Judgment :- M. Thanikachalam, J. The accused, in S.C.No.27/1995 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram, who stand convicted for the offence under Sections 302, 302 r/w 109, 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, are the appellants. 2. The respondent/complainant brought the accused before the trial Court, to face the trial, for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 302, 302 r/w 109 I.P.C., alleging that due to the enmity that had arisen, because of the land dispute, with an intention to commit murder of one Chinnasamy, all the three accused on 2.4.1993 at about 8.00 p.m., waylaid the said Chinnasamy and stabbed him causing severe stab injuries, which resulted in the death of the said Chinnasamy and therefore, they should be dealt with accordingly. 3. The learned Sessions Judge, after going through the materials placed before him, satisfied himself about the existence of a prima facie case, for proceeding further. In this view, the charges were framed against the accused under Section 341, 323, 302 r/w 109, 302 and 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. All the accused denied the charges and refused to plead guilty, thereby compelling the prosecution to make out a case, beyond all reasonable doubt. 4. In order to discharge the burden, on behalf of the prosecution, 13 witnesses were marched in, armed with 24 documents and seven material objects. 5. The learned trial judge, while evaluating the above materials felt, it had brought to surface the guilt of the accused and in this view, he concluded, the first accused is liable to be convicted under Sections 341 and 302 I.P.C.; and accused 2 & 3 are liable to be convicted under Sections 341, 323, 302 r/w 109 and 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. Desisting to give separate punishment under Sections 341 and 323 I.P.C., he convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo life imprisonment, for the proved offence under Sections 302, 302 r/w 109, 302 r/w 34 I.P.C., which is under challenge in this appeal. 6. Brief facts necessary to decide the matter: (a) The accused appellants 1 to 3 are the brothers and they are the sons of one Kuppusamy. Chinnasamy (deceased) is owning a house, on the western side of poramboke land, where the second accused by name Muniyan had constructed a house. Chinnasamy requested the second accused while constructing the house to leave 3 ft. Chinnasamy (deceased) is owning a house, on the western side of poramboke land, where the second accused by name Muniyan had constructed a house. Chinnasamy requested the second accused while constructing the house to leave 3 ft. pathway for his convenience, which was negatived. In spite of panchayat, because of this dispute, there was not only a wordy altercation, but also exchange of blows, resulting in the first accused preferring a police case not only against Chinnasamy, but also against P.W.1, viz., Deepavali @ Thandavarayan. In addition to the cirminal case, there is a civil case also, between the first accused and the deceased Chinnasamy, as well as P.W.1. Because of this enmity, it seems, the accused had decided to commit the murder of Chinnasamy. (b) On 2.4.1993 at about 8.00 p.m., Chinnasamy was returning to his village Mandagapadi, through a foot path near a burial ground. When Thiru Koothan (P.W.2), who is a coolie and native of Muttiyam Village, returning to his village after attending his coolie work at Mandagapadi, through the same foot path, at about 8.30 p.m., having the lantern M.O.1 in his hand, since it was dark, the accused 1 to 3 wrongfully restrained Chinnasamy, which was questioned by P.W.2. The accused aggrieved by the questioning of P.W.2, assaulted him with stick over his backside, causing injury and on assault he fell down. Thereafter, while accused 2 & 3 had caught hold of Chinnasamy, the first accused stabbed Chinnasamy, indiscriminately, all over the body, by using the weapon, M.O.2. P.W.1, who had been to Munivazhai village, to get back the amount advanced by him, to one Chandran, was returning through the same way and he heard the noise raised by Chinnasamy, as well as P.W.2. Immediately, he rushed to the spot and noticed the acts of the accused, namely stabbing the deceased and his falling , near the burial ground. Thereafter, all the accused took their heels and disappeared from the scene of crime. (c) P.W.1 went to the village Mandagapadi and informed the wife of Chinnasamy, about the injuries sustained by him in the hands of the accused. Immediately, P.W.3 accompanied by one Jayashankar and others, rushed to the spot and found Chinnasamy with stab injuries, oozing out blood. Immediately, Chinnasamy was taken to the hospital in the state transport bus, and admitted in the hospital at about 1.15 a.m. on 3.4.1993. Immediately, P.W.3 accompanied by one Jayashankar and others, rushed to the spot and found Chinnasamy with stab injuries, oozing out blood. Immediately, Chinnasamy was taken to the hospital in the state transport bus, and admitted in the hospital at about 