Judgment :- (Appeals against the judgment dated 20.07.2001 made in S.C.No.152 of 1998 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.) M. Karpagavinayagam, J. There were totally eight accused, namely, A-1 to A-8. They were convicted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302, 302 read with 149, 201 and 506-I IPC, by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. Challenging the said conviction, A-1 filed C.A.No.984 of 2001; A-2 filed C.A.No.874 of 2001; A-4 to A-7 filed C.A.No.750 of 2001 and A-8 filed C.A.No.726 of 2001. There is no appeal by A-3. 2.The short facts leading to the conviction are as follows: (a) The deceased Paramasivam is the son of P.W.1 Ammayappa Pillai. P.W.1 is residing at Panneer Oothu village. He owns lands to the west of his village. There is a well and pumpset in his lands. A-3 Kotti Muthu Konar owns lands to the east of the lands of P.W.1. A-4 Sankara Pandi Konar and A-8 Muthiah Konar also owns lands, adjacent to the lands of P.W.1. There is a pathway, leading to the lands of P.W.1, which is situated in the land, belonging to A-4. P.W.1 and his family members used to go to their well and garden through the said pathway. This was objected to by A-4 and his sons, namely, A-5, A-6 and A-7. There was a disturbance. Therefore, A-4 to A-7 filed a civil suit in O.S.No.316 of 1996 against P.W.1 Ammayappa Pillai and the deceased Paramasivam and sought for a permanent injunction. Interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs, namely, A-4 to A-7. Due to this, there was enmity between the deceased family and A-4's family. A-8 Muthiah Konar, as noted above, was owning lands near the well belonging to P.W.1. A-8 requested the deceased and P.W.1 to permit him to take water from the said well. However, they did not oblige. Then, A-8 wanted to purchase the well. The said offer was also objected to by P.W.1 and the deceased. With regard to this, there was enmity between them. (b) One week prior to the date of occurrence, sprayer and other items kept in the pump shed, situated near the well belonging to P.W.1, were found missing. P.W.1 Ammayappa Pillai suspected that A-1 must have committed theft of those articles. With regard to this, there was enmity between them. (b) One week prior to the date of occurrence, sprayer and other items kept in the pump shed, situated near the well belonging to P.W.1, were found missing. P.W.1 Ammayappa Pillai suspected that A-1 must have committed theft of those articles. Therefore, he complained to the panchayatdars against A-1 and due to this, there was an ill-feeling between A-1's family and P.W.1. (c) The fateful occurrence took place on 17.05.1997. At about 10.15 a.m., the deceased Paramasivam, P.W.1 Ammayappa Pillai, P.W.2 Valliyammal, daughter of P.W.1, were proceeding to their well. When they were passing through the pathway, A-1 to A-8 appeared at the scene and surrounded the deceased. A-1 to A-3 were armed with aruvals and A-4 to A-8 were having sticks in their hands. When P.Ws.1 and 2 were about to come near the deceased, they were threatened. Then, A-1 to A-3, armed with aruvals, began to attack the deceased. A-1 cut the deceased on his stomach; A-2 cut the deceased on the left side of the neck and A-3 attacked the deceased, inflicting injury on the right palm, as a result of which, the deceased fell down. Even thereafter, A-1 to A-3 inflicted injuries on various parts of the body of the deceased, by attacking him indiscriminately. At that time, the deceased's wife Meena and another son of P.W.1 Sivagurunathan came to the scene and shouted at the accused. But, A-4 to A-8 threatened them. A-8 asked the other accused to lift the body of the deceased and throw it into the well. Accordingly, A-4 and A-5 dragged the deceased, by pulling his legs, to the well and thereafter, A-1, A-4, A-5 and A-8 lifted the body of the deceased and threw it into the well. Then, they ran away from the scene. When P.W.1 and others came and peeped into the well, they found the deceased dead. Out of fear, they went back home. After sometime, on coming to know that all the accused left the village, P.W.1 went to the Police Station at Thevarkulam and gave a complaint Ex.P-1 at 02.00 p.m. to Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W.8. The said complaint was registered for the offences under Sections 147,148,341 and 302 IPC. Out of fear, they went back home. After sometime, on coming to know that all the accused left the village, P.W.1 went to the Police Station at Thevarkulam and gave a complaint Ex.P-1 at 02.00 p.m. to Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W.8. The said complaint was registered for the offences under Sections 147,148,341 and 302 IPC. (d) On receipt of the message, P.W.9, Inspector of Police, took up investigation at 02.30 p.m. At 03.30 p.m., P.W.9 came to the scene and prepared Observation