Judgment :- M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. Ramanathan (A1) was convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 read with 34 I.P.C., Subramani (A2) was convicted for the offences under Sections 302 read with 34 and 307 I.P.C. and Guruvaiah (A3) was convicted for the offences under Section 302 read with 34 and 307 read with 34 I.P.C., in S.C.No.266 of 1996 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai. Challenging the same, these appeals have been filed separately by the accused 1 to 3. 2. The brief facts leading to the conviction of the appellants/accused could be summarised as follows: "(a) The deceased Poochan Chettiar is the resident of Mamsapuram. P.W.2 Veeran is his son and P.W.1 Ramar is his son-in-law. There was a dispute between P.W.1 and one Vellaiammal, the sister of the deceased in respect of the lease of a landed property. The cases were pending between them in the Civil Court as well as in the Criminal Courts. Vellaiammal had given a complaint to P.W.15-- Inspector of Police of Srivilliputhur Police Station stating that she was not allowed to enjoy her landed property, which was earlier leased out to P.W.1—Ramar. (b) The enquiry on the complaint given by Vellaiammal was fixed on 17.12.1993. Both parties were attended the enquiry in the police station Srivilliputhur on that day. Ramanathan (A1) is the counsel appearing for Vellaiammal. The said Vellaiammal, her counsel Ramanathan (A1) and some others were present. When the enquiry had just started, P.W.15-Inspector of Police was called upon to the Court by the Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, he requested the parties to wait outside the Police Station for some more time. Then he left for attending to the call of the Judicial Magistrate. (c) While so, there arose a wordy quarrel between the deceased Poochan Chettiar and the first accused. Both abused at each other. The first accused got angry and slapped the deceased. P.W.1—Ramar questioned the act of the first accused and he was also slapped by the first accused. Consequently, both P.W.1—Ramar and the deceased also in retaliation beat the first accused. On noticing this incident, took place in front of the police station, a Police Constable P.W.10 came out of the Police Station and separated them. (d) At this juncture, P.W.15 came to the police station. Both the parties gave complaint against each other to him with regard to the said incident. On noticing this incident, took place in front of the police station, a Police Constable P.W.10 came out of the Police Station and separated them. (d) At this juncture, P.W.15 came to the police station. Both the parties gave complaint against each other to him with regard to the said incident. As per the direction of P.W.15-Inspector of Police, P.W.14--Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.1428/1993 against both the parties for the offence under Section 160 I.P.C. Thereafter, both the parties were directed to come on Sunday to continue the enquiry. While they were moving from the Police Station, the first accused challenged the deceased that he would see him one way or the other. (e) Next day, i.e., on 18.12.1993, the deceased Poochan Chettiar, his son P.W.2-Veeran and his son-in-law P.W.1-Ramar and one Paramasivam left their village and came to Srivilliputhur Town for meeting their advocate in his office. Since the advocate was not available in his office, they went to a hotel and took tiffin and then went to a plantain shop to meet the owners. After talking with the plantain shop owner for some time, they proceeded towards Srivilliputhur bus stand. (f) At that point of time, the first accused along with two other persons, namely, the second and third accused, appeared at the scene and restrained them. The first accused by abusing in a filthy language took an aruval from his waist and gave a cut on the neck of the deceased Poochan Chettiar on receipt of injuries, Poochan Chettiar fell down. (g) As P.W.1-Ramar raised alarm, the second accused--Subramani attacked him with an aruval on the left side of the neck. The third accused Guruviah also was standing with a weapon in the scene of occurrence. When the witnesses to the occurrence began to shout, the accused ran way with the weapons. (h) The deceased, who fell down on the ground was found dead. P.W.1-Ramar immediately went to the Srivilliputhur Police station along with P.W.2 and gave a complaint Ex.P.1. P.W.14 -Sub Inspector of Police. He registered a case for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P.1 is the complaint and Ex.P.16 is the printed First Information Report. P.W.14 found P.W.1 with injuries and so he recovered M.O.1 bloodstained half shirt from P.W.1 and sent him to the Government Hospital. P.W.14 -Sub Inspector of Police. He registered a case for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P.1 is the complaint and Ex.P.16 is the printed First Information Report. P.W.14 found P.W.1 with injuries and so he recovered M.O.1 bloodstained half shirt from P.W.1 and sent him to the Government Hospital. (i) On 18.12.1993, P.W.8 Doctor, attached to the Government Hospital, Srivilliputhur on receipt of the memo from the Police authority, gave treatment to P.W.1 at 3.00 p.m. and issued the wound certificate Ex.P.4. (j) P.W.15 Inspector of Police, on receipt of a copy of the First Information Report, came to the scene of occurrence at 3.15 p.m. and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P.10 and drew rough sketch Ex.P.17. He caused the scene to be photographed by a photographer. