Judgment : Per R. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. 1. A1, A2, A4 and A5 tried along with four more accused in S.C.No. 121 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Court of Sessions, Erode for the various offences, are before this Court challenging their conviction as here under: “A1 under Sections 341 and 302 read with 34 I.P.C. A2 under Sections 341, 302 r/w 34 and 323 I.P.C. A4 and A5 under Sections 341 and 323 I.P.C.” A1 and A2 stand acquitted of the offence under Section 148 I.P.C. A3 to A8 stand acquitted of the offence under Section 147 I.P.C. A3 and A6 to A8 are also acquitted of the offence under Section 341 I.P.C. A3 to A6 stand acquitted of the offence under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. A7 and A8 stand acquitted of the offence under Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C. as well as 323 I.P.C. A1, A2, A4 and A5 are the appellants in these two appeals, in which they are canvassing the correctness of the judgment under challenge so far as their conviction is concerned. Heard Mr.N. Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.N.R. Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. At about 5.00 p.m. on 22.1.2005 - the prosecution case is all the eight accused forming themselves into members of an unlawful assembly (A1 and A2 armed with deadly weapons) wrongfully restrained Palanisamy - since deceased and thereafter A1 to A6 fatally attacked the said Palanisamy resulting in his death, while A7 and A8 were members of the said unlawful assembly when the offence was committed. It is also the prosecution case that in the course of the same transaction, A2, A7 and A8 caused simple hurt to P.W.1 while A4 and A5 caused simple hurt to P.W.2 and therefore the charges as referred to above. The prosecution examined in all P.Ws. 1 to 13 besides marking Exs. P.1 to P.22 and M.Os. 1 to 19 to prove their case. The defence neither let in any oral nor documentary evidence. 3. Palanisamy - since deceased, A1 and A2 are brothers. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased, while P.W.2 is their son. A3 and A4 are the brothers-in-law of A1, while A6 is the son of A5. A7 is the wife of A2, while A8 is the wife of A1. The defence neither let in any oral nor documentary evidence. 3. Palanisamy - since deceased, A1 and A2 are brothers. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased, while P.W.2 is their son. A3 and A4 are the brothers-in-law of A1, while A6 is the son of A5. A7 is the wife of A2, while A8 is the wife of A1. Father of the deceased, A1 and A2 had about 16 acres of land. P.W.1 would state that A1 and A2 gained the confidence of their father and got a ‘Will‘ executed in their favour for the entirety of the land. Later on, father of the deceased, A1 and A2 cancelled the earlier ‘Will‘ and bequeathed his entire properties on his grand son, namely P.W.2 and Srinivas (the latter not examined). P.W.1 and her husband were locating a place in the lands for digging a deep bore well. It was objected to by A1 and A2. That happened around one year prior to the occurrence. Two or three days after that incident, the accused attempted to dig a deep bore well in the very same land, which was objected to successfully by the prosecution party. On the occurrence day evening, by about 4.00 p.m. Palanisamy went to a grocery shop in a bicycle while P.Ws. 1 and 2 stayed back in house. As Palanisamy was returning home in his bicycle after buying groceries and as he was nearing the house of A1, all the eight accused surrounded him. A1 and A2 each had an aruval in their hands, while A3 to A6 each had sticks in their hands. A1 cut Palanisamy on the back side of his head, while A2 cut with an aruval on Palanisamys chin. Receiving injuries, Palanisamy started running for safety chased by A3 to A6 indiscriminately stacking him on his right hand and left hand. P.W.1 also reached the scene and she was fisted by A7 and A8 resulting in injury to her left shoulder. As P.W.2 came running towards the crime scene, A4 and A5 attacked him with sticks on his nose and chin, resulting in injuries to P.W.2. Palanisamy travelled to a distance of 150 feet from the house of A1, where he fell down dead. The place where Palanisamy fell down dead is the land belonging to the prosecution party. As P.W.2 came running towards the crime scene, A4 and A5 attacked him with sticks on his nose and chin, resulting in injuries to P.W.2. Palanisamy travelled to a distance of 150 feet from the house of A1, where he fell down dead. The place where Palanisamy fell down dead is the land belonging to the prosecution party. As P.W.1 shouted, the villagers gathered and all the accused made good their escape carrying the weapons. Then from the spot where Palanisamy was lying dead, P.W.1 walked back to the village and