1.15 a.m. on 3.4.1993. (d) P.W.7, the doctor, who attended on Chinnasamy, attempted to save the life, but proved to be futile and the result was the death. He certified the injuries sustained by Chinnasamy in Ex.P.8 and informed the police under Ex.P.9, as well as the death under Ex.P.10. (e) P.W.1, after making arrangement to take the injured to the hospital, went to Rishivandiyam Police Station at about 11.30 p.m. on 2.4.1993 itself and informed the incident to P.W.11, who reduced the same into writing as Ex.P.1 and on the basis of Ex.P.1, a case was registered in Cr.No.49/93 under Sections 341, 323 and 307 I.P.C., for which Ex.P.18 printed F.I.R was sent to the court, as well as to the higher authorities for investigation. (f) On receipt of the copy of F.I.R., P.W.12 the then Sub Inspector of Police, took the case for investigation, rushed to the spot at about 6.00 a.m. on 3.4.1993, inspected the premises, prepared Ex.P.2 and also recovered blood stained earth-M.O.3, sample earth-M.O.4 under Ex.P.3, in addition to the lantern-M.O.1, which was available in the spot. Thereafter, on receipt of Ex.P.20, death intimation, the case was converted under Section 302 I.P.C., for which express report, Ex.P.21 was sent to the court. (g) On receipt of Exs.P.1 and P2, P.W.13, the then Inspector of Thirukoilur, who was in-charge of Rishivandiyam Police Station, took up the case for investigation. He conducted inquest at Thirukoilur Hospital, over the body of Chinnasamy and the result is Ex.P.22. He had also examined the witnesses, recorded their statements. On 10.4.1994, he arrested the first accused at about 5.00 a.m. near the bus stop, who gave Ex.P.5 confession, leading to the recovery of M.O.2, which was recovered under Ex.P.6. The recovered materials were sent for chemical examination, through Court, which elicited the reports, Exs.P.16 and P.17. (h) The investigation revealed, that all the accused had jointly committed the murder of Chinnasamy, due to previous enmity and therefore, seeking appropriate punishment, P.W.13 filed a final report. After elaborate trial, the case ended in conviction, which gave cause of action for the accused, to come to this court, as appellants, challenging the verdict. (h) The investigation revealed, that all the accused had jointly committed the murder of Chinnasamy, due to previous enmity and therefore, seeking appropriate punishment, P.W.13 filed a final report. After elaborate trial, the case ended in conviction, which gave cause of action for the accused, to come to this court, as appellants, challenging the verdict. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr.N. Mohideen Basha and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 8. The learned counsel for the accused/appellants submits, that P.Ws.1 & 2 could not be the eye witnesses, for the incident and therefore, believing their oral testimony, sustaining the conviction is not possible. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that the ocular evidence is not only against the averments in Ex.P.1, but also not in conformity with the medical evidence and in this view, their evidence is not worthy of acceptance. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, that the scene of crime is not at all proved, the fact being, there are inconsistent evidence about the place, where the murder is said to have taken place, which is also supported by the absence of any blood stain at the alleged scene of crime. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, that Ex.P.1 which moved the wheel of investigation, could not be the first information report and the original first information report, which had some other case, had been suppressed by the investigating officer, which should follow, the case said to have been investigated on the basis of the false first information report, should collapse, without foundation. Admittedly, the incident had taken place during night hours and the eyewitnesses could not have generally identified, who are the assailants. In order to throw light, over the scene of crime, the case projected by the prosecution case is, that P.W.2 was armed with M.O.1, lantern. The recovery of M.O.1 is not in accordance with the evidence of P.W.2 himself and therefore, the prosecution case that P.Ws.1 & 2 could have seen the accused with the help of M.O.1 must go, which should follow, they could not have identified the accused as assailants. Developing the above arguments, supported by other materials, a strenuous argument was made by the learned counsel for the appellants for the acquittal of the accused. 9. Developing the above arguments, supported by other materials, a strenuous argument was made by the learned counsel for the appellants for the acquittal of the accused. 