Mahazar, Ex.P-19 and Rough Sketch, Ex.P-20. He also conducted inquest between 04.30 p.m. and 07.00 p.m. and examined the witnesses. He recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth. Then, the body was sent for post-mortem. (e) P.W.6, Doctor, conducted post-mortem on 18.05.1997 at about 12.00 Noon. Ex.P-17 is the Post-mortem Certificate. In the report, he gave opinion that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage and profuse bleeding. (f) P.W.9 continued the investigation and examined the witnesses. He took steps to arrest the accused. In the meantime, he came to know that A-1, A-2 and A-5 to A-7 surrendered before the Court on 26.05.1997. On 06.06.1997, P.W.9 took police custody of the accused. On the confession of the accused, M.O.1 was recovered from A-1; M.O.2 was recovered from A-2 and sticks were recovered from A-5, A-6, A-7 and A-8. (g) P.W.10, the successor Investigating Officer, took up further investigation. After the completion of investigation, he filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C and other allied offences. 3. During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined; Exs.P-1 to P-22 were filed and M.Os.1 to 9 were marked. On the side of defence, Exs.D-1 and D-2 were marked on behalf of A-4 to A-7. The trial Court, on the basis of the evidence available on record, questioned the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the accused denied their complicity in the crime. On analysing the materials, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offences referred to above. Hence, these four appeals by A-1 to A-8, except A-3. 4. The trial Court, on the basis of the evidence available on record, questioned the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the accused denied their complicity in the crime. On analysing the materials, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the offences referred to above. Hence, these four appeals by A-1 to A-8, except A-3. 4. Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for A-4 to A-7, Mr.Shanmughavelayutham, learned counsel appearing for A-1 and A-2 and Mr.K.S.Ramachandran, learned counsel appearing for A-8, would elaborately argue and contend that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, eye-witnesses, is unreliable and their deposition is quite contradictory to the earlier statements made by them before the Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation and, as such, the accused are liable to be acquitted. 5. On these aspects, we have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor; given our careful consideration to the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the records. 6. On a careful analysis of the entire evidence, especially, the deposition of P.Ws.1 and 2, eye witnesses, we are to hold that we are not inspired by the evidence of those eye witnesses and, as such, all the accused are liable to be acquitted on benefit of doubt. The reasons are as follows: (i) The earliest document in this case is the complaint Ex.P-1, given by P.W.1 Ammayappa Pillai to P.W.8, Sub-Inspector of Police. According to P.W.1, in the complaint, A-1 to A-3 attacked the deceased and A-4 and A-5 dragged the body of the deceased and threw it into the well. But, P.W.1 has given in the deposition an improved version, stating that A-1 to A-3 attacked the deceased and A-8 instigated others to throw the body into the well and, consequently, the body was dragged to the well, which is situated at a distance of 25 feet, by A-4 and A-5 and then, A-1, A-4, A-5 and A-8 lifted the body and threw it into the well. Admittedly, this improved version has not been given by P.Ws.1 and 2, while they were examined during the course of investigation by P.W.9. This has been accepted by both P.Ws.1 and 2 in the cross-examination. P.W.9 also would admit that this statement implicating the aspect about the part played by A-4 to A-8 has not been made. Admittedly, this improved version has not been given by P.Ws.1 and 2, while they were examined during the course of investigation by P.W.9. This has been accepted by both P.Ws.1 and 2 in the cross-examination. P.W.9 also would admit that this statement implicating the aspect about the part played by A-4 to A-8 has not been made. Thus, it is clear that P.W.1 has not given the real facts, while he deposed before the Court. (ii) There is no material to show that all the accused had a common motive to attack the deceased. A-1 has got a motive against P.W.1, since P.W.1 has given a complaint to the Panchayatdars stating that A-1 committed theft of some articles available in his pump shed. This had happened one week prior to the date of occurrence. It is said that A-1 and A-2 are the brothers and A-3 is the father. However, there is no direct motive attributed to A-2 and A-3 as against P.W.1's family. If at all A-1 has