as there was no transport facility she made use of a vehicle that passed that side to reach the investigating police station at Appakudal by about 9.00 p.m. In the police station, she narrated the complaint, which was reduced into writing and after reading it over to her, her left thumb impression was obtained in it. Ex.P.1 is the said complaint. P.Ws.2 and 3 accompanied P.W.1 to the police station at that time. The police sent P.Ws.1 and 2 to the hospital for treatment and accordingly, P.Ws. 1 and 2 reached the Government Hospital at Bhavani for treatment. She identified M.Os. 1 and 2 as the weapons of offences in the hands of A1 and A2 and M.Os. 3 or 6 as the sticks in the hands of A3 to A6. P.W.2 had deposed on the occurrence proper more or less on the same lines as spoken to by his mother P.W.1. He also identified the weapons of offences as identified, by P.W.1. P.W.3 examined as eye witness to prove the crime tuned hostile. However, before she came to be treated as hostile, she had deposed in her evidence that on the occurrence day, P.W.1 was passing her house weeping and when she asked her as to the reason for it, she replied that she was assaulted and that P.W.3 admitted P.W.1 in the hospital. 4. P.W.11 is the Sub-Inspector of Police in the investigating police station before whom at 9.00 p.m. on the occurrence day evening, P.W.1 appeared and narrated the complaint which he reduced into writing in which after reading it over to her, he obtained her thumb impression, That statement has been registered as Ex.P.1 in his police station crime No. 23 of 2005 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323 and 302 I.P.C. Ex.P.15 is the printed first information report. P.W.11 sent the express records to the Court as well as to the higher officials. He also sent P.W.1 and P.W.2 with police medical memos to the Government Hospital at Bhavani for treatment, P.W.13 is the investigating Officer. At 9.45 p.m. on 22.1.2005, he received message over wireless about the crime and reached the crime scene after 10.00 p.m. on that day, where he found P.W.11 and the police constables already there. He collected the copies of the express records at the spot. As it was completely dark in and around the spot. P.W.13 could not commence his investigation immediately. Therefore, leaving two police constable at the spot to secure the place, P.W.13 reached the Government Hospital at Bhavani by about 11.30 p.m. on that night and by examining P.Ws. 1 and 2 recorded their statements. He directed P.W.11 to look out for the accused. At 6.00 a.m. on 23.1.2005, P.W. 13 in the presence of P.W.5 and another prepared Ex.P.2 the observation mahazar for the place where the dead body was found lying and prepared Ex.P.20, the rough sketch for the said place. At about 7.00 a.m. in the morning in the presence of the same witnesses, he recovered M.O.s 7, 8 and 9 under Ex.P.3 form the place where the dead body was found lying. At 7.45 a.m. on that morning, he prepared Ex.P.4, the observation mahazar for the place where the bicycle of Palanisamy was found. Ex.P.21 is the rough sketch for that place. He recovered M.O.10. M.O.11, M.O.12, M.O.13 and M.O.14 under Ex.P.5 attested by the same witnesses at about 8.15 a.m. from that sport. Through P.W.7, he caused the places to be photographed where the dead body and cycle were lying. P.W.7 is the photographer who accordingly photographed the two places referred to above. M.O.s 15 series and 16 series are the photographs and negatives. P.W.5 witnessed the preparation of Ex.P2, the observation mahazar; recovery of M.Os. 7 to 9 under Ex.P.3; preparation of Ex.P.4, the observation mahazar and recovery of M.Os. 10 to 14 under Ex.P 5 as already spoken to by P.W.13. P.W.13 conducted inquest over the dead body on 23.1.2005 from 8.45 a.m. till 11.15 a.m. in the presence of panchayatdharas and witnesses and prepared Ex.P.22, the inquest report. Then through P.W.10 he sent the dead body with requisition as Ex. P.12 for conducting post-mortem to the Government Hospital. 10 to 14 under Ex.P 5 as already spoken to by P.W.13. P.W.13 conducted inquest over the dead body on 23.1.2005 from 8.45 a.m. till 11.15 a.m. in the presence of panchayatdharas and witnesses and prepared Ex.P.22, the inquest report. Then through P.W.10 he sent the dead body with requisition as Ex. P.12 for conducting post-mortem to the Government Hospital. P.W.10 accordingly accompanied the dead body with the requisition to the hospital for post-mortem. After post-mortem, he removed M.Os. 17 to 19 from the dead body and handed over the same to the investigating officer with his special report Ex.P.14. P.W.9 is the duty doctor in the Government Hospital at Bhavani, who on receipt of the requisition and the dead body commenced post-mortem on the dead body at 12.15 p.m. on 23.1.2005. During post-mortem he found various symptoms as noted by him in Ex.P.13 the post-mortem report. The symptoms noted therein are as here under : “ Injuries : 1. A cut wound 3 cm × 1 cm × 1 cm over the chin. 2. A cut wound 4cm × 1 cm × 1cm over the lower jaw. 3. A cut would 8cm × 1 cm bone deep over right parietal region. 