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, while opposing the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants submits, that there is no reason to ignore or eschew the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2, who are the eyewitnesses, that too an injured witness viz., P.W.2 and the consequent result should be that the acceptance of their oral testimony by the trial Court, should receive the seal of approval of this Court. According to the Additional Public Prosecutor, the trial Court had considered elaborately about the materials against all the accused and came to a just conclusion, fixing the culpability of the accused, which does not warrant interference by this Court. 10. It is true, for every action, there must be some cause of action. Here, for the death of Chinnasamy, the motive attributed is, the enmity between the deceased Chinnasamy and the accused. The case spoken by P.W.1 regarding the dispute, over a pathway near the house of the deceased as well as the second accused, is not seriously challenged. Because of the dispute, which resulted in assault also, as seen from Exs.P.23 and P.24, there were criminal cases between the parties, in which P.W.1 was also shown as an accused. It is also admitted by P.W.1 that there was a civil litigation between the deceased and the first accused. Thus, it is seen, prima facie, there was some strained relationship between the parties and continuous animosity also, which would ordinarily give some cause of action, for the subsequent assault. As far as motive is concerned, there is some evidence and it may be the cause for the murder or it may not be the cause for the murder. Even without the motive, with mens rea, to commit murder, if the accused had acted, that also would attract 302 I.P.C. 11. Chinnasamy was admitted in the hospital on 3.4.1993 at about 1.15 am. Even without the motive, with mens rea, to commit murder, if the accused had acted, that also would attract 302 I.P.C. 11. Chinnasamy was admitted in the hospital on 3.4.1993 at about 1.15 am. for the injuries said to have been sustained by him on 2.4.1993 at about 8.00 p.m. The doctor, PW7, who attended on him had noticed 13 stab injuries all over his body, unable to give the best treatment for the survival of Chinnasamy, when P.W.7 was making arrangement for sending the victim to Cuddalore hospital, Chinnasamy succumbed to the injuries, at about 4.45 am. and this fact was intimated to the police under Ex.P.10. The postmortem conducted by PW8 also would indicate that the deceased received 13 injuries, out of which, 4th injury proved to be fatal, which caused internal injuries to vital organs namely heart and lungs. On the basis of the autopsy, PW8 opined under Ex.P12 that the deceased Chinnasamy died of shock and hemorrhage, due to the injuries to vital organs. The evidence so given by the doctor, regarding the homicidal death, is not disputed. Thus, fixing the cause for the death, we should see, whether the accused were the cause for the injuries sustained by the deceased. 12. It is the positive case of the prosecution that P.Ws.1 & 2 are the eyewitnesses. Whereas, it is the case of the defence, that they are not the eyewitnesses and they are planted by the police, to speak something, which they had not seen actually. In order to make it appear, as if P.W.1 is an eyewitness, even the prosecution went to the extent of saying that he had sustained injuries by the assault of the accused and therefore, there is no chance of ignoring his testimony. By scanning the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 as well as the first information report given by P.W.1 viz., Ex.P.1, we are unable to say empathetically, that P.Ws.1 & 2 could have witnessed the incident or Ex.P.1 is the genuine and real first information report, regarding the incident. True, when the witnesses are examined, that too under the charged atmosphere of the court, there bound to be some contradictions or omissions, as the case may be, even deviating from the allegations levelled in the complaint. True, when the witnesses are examined, that too under the charged atmosphere of the court, there bound to be some contradictions or omissions, as the case may be, even deviating from the allegations levelled in the complaint. We are not going to say, that P.Ws.1 and 2 could not be the eyewitnesses, only on the ground of discrepancy or omissions, if any. On the other hand, there are material contradictions, cutting the root of the case, as well as about the origin of Ex.P.1, doubting about the genuineness of the case itself and in this view alone, we are constrained to say, that P.Ws.1 & 2 would not have witnessed the incident. 13. Ex.P.1 is the complaint said to have been given by P.W.1 to the police viz., P.W.11 on 2.4.1993 at about 11.30 p.m. Ex.P.1 and the printed F.I.R. reached the court on the next day i.e. on 3.4.1993 at about 12.30 p.m. There is some delay. If the delay had occurred only in the normal course, then it will not have the sharpness of cutting the root of the prosecution. On the other hand, if the delay had occurred due to deliberation and to fix the accused, then it will loom large, creating spontaneous doubt about the genuineness of the case, itself. No explanation is offered by the police, why and under what circumstances the F.I.R. registered at 11.30 p.m. on 2.4.1993, had not reached within the minimum time to the court, whereas it reached belatedly at about 12.30 p.m. on the next day. The non explanation is evident, because the F.I.R. would not have come into existence, as indicated therein and if at all, as suggested by the accused, it would have come into existence, at later point of time, and that is why it had reached the court at 12.30 p.m. For this conclusion, we are having plenty of intrinsic and unquestionable evidence, in the version of the prosecution witnesses. 