Judgment :- S. Palanivelu, J. This appeal is directed against the Judgment made in S.C.No.240 of 2003 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, dated 06.04.2005. By that Judgment, learned trial Judge has convicted the accused 1 to 4 under Section 449 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment each; A1 was convicted for the offence under Section307 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment; for the offence under Section 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. A2 to A4 was sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment; for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., A1 was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment; for the offence under Section 302 r/w 109 I.P.C., A2 to A4 were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment; for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C., A3 and A4 were convicted and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. The learned Sessions Judge has not imposed any fine as the accused were in jail for a long period. 2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is as follows: P.W.1 is residing in Kaleefa Sahib Street in Nagoor with his three wives viz., Fathima, Saiada and Sameema and also with their mothers. His daughter is one Jeni; Jaffer Hussain is his son; the injured Samsuneesa is mother of Saiada; Rahaana is sister of Saiada. His friend is P.W.2 by name Goodnamesha. Rias Ahamed P.W.3 is nephew of P.W.1. All of them were residing in the same house. P.W.1, before coming to Nagoor, got educated Arabic literature in Tanjore District, and in Koothanallur. He claims to have been conferred with Maulabi in Koothabnallur. Then he worked as Principal in Melapalayam Arabic College. He also worked in a mosque in Malaysia for six months. Then he served as a teacher in Madharasa at udumalaipet. He acted as Imam in Pothakudi and was a deciple of Syed Ali Sahib in Nagoor. 3. There were some adverse views against him as if he was smuggling Ganja and shooting Blue Film and also indulging in activities against the Islam principles and a complaint was lodged before the police. After enquiry, the police let him off since nothing was found against him. P.W.27, the Inspector of Police working in Keevalur Police Station enquired the matter and learnt that there was nothing in the complaint against him. 4. After enquiry, the police let him off since nothing was found against him. P.W.27, the Inspector of Police working in Keevalur Police Station enquired the matter and learnt that there was nothing in the complaint against him. 4. On another occasion the Jamaathars took him to Jamaath and asked him to accept the versions found in a paper in which it was mentioned that he set fire to Quran. Keevalur Police enquired the matter and he was released as nothing was established against him. The above said antecedents came to the knowledge of one Appadurai, examined as P.W.22, who alongwith one Vincent met P.W.1 posing them as journalists and intended to take interview from P.W.1. P.W.1 gave his consent to take a group photo of his family members consisting himself, his three wives and their mothers. The photographs are Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3. They were taken by P.W.21. The group photo was published in a magazine by name Yevukanai with a news item adversely depicting the activities of P.W.1. The said publication is Ex.P.4. On seeing the above said news item the accused got irate at P.W.1 and decided to do away with him. In order to carry out their intention, they came to Nagoor during Kandoori festival time and took the house of P.W.6 for rent to stay from 210. 1996 till 210. 1996 for which Rs.400/-was received by P.W.6. On 210. 1996 at 4.00 p.m. while P.W.1 was in his house along with the persons referred to above, when P.W.5 and two others were attending to the roofing work in the house, suddenly the door of the house was pushed open by four persons holding knives in their hands got entry into the house by asking who was George. One among the persons placed knife on the neck of P.W.3, another person pulled Saiada by hair and yet another person came near P.W.1 and other one of the persons shouted as kill him. One of the four attempted to stab P.W.1, which was warded off by him. However, P.W.1 received injury on his left fore hand. Saiada raised alarm and three of the persons caught hold of her hands and legs, while the first accused cut her throat with knife, that one of the persons stabbed on her chest and that all the four persons repeatedly delivered stabs on her body. However, P.W.1 received injury on his left fore hand. Saiada raised alarm and three of the persons caught hold of her hands and legs, while the first accused cut her throat with knife, that one of the persons stabbed on her chest and that all the four persons repeatedly delivered stabs on her body. P.W.4 hauled them up who was also attacked by those persons, resulting receipt of stab injuries and amputation of her right ring finger. P.W.2 and P.W.3 were also attacked by them. Saiada died instantaneously. 