4. Lacerated wound 2cm × 1 cm × 1cm over the occipital region. Internal organs: Heart 250 gms. Empty (2) Lungs - (R) 450 gms (L) 400 gms. (3) Liver - 1200 gms. (4) Spleen - 120 gms. (5) Stomach - partial digested food present (6) Hyoid bone intact, Opening of skull fracture of Right Parietal bone 4 cm length. Clotted blood seen on brain surface. Brain Wt. 1200 gms. Spinal column normal”. Doctor opined that death would have occurred 18 to 24 hours prior to autopsy as a result of shock and hemorrhage due to injury to vital organs. He had also deposed that external injuries 1 to 4 with their corresponding injuries would have been caused by the use of weapons like M.Os. 1 and 2 and those external injuries are likely to result in the fracture of skull and damage to the brain. The death might have been instantaneous. 5. P.W. 13 recovered M.Os. 17 to 19 produced before him by P.W. 10 removed from the dead body under Form 95 and then sent the entire case properties recovered till then to the Court with a requisition to subject the same for chemical examination. The death might have been instantaneous. 5. P.W. 13 recovered M.Os. 17 to 19 produced before him by P.W. 10 removed from the dead body under Form 95 and then sent the entire case properties recovered till then to the Court with a requisition to subject the same for chemical examination. At 10.00 a.m. on 24.1.2005, P.W. 13 arrested A1, A2 and A4 in the presence of P.W.6 and another and examined each one of them. At that time, A1 gave a voluntary confession statement, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P6. A2 also gave a confession statement. Pursuant to Ex.P.6 M.Os. 1 to 6 came to be recovered at the instance of A1 under Ex.P.7 attested by the same witnesses. P.W.6 witnessed the arrest of A1, A2 and A4; their examination; recording the confession statement of A1, the admissible portion of which is Ex.P.6 and the recoveries made in pursuant thereto as already deposed by P.W.13. 6. P.W.13 brought the arrested accused and the incriminating objects to the police station and then sent the accused for judicial remand, while the case properties were sent to the Court. P.W.12 is the Magisterial Clerk, who speaks about the receipt of the case properties along with Ex.P.16 the requisition given by the Inspector of Police sending the same to the laboratory as an enclosure to Courts letter Ex.P. 17 and receipt of Exs. P. 18 and P. 19, the chemical examiner s and serologists report respectively. P.W.13 on prior information arrested A3, A5, and A6 at about 9.00 p.m. on 25.1.2005 in the presence of witnesses. The arrested accused were brought to the police station and then sent for judicial remand. On prior information, at 12 noon on 12.2.2005, P.W.13 arrested A7 and A8 and brought them to the police station. 7. P.W. 4 is having a grocery shop and the knows the deceased as well, as he is his regular customer, not only to buy groceries but also to have a cup of tea. As usual, on the occurrence day evening, Palanisamy -since deceased came to his shop to buy grocery and flour. P.W.4 came to know that Palanisamy, who left his shop at that time came to die later on. He was examined two days thereafter by the police. P.W.8 is the duty doctor in the Government Hospital at Bhavani. As usual, on the occurrence day evening, Palanisamy -since deceased came to his shop to buy grocery and flour. P.W.4 came to know that Palanisamy, who left his shop at that time came to die later on. He was examined two days thereafter by the police. P.W.8 is the duty doctor in the Government Hospital at Bhavani. At 2.15 a.m. on 23.1.2005, i. e., on the intervening night of 22/23.1.2005, P.W.8 examined P.W.1 for injuries shown to have been sustained by her at 5.00 p.m. on the earlier evening at the hands of known persons by the use of aruval and sticks in her field. On examination, P.W.8 found certain symptoms on her and issued Ex.P8, the accident register and Ex. P9 the wound certificate. Ex. P9 shows that she had suffered contusion over the right shoulder back of the left fore arm, right knee and an abrasion below the right knee. P.W.8 also examined P.W.2 at about 2.30 a.m. on that morning for injuries shown to have been sustained by him at 5.00 p.m. on the earlier evening at the hands of two known persons by hands and sticks. On him also, P.W.8 found ceratin symptoms and issued Ex.P.10, the accident register and Ex.P.11, the wound certificate. The wound certificate shows that P.W.2 had suffered a contusion over the chest. According to P.W.8, sticks like M.Os 3 to 6 could have caused injuries found on the person of P.Ws. 1 and 2. After completing all the remaining legal formalities, P.W.13 filed the final report in Court against the accused on 9.3.2005 under the sections referred to earlier. 8. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of the incriminating materials made available against them, they denied each and every circumstance put up against them as false and contrary to facts. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would argue that the presence of P.Ws. 8. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of the incriminating materials made available against them, they denied each and every circumstance put up against them as false and contrary to facts. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would argue that the presence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 at the crime scene is highly doubtful for the reasons set out here under: “The conduct of P.W.1 immediately after the fatal attack on her husband is so very unnatural namely, without even caring for her husband, who is already dead, she along with P.W.2 claims to have gone to the police station to lodge a complaint and then to the hospital for treatment and claims to have returned to the village only on the next day. Such a conduct being unusual for any ordinary human being placed in the position like P.W.1 should be viewed seriously to doubt her presence in the crime scene. P.W.8 the duty doctor had examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 only at about 2.15 a.m. and 2.30 a.m. on 23.1.2005 while P.W.13, the investigating officer would say that he examined them in the hospital around 11.00 p.m. on 22.1.2005. When P.Ws. 1 and 2 claimed to have gone to the hospital along with the police medical memos and when they were examined only at 2.15 a.m. on the morning of the next day, then it is impossible to believe that P.W.13 could have examined them much earlier in the very same hospital. The examination of P.Ws. 1 and 2 in the hospital at 11.00 p.m. by P.W.13 is not even referred to in the inquest report prepared by P.W.13 on the next day. The evidence on record shows that the villagers have been examined to corroborate the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 at the crime scene. P.Ws. 1 and 2 had not made any attempt at all to save Palanisamy from being murdered and the blood stained clothes from P.W.1 - since she claims that she took her husband after his attack on to her person, had not been recovered at all. There is a considerable delay in commencing the investigation and the theory of the crime spot being in total darkness is only a farce since the police officer could have brought to the crime scene other lights for the purpose of commencing the investigation. There is a considerable delay in commencing the investigation and the theory of the crime spot being in total darkness is only a farce since the police officer could have brought to the crime scene other lights for the purpose of commencing the investigation. The third injury on the dead body which is stated to be fatal is not even spoken to by P.Ws. 1 and 2.” The examination of P.Ws. 1 and 2 in the hospital by P.W.8 as claimed by her is also to be doubted since the medical memos stated to have been sent along with P.Ws.1 and 2 have not been exhibited in Court. The motive projected by the prosecution failed by the prosecution not exhibiting the ‘Will’ shown to have been executed by the father of the deceased and A1 and A2 cancelling the earlier ‘Will’. We heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above points. 9. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, we went through the entire records. The prosecution by letting in medical evidence, which we have already referred to, had established beyond doubt that Palanisamy died due to homicidal violence. Likewise, by examining P.W.8 and exhibiting the necessary Accident Register and wound certificate, coupled with the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 that they came to sustain injuries on their person, the prosecution had established that P.Ws. 1 and 2 had suffered injuries. The question is whether the prosecution had established the involvement of A1, A2, A4 and A5 alone as the persons responsible not only for the death of Palanisamy (A1 and A2) but also in causing injuries to P.Ws. 1 and 2 (A4 and A5). P.Ws. 1 and 2 are examined as eye witnesses to the crime - they are the wife and son of the deceased. We have already given the genealogy of the family tree of the prosecution witnesses, the deceased as well as the accused. It may be true that the defence by marking the registered ‘Will’ executed in favour of A1 and A2 by the original owner has dislodged the prosecution case that the said ‘Will’ was cancelled by the original owner executing another ‘Will’ in favour of P.W.2 and one Srinivas. It may be true that the defence by marking the registered ‘Will’ executed in favour of A1 and A2 by the original owner has dislodged the prosecution case that the said ‘Will’ was cancelled by the original owner executing another ‘Will’ in favour of P.W.2 and one Srinivas. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the defence the motive for the occurrence is the said cancellation of the registered ‘Will‘ shown to have been executed in favour of A1 and A2. Therefore, the prosecution in our considered opinion would have done better by bringing on record the ‘Will’ stated to have been executed by the original owner in supersession of the ‘Will’ in favour of A1 and A1, in favour of P.W.2 and the other, which the prosecution had not admittedly done. Of course, there is oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 to the above effect. When the motive projected can be established by documentary evidence and when such documentary evidence is available for the prosecution, it is needless to state that the prosecution must definitely produce that documentary evidence in their aim to establish the motive. Since that has not been done, we are inclined to doubt the motive projected by the prosecution as one not established to the satisfaction of the Court. But it has been always said that the failure to establish the motive for the crime always pales into insignificance, if the Court has direct evidence of eye witnesses to the crime. In this case, P.Ws. 1 and 2 are examined as eye witnesses to the crime and in fact the prosecution says that they are injured eye witnesses. 10. It is argued very strenuously and vehemently by the learned counsel for the appellants that the presence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 should be doubted for the various reasons enumerated by him and extracted earlier by us. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are injured eye witnesses and therefore to dislodge them from their such capacity, the defence would have taken a herculean task. Let us consider the points raised by the defence in their seriatim to doubt the presence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 at the crime scene. The first and foremost submission is that P.Ws. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are injured eye witnesses and therefore to dislodge them from their such capacity, the defence would have taken a herculean task. Let us consider the points raised by the defence in their seriatim to doubt the presence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 at the crime scene. The first and foremost submission is that P.Ws. 1 and 2 choose to rush to the police station and then to the hospital with out even taking care that either one of them or their close relatives stay back by the side of the dead body. The question is should such a conduct on the part of P.Ws. 1 and 2 could be taken such a serious note of to destroy the very evidence itself and our answer is in the negative. It is true that P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the wife and son of the deceased and they have seen the crime. They also say that they wept loudly and by the time the entire villagers, who belong to their community, also arrived. Courts have been repeatedly holding that it is impossible to read a human mind and impossible to judge as to how a person seeing a crime would react. In other words, there can never be a straight jacket formula prescribing the mode of response for each and every person, who sees the crime however close the person so witnessing the crime, may be related with the deceased. If we have that in our mind and examine the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, it is clear to us that they have not committed any infirmity at all or conducted themselves in any unusual and questionable manner in rushing to the police station without even taking care to leave somebody by the side of the dead body. Their evidence shows that the villagers have gathered and all of them belong to their community. It must also be borne in mind that P.Ws.1 and 2 claimed to be injured in the very same incident. Once they find that the victim is already dead and nothing more could be done at their hands to save him, we do find that there is a definite urgency on their part not only to rush to the police station but also to the hospital for taking treatment. Once they find that the victim is already dead and nothing more could be done at their hands to save him, we do find that there is a definite urgency on their part not only to rush to the police station but also to the hospital for taking treatment. It is available on record that when P.Ws.1 and 2 tried to near the crime scene, they were also attacked. Therefore, P.Ws. 1 and 2 cannot be accused of being silent spectators witnessing the on slaught of Palanisamy. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are also injured according to them. Even by the time they could realise what is happening around, the crime had been completed. Therefore, under these circumstances and in the light of the discussions referred to above we are totally unimpressed with the point raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that due to unnatural and unusual conduct on the part of P.Ws. 1 and 2 as indicated above ( i. e.) not trying to save Palanisamy from dying, their presence in the crime scene must be doubted and accordingly we reject it. There is nothing to show that the villagers also left the scene after P.Ws. 1 and 2 went to the police station. 11. P.W.11 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who would depose that at about 9.00 p.m. on 22.1.2005, P.Ws. 1 and 2 appeared and to P.W.1s narration, the complaint was reduced into writing and then registered. His evidence is that the express records were sent to the Court as well as to the higher officials immediately. We find from Exs. P.1 and P.15 the complaint and the printed first information report, that they had reached the Court even by 12 in that night, namely, within three hours after it came to be registered. In Ex.P.1, a graphic account of crime had been mentioned. P.W.11 would also state that he sent P.Ws. 1 and 2 to the hospital with police medical memos. P.W.8 is the doctor, who had examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 at 2.15 a.m. and 2.30 a.m. on 23.1.2005, i. e. on the intervening night of 22.23.1.2005. The evidence and the documents, namely the accident register and the wound certificate issued by P.W.8 speak for themselves. 1 and 2 to the hospital with police medical memos. P.W.8 is the doctor, who had examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 at 2.15 a.m. and 2.30 a.m. on 23.1.2005, i. e. on the intervening night of 22.23.1.2005. The evidence and the documents, namely the accident register and the wound certificate issued by P.W.8 speak for themselves. But still can we accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that P.Ws.1 and 2 had reached the hospital only at 2.15 a.m. or so and that is why they came to be examined by P.W.8 only at that time and we have to say that the argument is not well founded. P.W.8 might have been present in the hospital throughout the night or might have reached the hospital at 2.15 a.m. on he receiving information from the hospital about the medical legal case. No question worth mentioning had been put to P.W.8 by the defence that he was present in the hospital throughout the night, nor is it his evidence that he was present in the hospital, throughout the night. Therefore, if there is a possibility of P.W.8 reaching the hospital only at 2.15 a.m. or so on receipt of information about the medical legal case, then it is not possible to conclude with any amount of certainty to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.11 that he sent P.Ws. 1 and 2 to the hospital immediately after he registered the crime and that P.Ws. 1 and 2 had reached the hospital only at 2.15 a.m. where P.W.8 examined them. In other words, from the evidence, it is not possible to conclude P.Ws.1 and 2 would have reached the hospital well before 2.15 a.m. on 23.1.2005 and waited till P.W.8 examined P.W.1. P.W.13s evidence shows that he examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 in the hospital around 11.00 p.m. on 22.1.2005. We have already referred to his evidence in the earlier portion of the judgment. His evidence shows that he reached the crime scene after 10.00 p.m. where he found P.W.1 and the other constables already there; as it was dark, he could not commence the investigation and then leaving two constables to do sentry duty there, he reached the Government hospital at Bhavani by about 11.00 p.m. and examined P.Ws. 1 and 2. His evidence shows that he reached the crime scene after 10.00 p.m. where he found P.W.1 and the other constables already there; as it was dark, he could not commence the investigation and then leaving two constables to do sentry duty there, he reached the Government hospital at Bhavani by about 11.00 p.m. and examined P.Ws. 1 and 2. Therefore, reading the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 as one unit; the evidence of P.W.11; the evidence of P.W.8 and the evidence of P.W.13, it is not possible to hold that P.Ws. 1 and 2 had reached the hospital only at 2.15 a.m. on 23.1.2005 and therefore, the evidence of P.W.13 that he examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 in the hospital at 11.00 p.m. on 22.1.2005 is definitely false. 