14. P.W.1 has stated, after sending the injured through the bus to Thirukoilur hospital, he went to Rishivandiyam police station and preferred the complaint to one Sundaramurthy, the head constable. It is not the case of P.W.1 that the police were present when the injured was taken to the hospital, through the bus or police helped him, after the incident to take the injured to the hospital. It is not the case of P.W.1 that the police were present when the injured was taken to the hospital, through the bus or police helped him, after the incident to take the injured to the hospital. During the cross examination, P.W.1 would admit, that P.W.2 attested in the complaint, which was written by Sundaramurthy. But, as seen from Ex.P.1, it is not attested by P.W.2 or any other person. Therefore, Ex.P.1 could not be the original complaint and it must be some other document, came in to existence, probably prepared in the paper in which, the Inspector had obtained the signature of P.W.1, as admitted by him. He would state, during cross examination, that on the next day at about 10.00 a.m., when he went to the police station, the Inspector had obtained the signature. Probably that must be Ex.P.1 and from the said time onwards, it was immediately sent to the court, which reached at about 12.30 p.m. or so. 15. P.W.3, the wife of the deceased would state even during the examination in chief, that when the doctors have examined her husband, he gave a statement and that document should be the first information report, which is suppressed. During the cross examination also, P.W.3 had asserted that the police had obtained a statement from her husband and it is not known to her, whether her husband had signed the same or not. Thus, it is seen, the best piece of evidence viz., the statement, given by the deceased, which could be treated as dying declaration, is suppressed, for which an adverse inference has to be drawn, doubting about the origin of the case itself. P.W.3 would state during the cross examination, that only the police, who came to the spot, stopped the bus and took the deceased to the Government hospital. It is not explained, how the police had come to the spot and took the injured to the hospital. If the evidence given by P.W.3 is correct, then the police might have received the information, even before the deceased was admitted in the hospital, which is not the case of the prosecution. Under the above said circumstances, spontaneously a dark cloud has been spread over Ex.P.1, thereby creating doubt about the contents therein and the benefits of doubt should go to the accused. 16. Under the above said circumstances, spontaneously a dark cloud has been spread over Ex.P.1, thereby creating doubt about the contents therein and the benefits of doubt should go to the accused. 16. According to the prosecution, the incident had taken place near a burial ground, which is adjacent to a foot path, leading from Muttiyam to Mandagapadi. In Ex.P.19, the scene of occurrence is shown, as if it had taken place in two places one near the land of one Sivakozhunthu and another in the foot path of Muttiyam leading to Mandagapadi. 17. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the incident had not taken place, as narrated in the final report and as shown in Ex.P.19, whereas the deceased was attacked by somebody, near an illegal toddy shop and if that was disclosed, the police would land in trouble and therefore, suppressing the real case, as well as the actual scene of crime, the police have shifted the scene of crime itself. The submission is not in the air, whereas it is supported by acceptable evidence also. It was suggested to the investigating officer, that murder had taken place near a toddy shop and to suppress the same, a false case was created, as if the murder had taken place in the footpath, connecting the accused. The investigating officer went to the scene of crime, prepared observation mahazar, Ex.P.2, wherein it is stated, that blood stained earth was noticed at the scene of crime, as indicated in Ex.P.19. It is the case of the investigating officer, that he had recovered blood stained earth also, from the scene of crime, which is disputed, as seen from the cross examination. The so called blood stained earth, was sent for chemical examination, which has not revealed any human blood, as seen from serologist's report, Ex.P.17. Admittedly, the deceased had sustained 13 cut injuries and it is the case of the wife, as well as the so called eye witnesses, that the deceased was lying with bleeding injuries