Judgment :- (Prayer: These Criminal Appeals were filed against the judgment passed in S.C.No.12/2003 by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge-cum-chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore District dated 09.04.2003.) A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J. These appeals arise from the Judgment in S.C.No.12/2003 on the file of the Ist Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. A1 to A4 are the appellants in C.A.No.679/2003 and A5 to A7 are the appellants in C.A.No.772/2003. There are totally eight accused in this case. A8 was acquitted from all the charges by the lower Court. 2. The short facts of the prosecution case relevant for deciding these Appeals are as follows:- A1 to A8 are friends of P.W.5/Chendrakumar. P.W.2/Ramasamy and deceased/Lakshmanan are twins. According to the prosecution, on 5.7.2001, P.W.5/Chandrakumar was made fun by P.W.2/Ramaswamy, which resulted in P.W.5 assaulting P.W.2 and on the same day P.W.2 and his twin brother Lakshmanan and their friend Karthick assaulted P.W.5/Chandrakumar, who was admitted in CMC Hospital, Coimbatore. Subsequent to the said incident, on the following day i.e on 6.7.2001 at about 9.15 p.m., while deceased/Lakshmanan and his twin brother/Ramasamy and their friends P.W.1/Ramkumar were going on their cycle at Subramaniya Palayam Road near ladies hostel, A1 to A8 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in the course of the same transaction, A1 and A2 armed with Veecharuval and A3 & A4 armed with casurina stick in pursuance of their common object wrongfully restrained Lakshmanan and his brother Ramaswamy, and A1 cut Ramaswamy/P.W.2 with Veecharuval on the right side of the head, shoulder and left inner forearm and right leg and left and right thigh causing grievous injuries. A2 inflicted injuries by cutting Lakshmanan on the right and left side of the head and right fore head. A3 assaulted with casurina stick on the head of Lakhmanan and his right chin and right neck. A5 to A7 dragged the injured Lakshmanan and put him into a ditch near the scene of occurrence. 3. P.W.15-Inspector of Police has registered a case in Cr.No.464/2001 under Section 147, 148, 307 & 302 IPC on the basis of the complaint made by P.W.1/Ramkumar. Ex.P.24 is the First Information Report. A5 to A7 dragged the injured Lakshmanan and put him into a ditch near the scene of occurrence. 3. P.W.15-Inspector of Police has registered a case in Cr.No.464/2001 under Section 147, 148, 307 & 302 IPC on the basis of the complaint made by P.W.1/Ramkumar. Ex.P.24 is the First Information Report. P.W.15 took up the investigation and visited the place of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar, rough sketch-Ex.P.25, conducted inquest, arrested the accused, recorded their confession statements and on the basis of the confession statement recovered the material objects, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and after completing the investigation filed the charge sheet. The charge sheet was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Coimbatore, as PRC.No.24/2001 and after furnishing copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. to the accused, the learned Judicial Magistrate had committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. After framing charges, questions were put to the accused, to which, the accused totally denied the charges levelled against them. 4. Before the Court of Sessions, P.W.1 to 15 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.26 and M.O.1 to M.O.13 were marked. P.W.1 would state that the occurrence had taken place on 6.7.2001 at about 9.15 p.m., near ladies hostel. According to P.W.1 due to previous enmity A1 to A7 waylaid and A1 had assaulted P.W.2 on the head with Veecharuval and A2 had assaulted with aruval on the thigh of P.W.2 and A2 had assaulted Lakshmanan/deceased with casurina stick on the neck, head and chest and he died on the spot and thereafter, A5 to A7 dragged Lakshmanan and dropped him in a ditch. P.W.1 would further state that thereupon, Lakshmanan was taken to hospital by his friends Ramesh, Hariharan, Anandan and that he(P.W.1) and Siva followed them in a motor cycle. P.W.10/doctor, who had examined Lakshmanan pronounced him dead. On the same night, he(P.W.1) gave Ex.P.1-complaint at about 11.15 p.m. to the police. P.W.2, P.W.3 are the other injured eye witnesses relied on by the prosecution. P.W.4 had seen the deceased in a pool of blood at the place of occurrence on 6.7.2001 at about 9.15 p.m. and according to him, A5 to A7 had dragged injured Lakshmanan on the ground and had thrown him in a ditch. P.W.5 has not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.6 is a mahazar witness. P.W.4 had seen the deceased in a pool of blood at the place of occurrence on 6.7.2001 at about 9.15 p.m. and according to him, A5 to A7 had dragged injured Lakshmanan on the ground and had thrown him in a ditch. P.W.5 has not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.6 is a mahazar witness. P.W.7 is the recovery witness, who would depose that A1 and A2 had given confession statements to P.W.15 and M.Os.1 and 2 were recovered on their confession statements. P.W.8 is a recovery witness and according to him, A3 and A4 had given confession statements to P.W.15 on 12.07.2001 at about 10.30 am and in pursuance of the confession statements M.Os.3 & 4 casurina sticks were recovered. P.W.9 is the Doctor, who had conducted postmortem on the corpse of Lakshmanan and issued Ex.P.14/Postmortem