12. We now go to the next point urged by the learned counsel for the appellants, namely though the villagers are shown to be present at the crime scene, none have been examined to corroborate the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. Examination of independent witnesses is not a mandatory requirement of law in each and every case. When corroboration from independent sources is necessary, is always left to be decided by the Court on the facts and circumstances available in the case which it hears. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 do not show that the villagers also witnessed the crime. On the other hand their evidence is that after P.W.1 shouted, the villagers gathered and as the villagers gathered, the accused made good their escape. There is no evidence to show that the accused continued to commit the crime even after the villagers arrived at the crime scene. Therefore the non-examination of any of the villagers (admittedly not examined) is not fatal to the prosecution case. To put it in other words, we find that P.Ws. 1 and 2 alone are examined as eye witnesses to the crime and it is not the prosecution case that there are other eye witnesses as well. Therefore this point is also decided against the defence. of course, there is evidence here and there, which show that P.W.1 lifted her husband - since deceased on to her person. This definitely means that there should have been some blood stains on her clothes. Neither P.W.1 nor P.W.2 state that P.W.1s clothes were blood stained on account of such transaction. of course, there is evidence here and there, which show that P.W.1 lifted her husband - since deceased on to her person. This definitely means that there should have been some blood stains on her clothes. Neither P.W.1 nor P.W.2 state that P.W.1s clothes were blood stained on account of such transaction. It is not in dispute that the investigating officer had not recovered any blood stained clothes from P.W.1. But nonetheless from such infirmity committed by the investigating officer, we are not inclined to doubt either the prosecution case or doubt the presence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 at the crime scene. Accordingly, this point raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is also rejected. The last point urged by the learned counsel for the appellants to doubt the presence of P.W.s1 and 2 is the delayed commencement of the investigation by P.W.13. This argument appears to be factually incorrect. The evidence of P.W.13 shows that he reached the crime scene after 10.00 p.m. on the occurrence day night. He had reached the hospital at 11.00 p.m. on that night and recorded the statement made by P.Ws. 1 and 2. Investigation consists of several parts -of which conducting inquest is one part. The other Part is recovery of the incriminating objects from the crime scene. The last two parts, namely, conducting of inquest and recovery of incriminating objects alone stand postponed to the next day morning. The police officer had explained that as the occurrence place was total darkness, he could not do any other investigation at the spot. If it is total darkness and if the investigating officer tries to commence some investigation at the spot, it is likely that he may tamper by his such movement the incriminating materials available at the spot. Therefore, in our opinion the police officer had done wise in not doing anything further at the spot except leaving two sentries to be there and then leaving for the hospital to examine P.Ws. 1 and 2. It may be true that the police officer might have brought some light element from some other source and commenced the investigation. But he had not done it. But by that lapse itself, we are not in a position to criticise the police officer that he is not diligent in commencing the investigation immediately after reaching the crime scene. It may be true that the police officer might have brought some light element from some other source and commenced the investigation. But he had not done it. But by that lapse itself, we are not in a position to criticise the police officer that he is not diligent in commencing the investigation immediately after reaching the crime scene. Therefore, we do not find any deliberate infirmity committed by the investigating officer on the lines indicated by the learned counsel for the defence before this Court. it is true that the police medical memos shown to have bean sent along with P.Ws. 1 and 2 are not produced. In the accident register, P.W.8 has noted the details of the medical memos. Therefore the non-production of the medical memos as an exhibit, in our considered opinion must be of no use to the accused. If really the accused is of the opinion that the production of the medical memos may tilt the scale in their favour, then it is for them to summon. It is for the prosecution to decide which of the materials they have collected during investigation they must place before the Court. The Court can never compel the investigating officer to disclose all the materials collected during investigation before the Court. Therefore, the non exhibiting of the police medical memos by the investigating agency may not help the defence to create a doubt regarding the prosecution case. On the evidence available, we hold that the prosecution had definitely established the presence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 at the crime scene. 