.W.2 Doctor and P.W.13 would corroborate the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4 coupled with the recovery of weapons from A-1 and A-2 which would clearly show that the occurrence had taken place in the manner as projected by the prosecution and, as such, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/accused are perfectly justified and the same may not be interfered with. 8. We have considered the rival contentions urged by the counsel for the parties and also gone through the records. 9. The motive projected by the prosecution as spoken to by P.W.1 Issaikidurai, P.W.4 another Issaikidurai and P.W.7 Parameswari, wife of the deceased, is that there was a misunderstanding between both the deceased and the accused with reference to the chit transaction and there was also issuance of a lawyer's notice for non-payment of chit amounts by the deceased to the accused. They would also state that some months prior to the date of occurrence, A-1 went to Arunachalaperi village in a tractor and tried to hit the deceased, who was walking along the road and when the deceased jumped and escaped, the tractor got damaged by falling into a ditch, as a result of which, A-1 sustained injuries and from then onwards, A-1 had vowed to finish the deceased one day or the other. 10. Though P.Ws.1 and 4 would speak about the motive, both of them would admit in the cross-examination that they did not have any personal knowledge over this. P.W.7, wife of the deceased, though would state that she had personal knowledge with reference to the dispute in the chit transaction, she was not consistent regarding the aspect of non-payment of the loan amount of Rs.8,000/- to the deceased by the accused. It is also noticed from the evidence of P.W.7 that in the accident, A-1 sustained injuries and he vowed that he would murder the deceased. In respect of that occurrence, the prosecution itself has produced Ex.P-19 F.I.R., which was given by A-1 to the police with reference to the incident that had taken place on 08.09.1994 at Arunachalaperi village. In the said complaint, there is no mention about the accident. On the other hand, it is mentioned that when A-1 went to Arunachalaperi village in a tractor; he was attacked; tractor also got damaged and from A-1, cash and chain were snatched. 11. A perusal of Ex.P-19 would show that a case was registered against the deceased Appiranantham, his wife and others for various offences and ultimately, P.W.14 Inspector of Police would state that the said case, which was registered on 09.09.1994, was referred to "as a mistake of fact". 12. Therefore, the motive as projected by P.W.7, in our view, has not been clearly established. On the other hand, Ex.P-19 would make it clear that there was enmity between the two families, due to which some incident took place on 08.09.1994 and for that incident, a complaint was given by A-1 against the deceased and others, which was referred as a mistake of fact. 13. On the other hand, Ex.P-19 would make it clear that there was enmity between the two families, due to which some incident took place on 08.09.1994 and for that incident, a complaint was given by A-1 against the deceased and others, which was referred as a mistake of fact. 13. Even though the motive as projected by the prosecution has not been established, in the light of the enmity as found in Ex.P-19, it cannot be said that failure to establish the motive, as spoken to by the prosecution, would be a ground to reject the entire case of the prosecution, when the eye witnesses are available and their evidence is reliable. 14. In the light of the above principle, let us now discuss the evidence of the eye witnesses, namely, P.Ws.1 and 4. 15. P.Ws.1 and 4 are admittedly the relatives of the deceased. According to P.W.1, he, along with one Govindasamy, went in a TVS Champ following the Rajdoot Motorcycle, which was driven by the deceased on 12.01.1995 at about 08.15 p.m. It is the specific case of the prosecution that when the deceased Appiranantham and P.W.4 crossed the Subramania Nadar house, all the four accused appeared at the scene, carrying aruvals with them and restrained the deceased. When the deceased stopped the vehicle, all the four accused began to attack the deceased indiscriminately. When both of them, namely, the deceased and P.W.4, the pillion rider, fell down from the Rajdoot Motorcycle, A-4 gave a cut on the back of P.W.4. On receipt of injury, P.W.4 ran away from the scene. 16. According to P.W.1, he went to the Old Police Station and saw P.W.4 standing there. When he asked one Muthudurai, cousin of P.W.4, to take P.W.4 to the hospital, he arranged a van and sent both P.W.4 and Muthudurai to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital. P.W.1, in the cross-examination, would admit that there are two hospitals, namely, Pushpalatha Hospital and Mani Hospital near the place of occurrence. It is also admitted by him that there is a Government Hospital at Alangulam. There is no reason as to why Muthudurai was not asked to take P.W.4 to Government Hospital or to some other hospital, which is nearby. As a matter of fact, P.W.1 would admit in the cross-examination that police station is situated only half-a-kilometre away from the place of occurrence. There is no reason as to why Muthudurai was not asked to take P.W.4 to Government Hospital or to some other hospital, which is nearby. As a matter of fact, P.W.1 would admit in the cross-examination that police station is situated only half-a-kilometre away from the place of occurrence. If that is so, there is no reason as to why P.W.1 did not take steps to take P.W.4 to the Police Station to give a complaint. 17. On going through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4, it is clear that there are no details as to why P.W.4 was taken to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, which is situated 30 kms. away from the scene of occurrence, even though there are private hospitals and a Government Hospital situated in the Alangulam town itself. 18. Admittedly, P.W.1 did not state anything to Muthudurai about the incident. He would also admit that P.W.4 had telephone facility in his house. When he was careful enough to send P.W.4 along with Muthudurai to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital for giving treatment, it is not known as to why P.W.1 did not choose to inform the relatives of P.W.4 by making a telephone call to them. As a matter of fact, P.W.1 did not state in Ex.P-1 that he sent P.W.4 to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital along with Muthudurai. Even during investigation, as admitted by P.W.14, P.W.1 did not state that he sent P.W.4 to the hospital along with Muthudurai. 19. According to P.W.1, he left Alangulam town and was proceeding towards Arunachalaperi village by following the Rajdoot Motorcycle driven by the deceased, on his TVS Champ. In chief-examination, he stated that TVS Champ belonged to him, but, in cross-examination, it has been elicited by defence that the said Champ did not belong to him and he had not purchased the same and that he had no driving licence. Under those circumstances, a doubt arises as to whether P.W.1 would have followed the deceased on TVS Champ. 20. Furthermore, while giving details about the topography, P.W.1 would state that near the place of occurrence, there is an Amman Koil and there are some karivela trees. It is also stated by P.W.1 that on seeing the occurrence, he stopped the TVS Champ near the bus stop and from there, he witnessed the occurrence. 20. Furthermore, while giving details about the topography, P.W.1 would state that near the place of occurrence, there is an Amman Koil and there are some karivela trees. It is also stated by P.W.1 that on seeing the occurrence, he stopped the TVS Champ near the bus stop and from there, he witnessed the occurrence. But, the Amman Koil, the karivela trees and the bus stop are not found place in Ex.P-17, rough sketch. In view of the above circumstances, we are unable to place reliance on the evidence of P.W.1. 21. Of course, it is settled law that merely because one of the eye witnesses has been disbelieved, it cannot be a ground to reject the other eye witness, especially when the other eye witness happens to be the injured eye witness. In other words, if we believe the evidence of P.W.4, even though we are unable to place reliance on Ex.P-1 and P.W.1, then certainly the conviction can be based. 22. Let us now deal with the evidence of P.W.4. At the outset, it shall be stated that P.W.4 did not state in his evidence that P.W.1 alone arranged a van or taxi to send him to Tirunelveli Medical College hospital along with Muthudurai. There is a clear evidence to show that Muthudurai alone accompanied the deceased to the hospital. In Ex.P-15, issued by P.W.13 Doctor, it is clearly mentioned that the victim/ Issaikidurai/P.W.4 was brought by Muthudurai. Unfortunately, P.W.4 admitted in his cross-examination that he did not tell about the incident to any person including Muthudurai and as soon as he reached the hospital, he became unconscious. This is against the evidence of P.W.13 Doctor. 23. According to P.W.13, P.W.4 was brought by Muthudurai and the victim P.W.4 himself told the Doctor that he was attacked by three unknown persons with aruvals at Alangulam Market Bus Stand. If P.W.4 was unconscious, there was no necessity for P.W.13 to record in Ex.P-15, which is one of the earliest documents in this case, to the effect that P.W.4 told him that he was attacked by three unknown persons. Though P.W.4 in cross-examination specifically denies the suggestion that he told the Doctor that three unknown persons attacked him, P.W.13, in his evidence, would clearly state that P.W.4 only told him that he was attacked by three unknown persons. Though P.W.4 in cross-examination specifically denies the suggestion that he told the Doctor that three unknown persons attacked him, P.W.13, in his evidence, would clearly state that P.W.4 only told him that he was attacked by three unknown persons. Further, P.W.4, in cross-examination, admits that he told the Doctor what he knew about the incident. This admission made by P.W.4 in cross-examination that he told the Doctor regarding the incident would clearly show that his evidence in his chief-examination that he was unconscious in the hospital is not true. 24. It is clear from the evidence of P.W.13 that P.W.4 was admitted to hospital at 9.00 p.m. on 12.01.1995 and he told the Doctor that he was attacked by three unknown persons. P.W.13 would further state that after issuing Accident Register, Ex.P-15, he sent the intimation Ex.P-16 to the Out-post Police Station, attached to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital. Though P.W.4 would state that he has not given any statement to the Out-post Police Station, it has been elicited from the cross-examination of P.W.13 Doctor that on receipt of Ex.P-16, Out-post police came to the hospital and obtained a statement from P.W.4. Thus, the evidence of P.W.4 that he did not tell the Doctor that he was attacked by three unknown persons is quite contradictory to the evidence of P.W.13 Doctor and Ex.P-15 Accident Register. 