got any motive, it could be only against P.W.1 and not against the deceased, because the complaint was made to the panchayatdars against A-1 only by P.W.1 and not by the deceased. According to the prosecution, A-1 to A-3 attacked the deceased, when all the persons, namely, P.Ws.1 and 2 and the deceased came together, proceeding towards the garden, without attacking P.W.1, against whom A-1 had got a strong motive. There is no reason as to why A-1 to A-3 should spare P.W.1 and attack the deceased alone. As a matter of fact, according to the prosecution, all the three, namely, A-1 to A-3 had weapons in their hands. So, if they thought that P.W.1 was responsible for giving a false complaint against A-1, they would have attacked the entire family of P.W.1. It is the case of the prosecution, as noted above, that P.W.1, his daughter and the deceased's son were available at that time. Furthermore, yet another improved version made by P.Ws.1 and 2 is that within a few minutes after the occurrence, P.W.1's son Sivagurunathan and Meena, wife of the deceased, also came to the scene and shouted at the accused. If this is actually true, the accused persons, viz., A-1 to A-3 would have attacked them also. Furthermore, yet another improved version made by P.Ws.1 and 2 is that within a few minutes after the occurrence, P.W.1's son Sivagurunathan and Meena, wife of the deceased, also came to the scene and shouted at the accused. If this is actually true, the accused persons, viz., A-1 to A-3 would have attacked them also. At any rate, when A-1 has got a strong motive against P.W.1, there is no reason as to why the accused did not choose to attack P.W.1. This creates a doubt as to the presence of P.W.1 at the scene at the time of occurrence. (iii) According to P.W.1, in the complaint as well as in his evidence, the deceased was attacked by A-1 to A-3 with aruvals and when the deceased fell down, again, he was cut indiscriminately and, thereafter, on the instigation of A-8, body was lifted and dragged to the well and the same was thrown into the well. If this were so, there would have been a stream of blood in the ground, between the place of occurrence and the place up to the well. Admittedly, no such symptoms were indicated in the observation mahazar. (iv) The preposterous thing, which could be noticed, is that though P.W.1 would state both in the complaint as well as in the Court through deposition that the body of the deceased was thrown into the well, the observation mahazar was silent about the body having been taken from the well. In the chief-examination also, P.W.9 would not refer to the body having been found inside the well. On the other hand, unfortunately, P.W.9, in the cross-examination, would improve his version, by stating that the body was taken out from the well at his direction and then inquest was held. But, the contemporaneous records, such as Observation Mahazar and the other Mahazars, would not support this version. Therefore, the version of P.W.1 that after the attack was over, the -body was dragged to the well by the accused persons and, thereafter, it was thrown into the well does not find support from the other evidence. (v) The motive as against A-4 to A-7 is that A-4 and other family members, namely, A-5 to A-7, filed a suit against P.W.1 and his son for permanent injunction and obtained interim injunction. (v) The motive as against A-4 to A-7 is that A-4 and other family members, namely, A-5 to A-7, filed a suit against P.W.1 and his son for permanent injunction and obtained interim injunction. There is no dispute with regard to this motive, since Ex.D-1 has been marked by A-4 to A-7 themselves. Ex.D-1 would indicate that the temporary injunction was made absolute by the Civil Court. This was in the year 1995. In addition to that, Ex.D2 has been marked by the accused to show that P.W.1 had given a false complaint against A-4 to A-7 and that complaint ended in acquittal, finding that P.W.1 gave false evidence and false complaint and on the basis of this finding, A-4 to A-7 filed a suit for damages, alleging malicious prosecution, and damages were also ordered by the trial Court. This is clear from Ex.D-2. 7. In the light of the above documents and other evidence, it is obvious that P.W.1 was in the habit of giving false evidence against A-4 to A-7. This aspect has been further strengthened by the fact that the improved version has been given, while P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed in the Court as against A-4 to A-7 as indicated above. Similarly, the motive as against A-8 is that A-8 requested P.W.1 to permit him to take water from the well and the same was refused and when he offered to purchase the well, P.W.1 did not oblige for him. This motive, in our view, cannot be a ground for A-8 to come along with other accused to attack the deceased that too, when P.W.1, against whom A-8 had some grudge, was said to be present in the place of occurrence. 