13. The question that follows is whether the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 established the involvement of the accused in the crime. Their evidence is overwhelming in nature. Though they are related and there is some property dispute between the parties, yet their evidence is so very natural and inspiring we are not in a position to doubt their evidence. Under these circumstances, we have no doubt at all that the prosecution by examining P.Ws. 1 and 2 had definitely established the case found accepted by the learned trial Judge. A faint argument in advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is neither direct evidence nor circumstantial evidence from which it could be inferred that A2 also shared the common intention with A1. 1 and 2 had definitely established the case found accepted by the learned trial Judge. A faint argument in advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is neither direct evidence nor circumstantial evidence from which it could be inferred that A2 also shared the common intention with A1. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that injury No.3 alone is medically proved to be fatal and neither P.W.1 nor P.W.2 speak about that overt act, vis-a-vis, any of the accused. We applied our mind to the above argument. From the evidence of P.W.1 and 2, it is clear that on hearing the alarm - by Palanisamy stating that he is likely to die by the assault, they turned towards that side. This means that even before the attention of P.Ws.1 and 2 was attracted to the crime scene, Palanisamy had become the target of the attack. On P.Ws. 1 and 2 reaching the crime scene, they saw the remaining portion of the incident, namely A1 attacking on the head an A2 on the chin. For the overt act spoken to in Court by the witnesses against A1 and A2, there are corresponding injuries. Therefore, it is clear that even before P.Ws. 1 and 2 could reach the crime scene to witness the remaining part of the assault, Palanisamy might have already received one injury and that injury is injury No.3. Medical evidence shows that injury No.3 is fatal. A2 is shown to have used a dangerous weapon, namely aruval in inflicting injury on the chin and one attack by him had resulted in two injuries (medical evidence shows that one attack would result in two injuries.) The fact is that A2 also joined A1 in attacking the victim with a deadly weapon. This would show that he shared the necessary common intention with A1. To find out whether a person is sharing the common intention with another, the Court has to read the mind of the assailants. Some times, such sharing of common intention may be by explicit acts. If there are no explicit acts, then from proved circumstances, the Court can infer sharing of such common intention. To find out whether a person is sharing the common intention with another, the Court has to read the mind of the assailants. Some times, such sharing of common intention may be by explicit acts. If there are no explicit acts, then from proved circumstances, the Court can infer sharing of such common intention. In this case, we have no difficulty at all in giving a finding that A2 had shared the common intention with A1, since by his explicit act, namely by using a deadly weapon and causing injury on the face, that he had also shared the common intention with A1. 14. For all the reasons stated above, we find that there is no legal infirmity in the judgment under challenge and accordingly it is sustained. This Court is informed that A4 and A5 who stand convicted under Sections 341 and 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment, have already been in prison for almost 75 days. We are of the opinion that ends of justice would be met, if the sentence of imprisonment imposed on A4 and A5 for their above referred to conviction stand reduced to the period already undergone. The conviction imposed on A1, A2, A4 and A5 for all the offences stand sustained. The sentence imposed on A1 and A2 for their respective conviction is sustained. The sentence imposed on A4 and A5 for their respective conviction stands modified as indicated above. Accordingly both the appeals stand disposed of.