S.K.Krishnan, J.: Aggrieved by the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Madurai, the appellants, who were convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.302 read with Sec.34, I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, have filed the above appeal. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: (a) P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased Jayam. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the sons of P.W.1. The deceased was living with his family at Karugapilai village. The deceased was an agriculturist. He owned a land to the extent of 5 acres. (b) A-1 and A-2 are brothers, A-3 is the son of A-1. The accused are also doing agricultural work. (c) A-1 had purchased some land from p.w.7. From the date of purchase A-1 claiming to be the owner of that property attended agricultural work in that land. The deceased Jayam claimed some right over the said prop erty. Accordingly, he had raised objections against A-1 with regard to ownership. He preferred objection petitions before the revenue authorities at the relevant point of time and objection petition filed by the deceased is pending before the D.R.O. This fact has been clearly stated by P.W.2, who is the son of the deceased. (d) One Elangovan had purchased some land from the in-laws of the deceased. There arose a dispute with regard to the enjoyment of the said property between Elangovan and the deceased. In this connection, a criminal complaint has been lodged by the said Elango. (e) On 21.7.1999 at about 10.00 a.m., the deceased Jayam accompanied with P.Ws.1 and 2 and proceeded to the Judicial Magistrate Court, Usilampatty, to attend the hearing of the particular case. While they were proceeding near to the Senthil Hospital, the accused 1 to 3, who were also coming from the opposite direction and on seeing the deceased in front of the Senthil Hospital, the accused attacked the deceased with Aruval and caused as many as 17 injuries on his body. As a result of that Jayam died on the spot itself. P.Ws.1 and 2 proceeded to the Usilampatty Police Station and lodged a complaint Ex.P-1 before P.W.11 around 10.50 a.m. (f) On receipt of the complaint from P.W.1, P.W.11 registered a case under Sec.302, I.P.C. Ex.P-10 is the printed copy of F.I.R. He sent intimation to the Inspector of Police about the registration of the case. P.Ws.1 and 2 proceeded to the Usilampatty Police Station and lodged a complaint Ex.P-1 before P.W.11 around 10.50 a.m. (f) On receipt of the complaint from P.W.1, P.W.11 registered a case under Sec.302, I.P.C. Ex.P-10 is the printed copy of F.I.R. He sent intimation to the Inspector of Police about the registration of the case. Then he forwarded the copies of the F.I.R. to the Judicial Magistrate Court and other police officials through P.W.8, Police Constable. (g) P.W.13, on receipt of a copy of the F.I.R. from the police station immediately proceeded to the occurrence spot around 11.00 a.m. On seeing the occurrence place, he prepared a rough sketch Ex.P-16 and an observation mahazar Ex.P-2. In the presence of p.w.5 Ayothi and Thangaraj, he recovered m.os.1 and 2, bloodstained earth and unstained earth respectively, under the cover of Athachi Ex.P-3. He then conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses and prepared inquest report Ex.P-17. (h) To know the cause of the death of the deceased, P.W.14 forwarded an instruction to P.W.9 to take the dead body to the Doctor for conducting post-mortem examination. He handed over a requisition letter to the constable with an instruction to produce to same to P.W.13 Doctor. (i) On receipt of the requisition letter from P.W.14, P.W.13 conducted post- mortem examination around 4 p.m. During the course of post-mortem examination, he found the following injuries on the body of the deceased. "External injuries: (1) A cut injury of 25 cm x 7 cm x 10 cm present over (R) Parietal area of skull, Brain matter coming out through the wound. (2) Cut injury of 25 x 7 x 10 cm present over (R) Frontal area which extended upto upper end of (R) Preauricular area, Brain matter coming out through the wound. (3) Cut injury of 10 x 4 x 4 cm present (R) Parietal bone area which extended from whole mastoid bone area to (R) Parietal bone, Brain matter coming out through the wound. (4) Cut injury of 20 x 10 x 7 cm present over cervical area of neck-Cervical spinal cut present. (5) Cut injury of 15 x 10 x 7 cm present over occipital area of skull. (6) Cut injury of 15 x 10 x 7 cm present over (L) Frontal area just above (L) eye brow extending upto Temporal area. (4) Cut injury of 20 x 10 x 7 cm present over cervical area of neck-Cervical spinal cut present. (5) Cut injury of 15 x 10 x 7 cm present over occipital area of skull. (6) Cut injury of 15 x 10 x 7 cm present over (L) Frontal area just above (L) eye brow extending upto Temporal area. (7) Cut injury 3 cm x 7 cm x Skin depth present over forehead just one cm above inner end of (R) Eye brow. (8) An incised wound of 3 cm x 1 cm x skin depth present over the root nose on the left side. (9) Cut injury of 7 cm x 5 x skin depth present over (L) Maxillary prominence present. (10) Cut injury of 12 cm x 4 x 4 cm present over (L) side of Cheek which extended from upper lip over the posterior end of mandible. (10)(a) Cut injury of 8 x 4 x 4cm present over lower lip area of Cheek and extended upto (L) Maxillary area by crossing over the wound number Ten. (11). Cut injury of 12 x 6 x 4 cm present just above thyroid cartilage of neck on left side which cross the middle of above 1cm on (R) side and which extended posteriorly on the right left ankle of mandible knots of artery and vein on left side cut present. (12) Cut injury of 15 x 10 x 7 cm present over (L) side rot of neck present Trachea Oesophagus and carotid blood vessels are cut. (13) Another cut injury of 7 x 5 x 3 present over (R) Deltoid area. (14) Cut injury of 9 x 5 x 4 cm present over (R) elbow and upper end of ulna bone is cut. (15) (R) fore-arm at the level of lower 3rd is ambuttated, Ambuttated hand is matched with (R) upper limb of the body, Peeled off skin is matched with forearm. (16) Incised wound of 3 x 2 x 5 cm present over middle of lateral side of (R) thigh. (17) Cut injury of 12 x 5 x 5 cm present over anterior part of lower 3rd of (L) thigh. Heart: Pale and empty. Lungs, Liver, Kidney, Spleen-Pale. Stomach undigested food material present. The deceased would have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury caused to vital organ brain and major Blood vessels. (17) Cut injury of 12 x 5 x 5 cm present over anterior part of lower 3rd of (L) thigh. Heart: Pale and empty. Lungs, Liver, Kidney, Spleen-Pale. Stomach undigested food material present. The deceased would have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury caused to vital organ brain and major Blood vessels. (j) Ex.P-15 is the post- mortem report. After the post- mortem examination was over, P.W.9 removed M.Os.3 to 5 from the body of the deceased and handed over the same to the relatives along with the dead body. (k) Meanwhile, p.w.14 came to know about the surrender of the accused before the Court on 27.7.1999. He took the custody of the accused from the Court on 3.8.1999. When the accused were in custody under p.W.14, he enquired them in the presence of p.w.10 Karuthakannan and Sivasamy. (l) P.W.14 recorded the confession statements of the accused. On the basis of admissible portion of the confession statements Exs.P-4 to P-6 respectively, P.W.14 followed A-1. A-1 took M.O.7 from Seemanthu Odai and handed over the same to P.W.14 in the presence of witnesses. The said recovery was effected under the cover of Athatchi under Ex.P-7. Following the said recovery from -1, P.W.14 recovered M.O.8 from A-2 under the cover of Athatchi Ex.P-8. A-3 also took M.O.9 and handed over the same to p.w.14. P.W.14 recovered the same under the cover of Athatchi in the presence of witnesses under Ex.P-9. (m) P.W.12 received the requisition letter from P.W.14 and forwarded the material objects for chemical analysis under the covering letter of the Judicial Magistrate. Covering letter is Ex.P-12. After the analysis was over, he received Exs.P-13 and 14 Chemical Analysis report and Serology report respectively. After the completion of investigation, P.W.14 filed a charge sheet against the accused. 3. On the side of the prosecution fourteen witnesses have been examined, seventeen exhibits, were filed and nine material objects were marked. 4. The accused was questioned under Sec.313, Crl.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and he denied all the incriminating circumstances. He did not examine any witness on his side. 5. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have come forward with this appeal. 6. He did not examine any witness on his side. 5. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have come forward with this appeal. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the conviction and sen tence passed by the learned Judge against these appellants are not sustainable under law for the following reasons: (a) In this regard, the learned counsel would submit that with regard to place of occurrence, the said fact has not been proved by the prosecution witnesses. According to him, it is pointed out that p.w.1 has stated that the said occurrence was occurred in front of Vijaya Hospital. Therefore, while identifying the place of occurrence, P.W.1 has not stated the place of occurrence as referred in Exs.P-1 and 2. (b) The learned counsel further submits that as per the evidence and the post-mortem report given by P.W.13, there are as many as 17 injuries found on the dead body of Jayam,whereas while adducing evidence by P.Ws.1 and 2 they have stated only certain injuries. With regard to remaining injuries found on the dead body of Jayam, they have not spoken as to how those injuries have been inflicted. (c) It is pointed out that according to P.W.1 she would state that A-1 cut the deceased on his right head A-2 inflicted cut injury by using of Aruval on his left portion of the head. A-3 cut the deceased with Aruval and caused injuries on his neck. Further, A-1 again inflicted cut injury on his left hand. Like that of P.W.1, P.W.2, who claims to be the eye-witness in this case, also stated that only a few injuries were found on the body of the deceased. What P.W.1 has stated about the injuries inflicted by A-1 to A-3, the same has been corroborated by P.W.2. In addition to that P.W.2 has referred three more injuries. Further, the learned counsel would point out that it is the definite case of the prosecution that all the accused by using of Aruval inflicted cut injuries on the deceased. However, injuries No.8 and 16 are incised wounds. Such injuries could not have caused by using of Aruval. The prosecution witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 have not spoken about these injuries. Further, the learned counsel would point out that it is the definite case of the prosecution that all the accused by using of Aruval inflicted cut injuries on the deceased. However, injuries No.8 and 16 are incised wounds. Such injuries could not have caused by using of Aruval. The prosecution witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 have not spoken about these injuries. Further, they have also not spoken about the weapons other than Aruval. Such injuries could have been caused only by using of knife. (d) Further, as already stated above, during the course of post-mortem P.W.13 noted 17 injuries. As already stated above, P.Ws.1 and 2 have stated only about six injuries. With regard to remaining injuries it is not stated by them that under what circumstances those injuries could have been inflicted on the deceased. (e) In such circumstances, the learned counsel would emphasise that whatever the oral evidence adduced by P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to injuries, they have not been corroborated by the medical evidence. Further, none of the independent withnesses has been examined by the prosecution. It is the case of the prosecution that the said occurrence took place on the Usilampatty-Goundanpatty road. As per Ex.P-16, it is noted by the investigating officer that the hospital and other shops are located on either side. Further, the said occurrence has taken place around 10.00 a.m. At the relevant point of time all the shops and hospitals could have been opened and persons who were present at the shops and hospital might have witnessed the occurrence. (f) In such circumstances, the investigating officer could have very well enquired the independent witnesses among the persons, who witnessed the occurrence. No reason has been stated by the investigating officer for the non- examination of independent witnesses in this case. (g) P.Ws.1 and 2 are interested witnesses. Their testimonies could not be relied on for arriving such conclusion. Therefore, the decision arrived at by the learned Judge against the appellants with regard to offence under Sec.302 read with Sec.34, I.P.C., is not at all sustainable. (h) Further, the learned counsel would point out that with regard to the lodging of report by P.W.1, there are some contradictions found in the deposition of P.W.2. P.W.2 has stated that both P.W.2 and his mother P.W.1, put the signature in the complaint and the same was presented before the Sub-Inspector of police. (h) Further, the learned counsel would point out that with regard to the lodging of report by P.W.1, there are some contradictions found in the deposition of P.W.2. P.W.2 has stated that both P.W.2 and his mother P.W.1, put the signature in the complaint and the same was presented before the Sub-Inspector of police. If it is so, why the Sub-Inspector of police, who registered the case, failed to register the said complaint. (i) In such circumstances, it is pointed out that the investigating officer has purposefully screened the original complaint which was purported to be lodged by both P.Ws.1 and 2. No explanation or reason has been stated by the investigating officer in this regard. Therefore, the non-existence of the original complaint lodged by P.Ws.1and 2 which creates reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. (j) In addition to that the motive for the said occurrence is not also not proved by the prosecution through P.Ws.1 and 2. 7. Refuting the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would raise the following contentions: (a) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that with regard to property dispute, both witnesses have spoken about this fact in their evidence. It is seen that P.W.2 has spoken elaborately with regard to property dispute which was in existence at the time of occurrence. Even though the investigating officer P.W.14 has not come forward to recover certain documents or copy of the orders in connection with the dispute between the parties from the concerned authorities. However, P.W. 2 has stated this fact in a clear manner. As on the date of occurrence, there was property dispute in existence with regard to enjoyment of the land between the parties. As stated by P.W.2., whatever the objections raised by his father before the revenue authorities ended in failure, however, as on date, an objection petition filed by his father was pending before the D.R.O. (b) Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that based on the strong motive and enmity against the deceased all the accused Joined together on that particular day and on seeing the deceased in front of the Senthil Hospital all of them attacked the deceased and inflicted as many as 17 injuries by using of Aruval. (c) With regard to place of occurrence, even though P.W.1 has stated that the said occurrence happened in front of the Vijaya Hospital, it is only a slip of tongue. When considering the evidence of P.W.2 and Exs.P-2 and 14, this fact has been clearly stated therein. With regard to place of occurrence P.W.2 has categorically stated that the said occurrence has taken place in front of Senthil Hospital. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that P.W.1 herself has stated about the place of occurrence in Ex.P-1 that the said occurrence occurred in front of Senthil hospital. (d) With regard to non mentioning of injuries other than the injuries stated by P.Ws.1 and 2, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that since all the accused joined together and attacked the deceased by using of Aruval, such kind of injuries could have inflicted on the deceased by all the accused. Even though P.Ws.1 and 2 have not spoken about the remaining injuries other than the injuries stated by them, such injuries could have been inflicted when A-1 to A-3 joined together and inflicted such injuries indiscriminately on the deceased. Therefore, the non-explanation of injuries by P.Ws.1 and 2 other than the injuries stated by both during the course of adducing evidence is not at all fatal which affects the prosecution case. (e) Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that no such delay occurred in lodging F.I.R. It is a fact that the prosecution case is mainly relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. Based on the evidenceadduced by the eye-witness, viz.,P.Ws.1 and 2 and P.W.13, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the case of the prosecution against the accused has been proved. 8. It is an admitted fact that the investigating officer P.W.14 has not enquired the independent witnesses from the place where the said occurrence occurred. As stated by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor based on the strong motive and property dispute which was in existence between the parties and followed that previous enmity, the said occurrence took place in front of Senthil Hospital. 9. As stated by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor based on the strong motive and property dispute which was in existence between the parties and followed that previous enmity, the said occurrence took place in front of Senthil Hospital. 9. With regard to accompany of P.Ws.1 and 2 along with the deceased at the relevant point of time, the said fact has been clearly stated by P.Ws.1 and 2 that both of them accompanied along with the deceased on that particular day in order to attend the Court hearing. Further, the evidence of P.W.1 can be relied on for the following reasons that since she accompanied along with the deceased at the relevant point of time she immediately lodged a complaint before P.W.11. If P.W.1 could not have accompanied with the deceased on that particular day, such report could not have been lodged by her within half an hour after the said occurrence. 10. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was living with his family at Karugapilai village which is somewhat away from the Usilampatty Police Station. If P.W.1 had not accompanied with the deceased at the relevant point of time, the delay could have been caused in lodging the report before P.W.11. When considering this aspect, we are of the view that P.Ws.1 and 2 could have accompanied with the deceased at the relevant point of time and witnessed the said occurrence. 11. As pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor when the strong motive and previous enmity against the deceased is proved by P.Ws.1and 2 and the said occurrence has occurred based on the said motive and enmity against the deceased, in such circumstances, the non-examination of the independent witnesses has not at all affected the prosecution case. 12. With regard to the place of occurrence also, has categorically stated that the said occurrence took place in front of the Senthil Hospital. Such fact is also referred in Exs.P-1 and P-2 and Ex.P-14 rough sketch. 13. With regard to non-explanation of the injuries found on the body of the deceased other than the injuries stated by P.Ws.1 and 2, as stated by the learned Public Prosecutor, such injuries could have been inflicted on the deceased when the three persons joined together and indiscriminately attacked the deceased by using of Aruval. 13. With regard to non-explanation of the injuries found on the body of the deceased other than the injuries stated by P.Ws.1 and 2, as stated by the learned Public Prosecutor, such injuries could have been inflicted on the deceased when the three persons joined together and indiscriminately attacked the deceased by using of Aruval. In such circumstances, we are of the view that such non-explanation of the injuries found on the deceased other than the injuries stated by P.Ws.1 and 2 has not at all affected the prosecution case. 14. On a cumulative consideration of the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution witness and the relevant materials produced by the prosecution we are of the view that the prosecution established the case beyond reasonable doubt. It could be seen that based on the evidence and also the materials produced by the prosecution, the learned Judge has arrived at such conclusion and on that basis he convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. In such circumstances, we do not find any infirmities or any improbabilities in the prosecution case. 15. In the light of the discussions held above, we are of the view that the conviction and sen tence can be well maintained against the appellants. 16. In result, the appeal fails and is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the trial Court.