25. A perusal of the deposition of P.W.4 would clearly indicate that it is not consistent with reference to the statement made by him before the Doctor and the police. Admittedly, P.W.4 was not examined during the course of inquest. According to the Inspector of Police, P.W.14, he went to the hospital at about 02.30 p.m. on 13.01.1995 and obtained the statement of P.W.4. Even though it is contended that the statement of P.W.4 to P.W.14 police officer at about 02.30 p.m. is in consonance with Ex.P-1, the same cannot be given due credence, in view of the fact that P.W.4, as mentioned in the earliest document, namely, Ex.P-15, told P.W.13 that he was attacked by three unknown persons. There is no investigation by the police officer with reference to this statement made by P.W.4 to P.W.13, the Doctor. When P.W.13 gave this evidence on the basis of Ex.P-15, the Accident Register, there is no reason to reject the same. There is no investigation by the police officer with reference to this statement made by P.W.4 to P.W.13, the Doctor. When P.W.13 gave this evidence on the basis of Ex.P-15, the Accident Register, there is no reason to reject the same. Even assuming that by mistake P.W.4 made such a statement, it is for the prosecution to establish as to how such a mistake had crept in while P.W.4 giving the statement to the Doctor, P.W.13. 26. This aspect could be viewed from yet another angle as well. There is no dispute in the fact that Muthudurai, the cousin of P.W.4, took the victim to the hospital. As indicated above, the name of Muthudurai is mentioned in Ex.P-15 as the person, who brought the victim. The prosecution has not chosen to examine the said Muthudurai. Had Muthudurai been examined, this Court would have been able to know as to what P.W.4 told the Doctor with reference to the occurrence and the number of known or unknown persons involved. Furthermore, if Muthudurai has been examined, he would have stated as to whether P.W.4 told him about the identity of persons, who attacked the deceased and P.W.4. There is no reason for the non-examination. Hence, non-examination of Muthudurai would be an additional feature to hold that the evidence of P.W.4 is not a reliable one. 27. One another important aspect to be noticed in this case is the suppression of the alleged statement obtained from P.W.4 by the Police Officer, attached to Out-post Police Station. Though P.W.13, the Doctor, has not stated anything about the statement recorded by the Out-post police from P.W.4 in chief-examination, it has been elicited by the defence during the course of cross-examination that on receipt of Ex.P-16 intimation, the police from Out-post Police Station came to the hospital and obtained a statement from P.W.4. If that is the admission of the Doctor, who has been examined as a prosecution witness, then the prosecution is bound to explain as to whether such a statement has been recorded or not by examining the police officers, attached to Out-post Police Station, and the same is in consonance with the contents of Ex.P-1. Admittedly, this has not been explained. 28. Thus, it is clear from the evidence of P.W.13 in cross-examination that recording of statement from P.W.4 by the Out-post police remains unchallenged. Admittedly, this has not been explained. 28. Thus, it is clear from the evidence of P.W.13 in cross-examination that recording of statement from P.W.4 by the Out-post police remains unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.13, especially when it has been established that after admitting P.W.4 in the hospital, he sent Ex.P-16 intimation to the Out-post Police Station. If this is not true, the prosecution would have treated P.W.13 as hostile. This is not done. 29. Hence, we are constrained to believe the evidence of P.W.13 Doctor, while rejecting the evidence of P.W.4. 30. One another important eye witness is one Govindasamy, who is the pillion rider in TVS Champ. According to P.W.1, Govindasamy also accompanied P.W.1 up to the Old Police Station. It is also seen from the evidence of P.W.14 that the said eye witness Govindasamy was examined during the course of inquest. Strangely, he has not been examined in the Court. There is no reason given for non-examination of the said Govindasamy. 31. Though the appellants/accused stated in Section 313 Cr.P.C. questioning that a false case was foisted only at the instance of P.W.12 Sub-Inspector of Police, as they earlier filed a private complaint against him, the said plea cannot be accepted, since the private complaint Ex.D-1, which was filed in the year 1993 against P.W.12 by A-4 was not taken on file and as such, it was not pursued. Consequently, there cannot be motive for P.W.12 to implicate A-1 to A-4 in a murder case. However, as indicated above, the prosecution established through the documentary evidence of Ex.P-19 that there was enmity between the two families. 32. It is a well established rule that enmity or motive is a double-edged weapon. The motive can be used for the attack on the deceased and the same motive can be used for filing a false case against the persons, who are inimically disposed of. 33. Admittedly, there was enmity between the accused family and the deceased family. On the basis of the above principle, it cannot be accepted that since enmity is established, the accused alone had committed the murder of the deceased. 34. In view of the discussion made above, we are unable to rely upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4. Consequently, we hold that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 35. 34. In view of the discussion made above, we are unable to rely upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4. Consequently, we hold that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 35. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the appellants/accused are acquitted of the charges. Consequently, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/accused are set aside. The appellants/accused are directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless they are required in connection with any other case. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the appellants/accused.