Certificate. P.W.10 is the Doctor who is the author of Ex.P.15 & Ex.P.16. P.W.11 is the Doctor, who had treated P.W.2 on 6.7.2001 at about 9.50 p.m. and had issued Ex.P.17, copy of the accident register and initimation-Ex.P.18 to the police. P.W.12 is the then Head Clerk of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore, who would depose that the material objects were sent to the Forensic Laboratory for chemical analysis and Ex.P.21 is the Biological Report and Ex.P.22 is the Serological Report. P.W.13 is the Photographer, who took photograph of the scene of occurrence and Ex.P.12 is the negative and Ex.P.13 is the positive. P.W.14 is the Head Clerk, who had registered a case in Cr.No.462/2001 under Section 294(b) and 323 IPC on the basis of the statement given by P.W.5 on 5.7.2001 at about 11.30 pm (regarding the previous incident). Ex.P.23 is the copy of the FIR. P.W.15 is the Investigation Officer, who had conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet. 5. Incriminating circumstance under Section 313 of Cr.P.C were put to the accused by the learned Sessions Judge, to which, the accused denied their complicity in the crime, on the ground that the witnesses are deposing falsehood. The accused have not examined any witness on their side. 6. 5. Incriminating circumstance under Section 313 of Cr.P.C were put to the accused by the learned Sessions Judge, to which, the accused denied their complicity in the crime, on the ground that the witnesses are deposing falsehood. The accused have not examined any witness on their side. 6. After going through the evidence both oral and documentary, the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, has come to a conclusion that the charges leveled against A1 to A7 have been proved and convicted A1 under Section 307 IPC, and convicted A2 to A7 under section 307 IPC r/w 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years RI each besides fine and convicted A2 and A3 under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to undergo further period of one year RI, and convicted A1 & A4 to A7 under section 302 IPC r/w 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default RI for six months. A8 was acquitted. 7. Aggreived by the above said findings of the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, A1 to A4 have preferred C.A.No.679/20003 and A5 to A7 have preferred C.A.No.772/2003. 8. Now, the point for determination in these appeals are whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, in S.C.No.21/2003 is sustainable against A1 to A7 for the reasons stated in the respective grounds of appeals. 9. The Point:- We heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The prosecution case suffers from the following defects: i) The occurrence had taken place on 6.7.2001 at about 9.15 pm. P.W.2 is an injured witness in the occurrence, soon after the occurrence he was admitted in Government Hospital, Coimbatore, at about 9.50 pm on 6.7.2001. He was examined by P.W.11. Copy of the accident register is Ex.P.17. The intimation sent to the police by P.W.11 is Ex.P.18. P.W.15-Investigation Officer in his evidence in the cross-examination has stated that only after the receipt of Ex.P.18 he went to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore to record the statement of P.W.2. But, very unfortunately in this case, P.W.15-Investigation Officer has not recorded the statement of P.W.2, the injured in the occurrence. The intimation sent to the police by P.W.11 is Ex.P.18. P.W.15-Investigation Officer in his evidence in the cross-examination has stated that only after the receipt of Ex.P.18 he went to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore to record the statement of P.W.2. But, very unfortunately in this case, P.W.15-Investigation Officer has not recorded the statement of P.W.2, the injured in the occurrence. There is no explanation forthcoming from the side of the prosecution for not registering the complaint from P.W.2 in this case. ii) The FIR was registered by P.W.15 on the basis of Ex.P.1, statement given by P.W.1-Ramkumar. P.W.1 is not an injured witness in the occurrence. According to P.W.1, he had seen the occurrence and after sending the injured Lakshmanan in an auto-rickshaw along with Ramesh, Hariharan and Anandan, he (P.w.1) and Siva (P.w.3) went in a motor cycle following the auto-rickshaw in which Lakshmanan was sent to Government Hospital, Coimbatore. According to P.W.1, the police came to the Hospital at about 11.15 pm and recorded his statement-Ex.P.1. Already P.W.2, the injured witness in the occurrence, who was admitted in the same Government Hospital, Coimbatore on 6.7.2001 at about 9.50 pm, the Investigation Officer (P.W.15) has not recorded the statement of P.W.2, but has recorded the statement of P.w.1, who is not an injured witness in the occurrence. iii) In Ex.P.1, P.W.1 has stated that the occurrence had taken place at Subramaniya Palayam Road near ladies hostel. Further, P.W.1 in his deposition has stated that A2 had assaulted P.W.2/Ramasamy with aruval, but in Ex.P.1-complaint, P.W.1 has not stated that A2 had assaulted P.W.2 with aruval on his thigh. iv) According to P.W.1, the occurrence had taken place near ladies hostel, even in Ex.P.1 the place of occurrence has been stated as near ladies hostel. But, in Ex.P.15-copy of the Accident Register relating to the deceased/Lakshamanan, it is stated that the occurrence had taken place near Sithi Vinayagar Temple at Subramaniam Palayam Road. It is noted in Ex.P.15 that the corpse of Lakshmanan