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased from 3.45 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. and prepared the inquest report Ex.P.18. He recovered blood stained cement piece M.O.2 and sample cement piece M.O.3 under mahazar Ex.P.11. He also examined P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 14 and other witnesses and recorded their statement. P.W.15 sent the dead body of the deceased to the Ralaji Government Hospital, Madurai for postmortem. (k) On 19.12.1993, P.W.7 Doctor conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased at 10.45 a.m. and found cut injury on the left side of the neck of the deceased and opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injury and issued Ex.P.3 postmortem certificate. (l) On 19.12.1993, P.W.15 in continuation of his investigation examined P.Ws.5, 6, 10 and other witnesses. On 13.01.1994 he examined P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 4 and 11 and recorded their statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and forwarded the same to the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Madurai. (m) P.W.15 then continued the investigation and took steps for arresting the first accused and two others. In the mean time, P.Ws.1 and 2, gave statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. to the Judicial Magistrate--P.W.9. Meanwhile, the first accused surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruttani, on 11.04.1994 and accused 2 and 3 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Madurai on 20.04.1994. (n) On 25.05.1994, on the request given by P.W.15, identification parade was conducted by P.W.9—Judicial Magistrate No.3, Srivilliputhur at Sub Jail, Srivilliputhur, in which accused 2 and 3 were identified by P.W.1—Ramar. Meanwhile, the first accused surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruttani, on 11.04.1994 and accused 2 and 3 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Madurai on 20.04.1994. (n) On 25.05.1994, on the request given by P.W.15, identification parade was conducted by P.W.9—Judicial Magistrate No.3, Srivilliputhur at Sub Jail, Srivilliputhur, in which accused 2 and 3 were identified by P.W.1—Ramar. Ex.P.6 is the identification parade notes and Ex.P.7 is the detailed report of the identification parade. (o) Though P.W.15-Inspector of Police filed an application for police custody of the accused, his request was turned down by the Judicial Magistrate. After finishing investigation, P.W.15 filed the charge sheet against the accused 1 to 3 for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 read with Sec.34 IPC." (p) During the course of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 15; filed Exs.P.1 to P.18 and marked M.Os.1 to 6. (q) When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating materials placed before the Court, they denied their complicity in the crime in question. (r) The trial Court on appraisal of the entire evidence on record found the accused 1 to 3 guilty of the offences under Sections 302 and 307 read with 34 IPC; 302 read with 34 and 307; and 302 read with 34 IPC and 307 read with 34 IPC respectively and sentenced them thereunder as referred to above. This judgment impugned, is the subject matter of challenge before this Court under the above three appeals. 3. Mr. S. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the first accused/appellant would take us through the entire evidence and make the following submissions. " The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is artificial. P.W.15-- Inspector of Police, is inimical towards the first accused, against whom a resolution had been passed by the Bar Association, Srivilliputhur in support of the first accused on 18.12.1993. The very fact that P.Ws.1 and 2 were made to give a statement under Sec.164 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate would clearly show that the Investigating Officer P.W.15 by taking vengeance against A1 took extra interest to see that the first accused was implicated in a murder case. The evidence of P.W.1 would reveal that there are several improvements with regard to the incident that took place on 17.12.1993 in front of the police station. The evidence of P.W.1 would reveal that there are several improvements with regard to the incident that took place on 17.12.1993 in front of the police station. Admittedly, there was no enmity for the first accused against the deceased and P.W.1, since P.W.1 himself would admit that the first accused was not known to him earlier and as such there was reason for the accused to commit murder of the deceased. P.Ws.1 and 2 would not have been present at the Police Station on 17.12.1993 as there was no enquiry by P.W.15 in the Police station. In the earlier case, which was registered in Crime No.390 of 1993 on the complaint of P.W.1, the first accused was arrayed as the fifth accused in the charge sheet by the Inspector of Police, even though his name was not earlier mentioned in the First Information Report. Merely because the first accused as a lawyer defended his client Vellaiammal, he was falsely implicated at the instance of the Inspector of Police, who had not conducted the investigation properly. Therefore, the first accused is entitled to be acquitted." 