5. Hearing the noise from the house, the neighbours and the people residing in the street assembled in the house, apprehended all four accused, assaulted them and detained them. Information was received by the police and the Inspector of Police, P.W.31 came to the scene of crime. P.W.29, the Sub-Inspector of Police had also come to the site of occurrence and found the four accused as well as the prosecution witnesses with injuries. He, under the direction of the Inspector of Police, took injured to the Government Hospital, Nagapattinam. In the presence of the Doctor, P.W.29 recorded Ex.P.5 from P.W.1 at 5.45 p.m., came to Nagoor Police Station at 6.30p.m. and registered a case in Cr.No.464 of 1996 under Sections 147, 148, 452, 324, 307 and 302 I.P.C. and lodged F.I.R. Ex.P.32. He sent F.I.R. through P.W.25 to the Court and the copies to the higher officials. P.W.25 handed over F.I.R. to the Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam in the midnight at 00.10 hours. 6. P.W.31, the Inspector of Police after sending the injured for medical treatment at 7.15 p.m. prepared Observation Mahazar Ex.P.17 in the presence of the witnesses P.W.18, Village Administrative Officer and one Pakkirisamy and also drew Rough Sketch Ex.P.37 with reference to the scene of occurrence. He held Inquest over the dead body of the deceased Saiada between 8.30p.m. and 11.45 p.m. in the presence of Panchayatdars and witnesses and prepared Ex.P.38 Inquest Report. He deputed P.W.26, Head Constable to take the corpse to Nagapattinam Government Hospital for autopsy along with his request. He further seized four knives M.O.2 to 5 and also lifted the blood stained earth and sample earth M.O.6 and M.O.7 respectively and also clotted blood from the scene of crime under Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.18 in the presence of the witnesses. He deputed P.W.26, Head Constable to take the corpse to Nagapattinam Government Hospital for autopsy along with his request. He further seized four knives M.O.2 to 5 and also lifted the blood stained earth and sample earth M.O.6 and M.O.7 respectively and also clotted blood from the scene of crime under Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.18 in the presence of the witnesses. By means of the above said Mahazar and on the same day he recovered full hand shirt of P.W.3 and severed right ring finger of P.W.4. 7. On 210. 1996 at 7.00 p.m. he arrested all the four accused. On 210. 1996 at about 1.00 a.m. He recorded Confession Statement from third accused voluntarily given by him in the presence of the aforementioned witnesses at 1.30 a.m. He also recorded Confession Statements from 1st, 2nd accused at 1.30 a.m. and 1.45 a.m. respectively. He examined the injured witnesses and recorded their statements. He also sent the accused for judicial custody. He despatched all the case properties seized in the scene of crime to the Court under Form-95. P.W.10 the lady doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Nagapattinam conducted Post Mortem over the dead body of Saiada on 210. 1996 at 12.00 a.m. and issued Ex.P.15 Post Mortem Certificate, opining that the deceased would appear to have died of shock due to injury to the vital organs like trachea and oesophagus and hemorrhages due to multiple injuries, 16 to 18 hours prior to post mortem. She found as many as 14 incised wounds with various dimensions spread all over the body of the deceased. 8. P.W.8 Doctor, examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 who got injured at the time of occurrence and issued Ex.P.7, Ex.P.9, Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.6 respectively for them. P.W.1 was having six injuries among which 1 to 3 are simple injuries while injuries No.4, 5 and 6 are grievous in nature. P.W.2 sustained cut injuries on his back and also an abrasion. They were simple injuries. P.W.3 had received two simple injuries. P.W.4, who was critically injured at the time of admission to infirmary. She was inflicted with six cut injuries in which 1 to 3 injuries are simple, while 4 to 6 are grievous injuries. They were all medically examined by P.W.8 Doctor working in Government Hospital, Nagapattinam. 9. All the accused were medically examined by P.W.32, the doctor of the same hospital on 210. She was inflicted with six cut injuries in which 1 to 3 injuries are simple, while 4 to 6 are grievous injuries. They were all medically examined by P.W.8 Doctor working in Government Hospital, Nagapattinam. 