was brought to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore, by 1.Anandan, 2.Hariharan, 3.Ramesh, 4.Pandu and 5.Ramkumar(P.W.1). Except Ramkumar(P.W.1), no other person viz. Anandan, Hariharan, Ramkumar or Pandu was examined as prosecution witnesses. It is noted in Ex.P.15 that the corpse of Lakshmanan was brought to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore, by 1.Anandan, 2.Hariharan, 3.Ramesh, 4.Pandu and 5.Ramkumar(P.W.1). Except Ramkumar(P.W.1), no other person viz. Anandan, Hariharan, Ramkumar or Pandu was examined as prosecution witnesses. In this case, it is pertinent to note that in Ex.P.16-death intimation issued by P.W.10/Doctor, who had issued Ex.P.15-Accident Register copy, it is mentioned that only Anandan, Hariharan, Ramesh and Pandu alone brought the corpse of Lakshmanan to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore. The name of P.W.1(Ramkumar) which is mentioned in Ex.P.15 is missing in Ex.P.16-death intimation. In the cross-examination of P.W.10/doctor, he has admitted that in Ex.P.15, he has mentioned that Ramkumar also brought the corpse of Lakshmanan to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore. So, it creates a doubt as to whether P.w.1-Ramkumar had brought the corpse of Lakshmanan to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore on the day of occurrence. But, unfortunately, Ex.P.1-complaint was registered only from P.W.1. v) P.W.4 would depose that he had seen the deceased/Lakshmanan in a pool of blood at the place of occurrence. But, P.W.15-Investigation Officer in his cross-examination would admit that there is no blood stain in the place of occurrence. This itself will go to show that P.W.4 would not have witnesses the occurrence at the time of occurrence. vi) In Ex.P.18-Intimation, it has been stated that P.W.2 had sustained injury due to an assault by 30 persons with knifes, sticks and aruval at 9.20 pm at Subramaniya Palayam. In Ex.P.17-Accident Register relating to P.W.2/Ramasamy, an injured witness, also the same fact has been mentioned. So, it is highly doubtful whether the occurrence had taken place near ladies hostel, or near Sithi Vinayagar Temple or Subramaniyam Palayam. It is pertinent to note from Ex.P.15-Accident Register relating to the deceased/Lakshmanan that the assault was made by 15 known persons near Sithi Vinayagar Temple, but the charge sheet was not laid against 15 person, but charge sheet was laid only against 8 persons. It is not explained by the prosecution whether the assault was made at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence by 30 persons as mentioned in Ex.P.18 and Ex.P.17, or by 15 known persons as per Ex.P.15, or by 8 persons as per the charge sheet. It is not explained by the prosecution whether the assault was made at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence by 30 persons as mentioned in Ex.P.18 and Ex.P.17, or by 15 known persons as per Ex.P.15, or by 8 persons as per the charge sheet. P.W.1 in his evidence has stated that A1 to A7 had surrounded at the place of occurrence, but in Ex.P.1-complaint, he has not stated that A1 to A7 surrounded him and assaulted Prosecution Witnesses. vii) The charge against A5 to A7 is that after Lakshmanan was attacked by A1 to A4, A5 to A7 had dragged the body of Lakshmanan and had thrown it in a ditch. But the Doctor, who had conducted postmortem on the corpse of Lakshmanan viz P.W.9, in his cross-examination, has stated that the corpse had no shirt and there was no abrasion or sand particles found on the corpse of the deceased/Lakshmanan. P.W.9/doctor has opined if the corpse was dragged on the land, there is possibility for abrasion and presence of sand particles on the body. But neither abrasion nor sand particles found on the corpse of Lakshmanan as per the evidence of Doctor-P.W.9. viii) P.W.15/Investigation Officer in his cross-examination would depose that one Balan is the president of Hindu Munnani Party and the accused are also belonging to the same Hindu Munnani Party, but to a different faction, to which A8 is the president and that the above said two groups were in inimical terms. P.W.1, in his cross-examination has stated that he(P.W.1), Ramasamy(P.W.2), Lakshmanan(deceased), and Karthick and Balan belong to Hindu Munnani Party and that A8 contested for Panchayat Union Presidentship in Tutiyalur Panchayat and was defeated and that he has denied the suggestion that in the said election people belonging to Balan's groups worked for the rival candidate Mylsamy. So, it is clear that the occurrence had taken place as an offshoot due to the election rivalry existed between the two groups, one headed by Balan and another headed by A8. 10. The prosecution has failed to clear the above doubts in this case. So we are of the constrained opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. 10. The prosecution has failed to clear the above doubts in this case. So we are of the constrained opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. Hence, we hold that the conviction and sentence passed against A1 to A7 is not sustainable for the reasons stated above. Point is answered accordingly. 11. In the result, C.A.Nos.679 & 772 of 2003 are allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed upon A1 to A7 are set aside. A1 to A7 are directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if they are not required in connection with any other case. The fine, if any, paid by the accused shall be returned to them and the bail bond executed by them stand cancelled.