4. Mr.R.Regupathi, learned counsel appearing for the second accused would make the following contentions. " Admittedly, the second accused did not attack the deceased. There is no motive for the second accused to attack the deceased or P.W.1. Even though it has been stated in Ex.P.1 that the second accused also restrained the deceased, no such reference was made against the second accused by P.W.1 while he was examined. Furthermore, in Ex.P.4 wound certificate, the Doctor P.W.8 had stated that P.W.1 told that one known person and two unknown persons caused the injuries on his neck, but this is contrary to the case of the prosecution. Though the second and third accused surrendered before the Court on 20.04.1994, identification parade was conducted only after a month, and as such, the evidence relating to the identification parade with reference to the identity of the second and third accused cannot be acted upon. Therefore, the second accused is liable to be acquitted." 5. Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned counsel appearing for the third accused would make the following submissions. "Admittedly, there was no overt act attributed against the third accused, though it was spoken to by P.W.1 that the third accused was standing with an aruval at the scene of occurrence. Therefore, the second accused is liable to be acquitted." 5. Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned counsel appearing for the third accused would make the following submissions. "Admittedly, there was no overt act attributed against the third accused, though it was spoken to by P.W.1 that the third accused was standing with an aruval at the scene of occurrence. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is clear that there was no motive for the third accused to attack the deceased and there was no material available to show that the third accused associated with either the first accused or the second accused. Therefore, the materials available on record are not sufficient to hold that the third accused is guilty of the offence of murder of the deceased." 6. On these aspects, we have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also gone through the records. 7. On a perusal of the entire records, we are unable to accept the contention urged by the counsel appearing for A1 and A2, for the following reasons. 8. It is the case of the prosecution that on 17.12.1993, both the parties were called by P.W.15-Inspector of Police for conducting an enquiry on the complaint given by Vellaiammal. On that day, Vellaimmal and some persons including the first accused/advocate as well as the deceased and his son-in-law P.W.1 Ramar and P.W.2 were present. While enquiry was going on, the Inspector of Police was summon to meet the Judicial Magistrate in the Court and therefore, these parties were asked to wait outside the police station till he comes back. Before he came back, there was a wordy quarrel ensued between the first accused/advocate and the deceased Poochan Chettiar. The first accused had an impression that proper enquiry was not conducted by the Inspector of Police. Hence, he asked his client Vellaiammal to come before the Police Station with five litres of kerosene and pour the same on her body and to commit suicide and then on that basis he would take action against the Inspector of Police, reporting that the Inspector of Police was responsible for the suicide committed by her. On hearing these words, the deceased Poochan Chettiar, objected to the first accused stating that as an advocate, he should not give such an advice to his client. On hearing these words, the deceased Poochan Chettiar, objected to the first accused stating that as an advocate, he should not give such an advice to his client. He further told him that the advocate must advise his client properly, and should not drive her to commit suicide in order to wreck vengeance against the Police Officer. On getting angry over these words of the deceased, the advocate (A1) beat the deceased by slapping on his face. P.W.1 son-in-law of the deceased questioned him as to why he beat the deceased, and so the first accused slapped P.W.1 also. Then, both P.W.1 and the deceased in retaliation, beat the first accused with hands. At that time, the Police Constable P.W.10 on hearing the noise came out of the station and separated them. 9. After this occurrence was over, P.W.15--Inspector of Police came to the Station for continuing the enquiry. At that time, the first accused gave a complaint to P.W.15 in writing against P.W.1 and the deceased mentioning the quarrel ensued between them outside the police station during the time of his absence. Similarly, P.W.1 also gave a complaint to P.W.15 against the first accused narrating the incident that had happened outside the police station during his absence. P.W.15 received both the complaint and directed P.W.14 Sub Inspector of Police to register the case against the both. Accordingly, the case was registered in Crime No.390/1993 for the offence under Section 160 IPC against both the parties. The Inspector of police P.W.15, thereafter asked the parties to come to the Police Station for continuing the enquiry two days later. 