8. One another aspect to be noticed in the evidence of P.W.1 is that he came along with the deceased at about 10.15 a.m. on 17.05.1997 and when he was coming along with other witnesses, the deceased was wearing a lungi. Admittedly, the lungi was not recovered. P.W.9 would admit that dead body was found only with jetti and lungi was not available nearby. In this context, the suggestion made on behalf of the accused to the witnesses that in the early morning the deceased had come to the scene for answering the calls of nature and, at that time, somebody committed murder of the deceased, assumes significance. 9. In this context, the suggestion made on behalf of the accused to the witnesses that in the early morning the deceased had come to the scene for answering the calls of nature and, at that time, somebody committed murder of the deceased, assumes significance. 9. It is not in dispute that P.W.1 is an experienced litigant, who is well versed in the Court proceedings. P.W.1 would admit in his evidence that he was working as a Village Munsif in the local area. It is also elicited in the cross-examination that he was dismissed, since there was a case against him, regarding misappropriation. Though it is stated that the case was ultimately ended in acquittal, there is no reason as to why P.W.1, instead of reporting to the V.A.O. in-charge, had preferred to go to Police Station by walking. The occurrence took place at 10.15 a.m. P.W.1 admits that a bus was going from Panneer Oothu village to Thevarakulam Police Station and the bus started at 11.30 a.m. There is no reason as to why he has not gone to the Police Station by bus. The complaint had been received by P.W.8 at 02.00 p.m. and the same reached the Magistrate at 05.00 p.m. Of course, this cannot be considered to be an inordinate delay. But the fact remains, there is no explanation from P.W.1 as to why he failed to inform any person in the village about the incident, in which his son was done to death. 10. According to P.Ws.1 and 2, after the attack was over, the accused ran away from the place and then, they went near the well and found the deceased dead inside the well. This statement, in our view, is quite artificial. On seeing the deceased inside the well, we are at a loss to understand as to how one can come to the conclusion that he is already dead. He might have been in an unconscious stage or gasping for life. As the father, P.W.1 could have certainly sought help from the villagers to take out the body of the deceased, at least to find out whether he is alive or not. But that was not done. On the other hand, he quietly went back home and was brooding over for sometime and thereafter, he chose to walk 7 k.ms. As the father, P.W.1 could have certainly sought help from the villagers to take out the body of the deceased, at least to find out whether he is alive or not. But that was not done. On the other hand, he quietly went back home and was brooding over for sometime and thereafter, he chose to walk 7 k.ms. From his village to the Police Station and lodged a complaint at 02.00 p.m., implicating all the accused, who were all his bitter enemies. 11. The evidence of P.W.2 also, in our view, is not so impressive. There is no reason as to why P.W.2, who is a married woman aged about 48 years, should accompany P.W.1 to the garden, in order to support P.W.1. She would state that Sivagurunathan, her brother, and Meena, wife of the deceased, also came that side at the relevant time, for the purpose of providing food to them in the garden. This was at 10.00 a.m. It is quite artificial to say that Sivagurunathan and Meena came to the field at 10.00 a.m for supplying food to the deceased and others. As noted above, the presence of Sivagurunathan or Meena has never been spoken to by P.Ws.1 and 2, while they were examined by police. Similarly, their presence was not at all mentioned in Ex.P-1 complaint, given by P.W.1. So, it shows that P.W.2 also is a willing party to give improved version, in order to support the prosecution case. In fact, P.W.2 has gone to the extent of stating that the bloodstains were taken from inside the well, which is not true. P.W.9 did not state like that. P.W.1 also did not depose that bloodstains were taken from inside the well. Therefore, we are unable to accept the evidence of P.W.2 as well. 12. Under these circumstances, the materials available on record, in our view, would not impress us and we are not able to place any reliance on them, so as to conclude that the accused had committed murder of the deceased. 13. Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/accused are set aside and the appeals are allowed. The appellants are ordered to be set at liberty forthwith. Fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded.