R. BANUMATHI, J. ( 1 ) ACCUSED 1 to 8 in S. C. No. 42 of 1996 on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, pudukkottai are the Appellants. By the judgment dated 2-8-1996, the Appellants/ accused 1 to 8 were convicted for various offences and sentenced to undergo imprisonment. ( 2 ) CASE of the prosecution could briefly be stated thus:- A-2-Rajendran, A-3- shumugam and A-4-Ezilraju are the sons of a-5-Palsamy. A-6-Muthukaruppan, A-7- murugaiah and A-8-Palanivelu are brothers. P. W. 1-Duraikkannu is having a Tea Shop and Petty Shop in Othakkadai and residing in the same place. ( 3 ) ENMITY. Both families of the Accused and P. W. 1 are inimical towards each other due to jallikkattu function, which happened about twenty years ago. Further, there was also dispute with regard to enjoyment of the well. A Criminal Case was also registered against the elder brother of P. W. 1 and he was acquitted. About 17 years prior to the occurrence, a girl was taken away by the accused party and the prosecution witnesses are inimical on that score also. ( 4 ) OCCURRENCE. On 4-5-1993, Pidariamman temple Festival was organised in thulukkampatti, for which a Drama was arranged on the night of 4-5-1993. P. W. 1 s relative-deceased Periasamy, P. W. 2 shanmugam, P. W. 3-Chellaiah and P. W. 4- palanisamy came to the house of P. W. 1. In the night at about 8. 30 p. m. , they were all taking food inside the house of P. W. 1. At that time, P. W. l s wife Palaniammal was looking after the Petty shop. A-l- subramaniam came to the Shop for purchase of cigarette. Palaniammal had no change for the amount of Rs. 10/-, which resulted in wordy quarrel between them. P. W. 1 came out questioning the conduct of A-l which resulted in wordy altercation between A-l and P. W. 1. On hearing the noise, P. Ws. 2 to 4 and deceased Periasamy also came out. A-2 to A-4 armed with Aruval; A-6 to A-8 armed with Sticks came to the place. A-2- rajendran inflicted injury on P. W. 1- duraikkannu. A-6 to A-7 had beaten P. W. 1 with Sticks. A 3-Shanmugam cut deceased periasamy on his left and front head. A-l, a-5 and A-7 had beaten deceased Periasamy with Sticks and Spade Handle. A-4-Ezilraju inflicted cut injuries on P. Ws. A-2- rajendran inflicted injury on P. W. 1- duraikkannu. A-6 to A-7 had beaten P. W. 1 with Sticks. A 3-Shanmugam cut deceased periasamy on his left and front head. A-l, a-5 and A-7 had beaten deceased Periasamy with Sticks and Spade Handle. A-4-Ezilraju inflicted cut injuries on P. Ws. 2 and 3. P. W. 4- palanisamy was also beaten. ( 5 ) TREATMENT. Injured persons were sent to Manapparai Government Hospitals. Since the condition of P. W. 1 and Periasamy was serious, they were sent to Trichy for better treatment. In Manapparai Government hospital, P. W. 6-Dr. Kalavalli treated p. Ws. 4,2,1 and 3 and issued Exs. P-4 to P-7- accident Registers. On admission of the injured persons to the hospital, intimation was sent to the Police Station. ( 6 ) REGISTRATION of case. P. W. 8-Sub- inspector of Police, Viralimalai went to the hospital at 11. 45 p. m. on 4-5-1993. He examined P. W. 1 and recorded his statement- ex. P-1. on the basis of Ex. P-1-Statement, a case was registered in Crime No. 329 of 1993 under Ss. 147, 148, 323, 324 and 307 IPC under Ex. P-10-First Information Report. ( 7 ) INVESTIGATION. On 5-5-1993-5. 45 a. m. , p. W. 8 inspected the scene of occurrence- othakadai in front of the Shop of P. W. 1. Ex. P-2-observationmahazar,ex. P-ll-Rough plan were prepared on the scene of occurrence. P. W. 8 went to Trichy Hospital and further examined the witnesses. Blood stained clothes of P. W. 1-M. Os. 1 to 4 were recovered under Ex. P-3-Seizure Mahazar. ( 8 ) ARREST of the Accused. On 6-5-1993- 5. 00 a. m. , A-l to A-8 were arrested near mathoor Bus Stop. On being interrogated, a-3-Shanmugam voluntarily confessed to his guilt. On the basis of his confession statement (Ex. P-12-Admissible Portion), m. Os. 8 to 10 were recovered under Ex. P-13- seizure Mahazar. ( 9 ) COUNTER case in Cr. No. 332 of 1993. Arrested Accused were brought to the Police station. A-1-Subramaniam had given a statement-Ex. P-14 to P. W. 8 alleging that he (A-l), A-3, A-4 and A-5 were beaten by the prosecution Witnesses. On the basis of ex. P-14-S:. tement, a case was registered in crime No. 332 of 1993 under Sees. 324 and 323 IPC under Ex. P-15-First Information report. Arrested Accused were brought to the Police station. A-1-Subramaniam had given a statement-Ex. P-14 to P. W. 8 alleging that he (A-l), A-3, A-4 and A-5 were beaten by the prosecution Witnesses. On the basis of ex. P-14-S:. tement, a case was registered in crime No. 332 of 1993 under Sees. 324 and 323 IPC under Ex. P-15-First Information report. Crime No. 332 of 1993 was taken up for investigation simultaneously with Crime no. 329 of 1993. Accused 1 and 3 have already taken treatment themselves for the alleged injuries sustained by them in Keeranoor hospital. Hence, they were not further sent to the Hospital. ( 10 ) ALTERNATION of the First Information report. Injured Perisamy succumbed to the injuries. Upon receipt of Death Intimation- ex. P-16, P. W. 8 sent the case records to p. W. 9-Inspector of Police. On the basis of ex. P-16-Death Intimation, P. W . 9-I. O. altered the case under Section 302 IPC under ex. P-17- Express Report. ( 11 ) INQUEST and further investigation. On 11-5-1993-from 6. 00 a. m. to 9. 00 a. m. , witnesses were examined in the presence of panchayatdars and inquest was held on the body of deceased Periasamy. Ex. P-18 is the inquest Report. After inquest, the body was sent for Autopsy. ( 12 ) POST-MORTEM. Pursuant to the requisition from the Inspector of Police, p. W. 7-Dr. Muthukumar had conducted autopsy. He has noted contusion upon the left eye, left forearm, left upper arm and left thigh. Upon opening of the skull, P. W. 7 noted 300 grams of clotted blood beneath and left temporal and parietal bone. Contusion of the brain was also noted. Opinion that the deceased Periasamy died due to injury-to vital organ-brain, P. W. 7 issued Ex. P-9-Post-mortem Certificate. ( 13 ) SEIZED Material objects were sent for chemical Analysis. Upon completion of the investigation, P. W. 10-Inspector of Police laid charge-sheet against Accused 1 to 8 on 30-9-1993. ( 14 ) TO substantiate the Charges against the Accused, in the trial court P. Ws. 1 to 10 were examined. Exs. P-1 to P-21 were marked. M. Os. 1 to 11 were produced. Accused were questioned about the incriminating evidence and circumstances under Sec. 313 Crlp. ( 14 ) TO substantiate the Charges against the Accused, in the trial court P. Ws. 1 to 10 were examined. Exs. P-1 to P-21 were marked. M. Os. 1 to 11 were produced. Accused were questioned about the incriminating evidence and circumstances under Sec. 313 Crlp. C. A-l filed statement in writing stating that he went to purchase Cigarette from the shop of p. W. 1 and Paianiammal-the wife of P. W. I demanded twice the amount, which resulted in wordy altercation. At that time, P. Ws. 1 to 3 and deceased Periasamy came out of the house in an intoxicated mood. P. W. 1- duraikkannu beat A-l on his head. Upon hearing noise, the public came and along with them A-3 to A-6 also came. A-2, A-7 and a-8 had not come and not present during the occurrence. A-4 and A-6 were beaten by the prosecution witnesses. On seeing the same, prosecution witnesses were beaten by the public, who gathered there. ( 15 ) UPON consideration of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found that there was no gathering of unlawful assembly with common object and thus found the Accused 1 to 8 to be responsible only for their individual acts and absolving them of the constructive liability. The Trial Court found the Accused 1 to 8 guilty for various offences inter alia on the following findings (I) non-production of the materials and evidence to prove the motive would not affect the prosecution case; (II) there is consistent version of P. Ws. 1 to 4 that A-l to A-8 armed with Aruvals and Sticks and attacked on deceased periasamy and P. Ws. 1 to 4; slight inconsistencies in the overt act spoken by P. Ws. 1 to 4 would not affect their reliability; (iii) non-explanation of the simple injuries sustained by some of the accused would not in anyway affect the prosecution case on the above findings, the learned Sessions judge convicted the Appellants/a-1 to A-8 for various offences and acquitted them under Sections 147 and 148 as noted below:- charge Number gist of the offence against which accused finding ! (1) (2) (3) (4) i under Sec. 147 IPC Rioting-Unlawful Assembly a-l, A-5 to A-8 a-l, A-5 to A-8 acquitted under Section 147 IPC 2. (1) (2) (3) (4) i under Sec. 147 IPC Rioting-Unlawful Assembly a-l, A-5 to A-8 a-l, A-5 to A-8 acquitted under Section 147 IPC 2. Under Sec. 148 IPC Rioting-Armed with deadly weapons a-2 to A-4 a-2 to A-4 acquitted under Section 148 IPC 3 under Sec. 506 (11) IPC Threat of Criminal Intimidation a-5 acquitted 4 under Section 324 IPC for causing injury to P. W. 1-Duraikannu a-2 a-2 convicted under Sec. 324 IPC-R. I. for one | year i 5. Undersec. 323ipc (2)counts for causing injury to P. W. 1-Duraikannu and deceased Periasamy a-5 a-5 convicted under Section 323 IPC-fine of Rs. 500/- imposed. 6. Under Section 323 IPC for causing injury to P. W. 1 -Duraikannu a-6, A-8 a-6, A-8 convicted under Section 323 IPC fine of Rs. 500/- imposed j 7. Under Sec. 323 DPC for causing injury to deceased Periasamy a-7 a-7convictedu/s. 323ipc (2 ] counts) Rs. 5007- fineimpceed j _______ (1) ______ (2) Under Sec. 302 IPC for causing death of Periasamy (3) A-3 i (4) A-3 found not guilty under Section 302 IPC. But convicted under Section 304 (II) IPC and sentenced to undergo R. I. for five years. 9. Under Sec. 324 IPC (3 counts) for causing injury to P. W. 2 Shanmugam, P. W. 3-Chellaya and P. W. 4-Palanisamy a-4 a-4 convicted under Section 324 IPC (2 Counts) and sentenced to undergo R. I. for six months for each count. 10. Under 302 r/w 149 IPC constructive liability for murder of Periasamy a-l,a-2,a-4 to A-8 a-l, A-2, A-4 to A-8 found not guilty and ( 16 ) AGGRIEVED over the conviction, the appellants/a-l to A-8 have preferred this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants/a-1 to A-8 assailed the prosecution case contending that by non- explanation of injuries on the person of A-l, a-3 to A-6, the prosecution has not come forward with the true version and has suppressed the origin and genesis of the occurrence. Reliance is placed upon 2001 (1) mwn (Crl.) 1401 in support of the contention that non-explanation of injuries on the person of the Accused would suggest the investigation perfunctory and that the prosecution has suppressed the true version. Reliance is placed upon 2001 (1) mwn (Crl.) 1401 in support of the contention that non-explanation of injuries on the person of the Accused would suggest the investigation perfunctory and that the prosecution has suppressed the true version. Drawing the attention of the Court to that portion of the evidence of the witnesses, the learned counsel contended that when the prosecution witnesses have not come forward to explain the injuries on some of the Accused, it undermines the veracity of the witnesses, which was not taken note of by the Trial Court. Referring the case in crime No. 332 of 1993 as mistake of Fact is assailed as totally erroneous and that no proper investigation was done in that case ( 17 ) COUNTERING the arguments of the accused, learned Government Advocate had taken me through the evidence P. W. 1 - duraikkannu and relevant documents and submitted that the overt act of all the Accused are consistently stated by P. Ws. 1 to 4. It is further submitted that the evidence of p. Ws. 1 to 4 is consistent with the medical evidence. Non-explanation of injuries on the person of the Accused would not in anyway suggest suppression of origin and genesis of the occurrence. Submitting that the statement of A-l - Ex. P-14 before the Police and the statement filed by him during the questioning under Sec. 313 Crl. P. C. are not consistent, it is contended that in the light of inconsistent stand adopted by the Accused, the Investigating Officer has rightly referred the case as mistake of fact . Supporting the findings of the Trial Court, the learned government Advocate further submitted that the reasoning and findings for finding the Accused 1 to 8 guilty for various offences do not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. ( 18 ) UPON careful analysis of the evidence, judgment of the Trial Court and submissions of both sides, the following points arise for determination in this appeal:- (I) Whethertheprosecutionhasnotcome forward with the true version as contended by the defence? (ii) Whether the guilt of the Appellants/ accused 1 to 8 is proved beyond reasonable doubt and whether the trial Court was right in convicting the appellants/ Accused 1 to 8 for various offences as noted above? (iii) Whether the conviction and sentence of imprisonment warrants any interference? (ii) Whether the guilt of the Appellants/ accused 1 to 8 is proved beyond reasonable doubt and whether the trial Court was right in convicting the appellants/ Accused 1 to 8 for various offences as noted above? (iii) Whether the conviction and sentence of imprisonment warrants any interference? ( 19 ) MOTIVE, P. W. 1 - Duraikkannu and the family of the Appellants/accused 1 to 8 are inimical for about twenty years. P. W. 1 has stated about jallikkattu (other language), which happened about 20 years ago - prior to the occurrence. Likewise, the parties are inimical towards each other on account of enjoyment of the Well and also taking away of the girl about 17 years prior to the occurrence. Though P. W. 1 has spoken about that aspect of motive, there is no other evidence strengthening. his version. Adducing of evidence to prove the motive would only be the circumstance probablising the occurrence. Non-adducing of further materials strengthening the motive aspect would not in anyway undermine the prosecution case. ( 20 ) WHEN the case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of eye witnesses, the existence or non-existence of motive, sufficiency or insufficiency of motive would not play a major role. In this case, prosecution case is mainly based upon the evidence of eyewitnesses viz. P. Ws. 1 to4. Hence, absence of proof of motive would not have any adverse effect on the prosecution case This is all the more so, when P. Ws. 1 to 4 are injuried witnesses. Non-proof of motive would not render the version of P. Ws. 1 to 4 untrustworthy.