10. According to prosecution, this is the motive for the murder. To establish this motive, the prosecution has produced P.W.1, P.W.10, P.W.14 and P.W.15, who speak about the same. The Inspector of police P.W.15, thereafter asked the parties to come to the Police Station for continuing the enquiry two days later. 10. According to prosecution, this is the motive for the murder. To establish this motive, the prosecution has produced P.W.1, P.W.10, P.W.14 and P.W.15, who speak about the same. It has been elicited even in the cross-examination from P.Ws.14 and 15 regarding the quarrel ensued between both the first accused on the one side and deceased and P.W.1 on the other side, in front of the police station on 17.12.1993 and on that basis, cases were registered against both parties for the offence under Section 160 I.P.C. It has been specifically stated by P.W.1 that when the first accused had advised Vellaimmal to commit suicide by self immolation, expressing her grievance of enquiry not being conducted properly by P.W.15 Inspector of Police, the deceased questioned him as to why the first accused should give such an advice to her, even though he was a lawyer and therefore, the first accused beat the deceased. 11. This evidence relating to the occurrence on 17.12.1993 was not seriously challenged. No suggestion had been put either to P.W.1 or P.W.10 that the first accused was not present at the time of occurrence which took place on 17.12.1993 in front of the Police Station. In fact, the first accused himself has filed a written statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. admitting the incident that took place on 17.12.1993 and mentioning about the resolution having been passed on 18.12.1993 by the Bar Association, Srivilliputhur, with reference to the complaint filed against him by P.W.1. These things would clearly show that the occurrence on 17.12.1993 is true and the same was the immediate cause for the murder of Poochan Chettiar, which took place next day. 12. It may be true that the first accused did not have any enmity against the deceased and the deceased also was not keen in taking any action with reference to the incident that took place before the Police Station as against the first accused. Even according to the prosecution, criminal cases were pending only between Vellaiammal and P.W.1. But the fact remains that the first accused is the counsel appearing for Vellaimmal, the sister of the deceased, in all her cases. Even according to the prosecution, criminal cases were pending only between Vellaiammal and P.W.1. But the fact remains that the first accused is the counsel appearing for Vellaimmal, the sister of the deceased, in all her cases. Therefore, in our view, the motive for the occurrence, as disclosed from the deposition of the witnesses referred to above, has been clearly established. 13. Let us now come to the main occurrence. According to P.W.1, he left the village along with his father-in-law the deceased and P.W.2-Veeran, the son of the deceased, in order to meet his Advocate at Srivilliputhur. As the Advocate was not available, they went to the hotel and took tiffin and thereafter went to the plantain shop and met the shop owner and talked with him for few minutes. Thereafter, they were proceeding to the bus stand at Srivilliputhur. At that point of time, the deceased and other persons were restrained by the first accused and others. Then the first accused abused the deceased and questioned him as to how dare he had beaten him on the earlier day in the police station and so saying he took out an aruval from his waist and cut the deceased on his neck. When P.W.1 shouted, the second accused gave a cut on the neck of P.W.1. The third accused was also standing with aruval when all the witnesses to the occurrence shouted. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 with reference to this is clear and cogent. 14. The occurrence had taken place at 1.30 p.m. near the Police Station, which is at a distance of 300 metres from the place of occurrence. P.W.1 rushed to the Police Station with a cut injury on his neck and gave Ex.P.1 complaint to P.W.14-Sub inspector of Police and the same was registered at 2.00 p.m. The First Information Report reached the Court at 3.15 p.m. on the same day of occurrence. Thereafter, P.W.1 was sent to the hospital from where he was referred to Rajaji Government Hospital, Madurai. P.W.15-Inspector of Police, on receipt of the message, came to the scene and examined the witnesses. The Doctor P.W.8 examined P.W.1 and issued the wound certificate Ex.P.4 mentioning about the cut injury on the neck. 15. P.W.7 Doctor, who conducted postmortem, found cut injury on the left side of the neck of the deceased. P.W.15-Inspector of Police, on receipt of the message, came to the scene and examined the witnesses. The Doctor P.W.8 examined P.W.1 and issued the wound certificate Ex.P.4 mentioning about the cut injury on the neck. 15. P.W.7 Doctor, who conducted postmortem, found cut injury on the left side of the neck of the deceased. According to P.W.7, the injury on the neck of the deceased is fatal. This aspect of the evidence has been spoken to by P.Ws.1, 2, and the Doctors P.W.7 and P.W.8. The materials avaialble on record do not indicate that a false case had been foisted against the first accused at the instance of the P.W.15--Inspector of Police. It is to be pointed out that there was no reason to hold P.W.15 had any animosity against the first accused. Similarly, P.Ws.1 and 2 had no axe to grind against the accused. P.W.1 himself would admit that he did not know the first accused earlier. From their evidence, it is clear that the first accused was beaten by the deceased and his men in front of the police station on the earlier day, by way of taking revenge on the deceased party, this fatal incident had occurred. 16. The fact that P.Ws.1 and 2 gave statement under Sec.164 Cr.P.C. to the Magistrate would not indicate that they were made to give a false statement against the accused. It was submitted by the counsel for the accused that pursuant to the statement given by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. a resolution had been passed against P.W.15 on 18.12.1993 by the Srivilliputhur Bar Association in respect of the complaint given on 17.12.1993 against the first accused. But this would not be a ground to hold that P.Ws.1 and 2 are speaking falsehood as against the first accused with reference to the main occurrence. 17. As pointed out earlier, the enmity was between the deceased Poochan Chettiar family and Vellaiammal. So P.Ws.1 and 2 need not implicate all these accused in a murder case. As a matter of fact, P.Ws.1 and 2 have not mentioned the name of A2 and A.3 in Ex.P.1 complaint. Furthermore, P.Ws.1 and 2 who are the near relatives of the deceased, would not normally allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate some others without any reason. 18. As a matter of fact, P.Ws.1 and 2 have not mentioned the name of A2 and A.3 in Ex.P.1 complaint. Furthermore, P.Ws.1 and 2 who are the near relatives of the deceased, would not normally allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate some others without any reason. 18. It is submitted that the complaint had been prepared only after the arrival of P.W.15 Inspector of Police. There is no basis for this submission. It is the specific evidence of P.W.14-Sub Inspector of Police that the complaint was obtained by him at about 2.00 p.m. on 18.12.1993 and immediately, the complaint and F.I.R. were sent to the Court and the same were received at 3.15 p.m. itself. In fact P.W.15--Inspector of Police came to the scene at 3.30 p.m. 19. Under those circumstances, there is no reason to reject the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and documents Exs.P.1 and P.2. 20. However, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant/third accused that there was no consistency in the evidence relating to the part played by the third accused in the commission of the offence of murder of Poochan Chettiar. 21. According to the prosecution, the third accused also came along with the accused 1 and 2 and restrained the deceased. P.W.1 deposed that the third accused also was standing nearby and after the attack, all the three accused ran away from the scene. However, there is no reference that the third accused was standing with aruval near by the scene of occurrence. P.W.1 did not state that the third accused was armed with aruval. It is also admitted by P.W.15 in his cross-examination that P.W.1 had not stated that the third accused was armed with aruval in the place of occurrence. 22. Under those circumstances, we are of view that the third accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as there is no consistency in the evidence let in by the witnesses with reference to the part played by him in the murder of the deceased. 23. In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed on the third accused Guruvaiah, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.527 of 2000 are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges. The bail bond executed by him shall stand cancelled. Criminal Appeal No.527 of 2000 is allowed. 23. In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed on the third accused Guruvaiah, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.527 of 2000 are set aside and he is acquitted of the charges. The bail bond executed by him shall stand cancelled. Criminal Appeal No.527 of 2000 is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the accused No.1 (Ramanathan) and accused No.2, (Subramani) the appellants in Crl.Appeal Nos.494 and 1032 of 2000 respectively are confirmed and Crl.Appeal Nos.494 and 1032 of 2000 are dismissed. The trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the custody of the second accused alone to undergo the remaining period of sentence, as the first accused is already in jail.