in the ground. Therefore, if the scene of crime shown in Ex.P.19 is correct, the blood stained earth said to have been recovered from that place, should contain not only the human blood, but also the blood of the deceased, which is not the case, as proved by the serologist's report. Therefore, if the scene of crime shown in Ex.P.19 is correct, the blood stained earth said to have been recovered from that place, should contain not only the human blood, but also the blood of the deceased, which is not the case, as proved by the serologist's report. Since the incident had not taken place as indicated in Ex.P.19, the investigating officer had not recovered any blood stained earth and that is why the chemical examiners were also unable to detect any human blood in that earth. In this context, we have to see further the oral evidence of P.W.2, who claims to be the injured eyewitness. 18. P.W.2 during the cross examination would admit, that the incident had taken place near a toddy shop adjacent to a tamarind tree. He further says, that after Chinnasamy received stab injuries, more than 15 persons those who were present near the toddy shop, assembled there. This witness is not treated as hostile witness and no clarification was sought, by way of reexamination. His evidence, if read with the above said suggestion, would reveal the fact, that the incident had not taken place, as narrated in the final report at the place mentioned therein, and if at all, it should have taken place near the toddy shop, which is suppressed by the police, for the reasons best known to them. In this view also, a spontaneous doubt that had arisen automatically is unavoidable and we are unable to desist ourselves from giving the benefits of doubt also to the accused. 19. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that P.Ws.1 & 2 would not have witnessed the incident and therefore, question of accepting their testimony as correct and convicting the accused, may not be proper, appears to be well founded, in our considered opinion. By going through the evidence given by P.Ws.1 & 2 and comparing the same with Ex.P.1, said to have been given by P.W.1 to the police, regarding genuineness of Ex.P.1, we have already entertained a doubt. 20. In Ex.P.1, it is stated that P.W.1 had been to Rishivandiyam, to meet one Chandran in order to recover amount, which he had advanced. 20. In Ex.P.1, it is stated that P.W.1 had been to Rishivandiyam, to meet one Chandran in order to recover amount, which he had advanced. If this is the fact, exclusively known to him and chandran, in the ordinary course, when P.W.1 was asked to speak about the circumstances, how he had been to the scene of crime, generally there should not be any discrepancy. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants, P.W.1 had contradicted this statement. During the cross examination, PW1 has stated that he had been to Chandran to obtain a loan of Rs.2000/-, which is not the case in Ex.P.1. 21. It is further stated in Ex.P.1 that when he went to the scene of crime, the accused and the deceased were quarreling each other and P.W.2 was preventing the same. On the other hand, P.W.2 would state that on the fateful day at about 8.30 p.m. or so, he along with Chinnasamy were proceeding together and at that time all the three accused caught hold of Chinnasamy and thereafter, assaulted. Thus, how P.W.2 went to the scene of crime, what was the role played by him and how he was seen by P.W.1 are also contradicted. 22. Regarding the injuries said to have been inflicted by the accused, it is said in Ex.P.1 that A1 alone had stabbed the deceased using M.O.2 and others have assaulted him by using stick. When P.W.1 entered into the box, he would state that the deceased was stabbed by all the three accused. It is the case of P.W.2 on the other hand that the first accused alone had stabbed the deceased, thereby indicating, other accused had not stabbed the deceased, thereby not only contradicting the evidence of P.W.1, but also contradicting the statement in Ex.P.1. It is the further case of P.W.2, that the first accused inflicted only four injuries to the deceased. On the other hand, the evidence given by P.W.7 would show that the deceased had sustained as many as 13 stab injuries. Thus, it is not known from the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 who had inflicted the remaining injuries to the deceased. 23.According to P.W.1, after the incident, he alone went to Mandagapadi and informed the matter to P.W.3, who came to the spot thereafter. Thus, it is not known from the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 who had inflicted the remaining injuries to the deceased. 23.According to P.W.1, after the incident, he alone went to Mandagapadi and informed the matter to P.W.3, who came to the spot thereafter. On the other hand, P.W.2 would state that after the incident, he and P.W.1 had been to the house of P.W.3 and informed the same. It is the further case of P.W.2 that thereafter, due to fear, he had not returned to the scene of crime. P.W.3 also would state that at about 8.00 p.m., P.Ws.1 & 2 had gone to the house and informed the matter. Thus, we find inconsistent materials cutting the root of the case, regarding the fact, who had informed P.W.3 about the assault of the deceased. If P.Ws.1 & 2 had witnessed the incident, certainly this kind of contradiction would not come into existence. We are fully aware of the fact that when rustic witnesses were examined, there bound to be some contradictions and on that score alone, the oral evidence of eye witnesses could not be ignored. This could be extended to a case, where there was no doubt, regarding the scene of crime, involvement of the accused and where there was no delay and where there was no doubt about the genuineness of the first information. As aforementioned by us, considerable doubt had arisen even regarding the first information report, etc. and in this view alone, we have pointed out the number of discrepancies available in plenty in the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2. In fact, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, P.Ws.1 & 2 have not at all corroborated the averments contained in Ex.P.1, which is the basic document for moving the wheel of investigation, though it is not a substantial piece of evidence. As spoken by the investigating officer also, it is brought to surface that P.Ws.1 & 2 have contradicted the statements, thereby making their oral testimony as unworthy of acceptance. 24. In this context, if we take into consideration the motive part, there is every reason to believe that P.W.1 is motivated to give such a false evidence against the accused, since P.W.1 was dragged into court by the accused along with Chinnasamy, not only in a criminal case, but also in a civil case. 24. In this context, if we take into consideration the motive part, there is every reason to believe that P.W.1 is motivated to give such a false evidence against the accused, since P.W.1 was dragged into court by the accused along with Chinnasamy, not only in a criminal case, but also in a civil case. In this view, it appears to our mind clearly, because of the enmity and animosity alone, P.W.1 had given evidence not on the basis of the fact that he had witnessed the incident and under such circumstances, believing the oral evidence of P.W.1, or P.W.2 would not be safe. The investigation said to have been done by P.W.12 also proved to be false. The first investigating officer as P.W.12 in our view, has not spoken the truth, which could be seen from the oral evidence of P.W.2. As already pointed out, the lantern was taken by P.W.2 and kept in his house, since it is broken. On the other hand, P.W.12 would state that near the footpath, M.O.1 was available in a good condition and therefore, he had recovered the same under Ex.P.4. He further says, at that time he had also examined P.W.2. On the other hand, P.W.2 would state that he was examined only after three days and it is not his case that he was present near the body and examined by any police officer. When P.W.2 has taken the lantern to his house, it is impossible for P.W.12 to recover the same at the scene of crime. He had also stated, from the scene of crime, he had recovered blood stained earth M.O.3, which does not contain the blood, as already adverted to above. 25. Regarding the arrest of the accused and recovery of M.O.2 also, we find inconsistent and unreliable evidence. It was suggested to P.W.13 that originally there was an F.I.R. by P.W.11 on the basis of the statement given by P.W.1, as if the deceased was stabbed near a toddy shop, which is suppressed, since P.W.2 said incident had taken place near the toddy shop. Considering the above inconsistent evidence as well as specific evidence given by P.W.2, regarding the scene of crime, the suggestion appears to be well founded and we cannot say it is totally devoid of merits. Considering the above inconsistent evidence as well as specific evidence given by P.W.2, regarding the scene of crime, the suggestion appears to be well founded and we cannot say it is totally devoid of merits. Thus, analysing the case from all possible and probable angles, the reasonable doubt, which had arisen regarding the genuineness of the case, could not be ruled out and in this view, there is every possibility to hold that the deceased might have been murdered otherwise, near the toddy shop, when there was a dispute between himself and others. Unless that is ruled out, convicting the accused appears to be unsafe. 26. The trial Court, without considering the evidence properly, and misreading, in our view, had rendered a decision, finding the accused guilty, which is not acceptable to us and the same is liable to be set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in S.C.No.27 of 1995 dated 9.11.1995 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram and the accused are found not guilty of the charges framed against them and they are acquitted of all the charges. The bail bonds and sureties executed by the accused shall stand cancelled, discharging the sureties.