9. All the accused were medically examined by P.W.32, the doctor of the same hospital on 210. 1996 at 4.35 p.m. All of them represented b efore the doctor that they were assaulted by public at Nagoor. The doctor found three injuries on the person of A4, four injuries on A1, four injuries on A2 and three injuries on A2. He has issued Ex.Ps.40, 41, 42 and Ex.P.39 for the accused A1 to A4 respectively. He opined that the injuries sustained by the accused were simple in nature. 10. After the autopsy was over P.W.26 collected M.O.8 to M.O.11 from the mortal remains and entrusted them to Investigating Officer under Special Report Ex.P.31. Thereafter, P.W.31 examined the police witnesses, doctors and other witnesses and recorded their statements. He also arranged P.W.21 lens-man to take photographs of the dead body of Saiada. They are Ex.P.21 to 23 and Ex.P.24 to 26 are negatives therefor. On 310. 1996 he applied to the Judcial Magistrate, Nagapattinam to take the accused to police custody. After enquiry, he entrusted all the four accused to the Court. He also gave requisition to the Court, Ex.P.27 and Ex.P.28 to send the properties for chemical analysis. Ex.P.29 is the report from the Biology Division of the Forensic Department, Chennai, in which it is staed that in all the seven items blood was detected. Ex.P.30 is the Serology Division Report of the above said department which shows that the clothing of the deceased and the plaster piece contained blood of human origin belonging to O group, while the incrustation is found with the human blood and result of grouping test was inconclusive. It is also stated that the blood found in Clasp knife got disintegrated. P.W.31 the Investigating Officer examined manager of Welcome Lodge in Chennai and recorded his statement, besides getting xerox copies of the register evidencing the particulars of stay of the accused in the said lodge. He arrested the sixth accused in Madras Central prison on 111. 1996 at 13.10 hours, brought him to Nagoor Police Station, recorded confession statement from him and on 111. 1996 he sent him for judicial custody. He arrested the sixth accused in Madras Central prison on 111. 1996 at 13.10 hours, brought him to Nagoor Police Station, recorded confession statement from him and on 111. 1996 he sent him for judicial custody. He also gave requisition to the Court for recording statements of P.W.6 and P.W.7 and 6th Accused under Section 164 Cr.P.C. P.W.30, Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur, recorded statements of P.W.6 and P.W.7 under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which are Ex.P.35 and Ex.P.36 respectively. After completion of investigation, P.W.31 laid Charge Sheet under Sections 341, 449, 324, 307 r/w 109, 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. Also under Section 120(B) and 506(ii) I.P.C. 11. Subsequently, the case was directed to be investigated further by the C.B.C.I.D. Special Investigation Team. P.W.34, Inspector of Police attached to the said team, took up the case for further investigation obtained permission for the same from Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam. He went to the scene of crime and was informed that the inmates of the said house are now residing in Chennai. Their addresses were traced by him through relatives and on 02.03.2001 P.W.1 to P.W.7 were examined by him, whose statements were also recorded by him. The he placed the case diary before the Deputy Superintendent of Police one Mr. Thangavelu, on direction from superior officer. The said Thangavelu is no more. 12. Investigation undertaken by the said Thangavelu was narrated by P.W.34. On 27.03.2001 the said Thangavelu laid requisition to record statements of P.Ws.1 to 4 and Fathima, Jaffer Hussain, Sameema, Juneera Sadhiya, Rahaana. P.W. 33, XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, recorded statements of P.W.1 to P.W.4 as well as Fathima, Jaffer Hussain, Sameema, Juneera Sadhiya and Rahaana, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. P.W.11 Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam petmitted the Medical Officer who conducted the Post Mortem to inspect the knives involved in the crime. The Doctor P.W.10 came to the Judicial Magistrate Court, inspected the four knives and gave opinion that the injuries found on the corpse of Saiada could have been caused by the knife found with the length of 39 c.m.and that the four knives could cause the injuries. The said Thangavelu also went to the Central Prison, Chennai and gave request to the Superintendent of Prison to furnish particulars with reference to the visitors who met the accused S.A. Basha S/o Abdul Rahman between 9. 1996 and 30.11.1996. The said Thangavelu also went to the Central Prison, Chennai and gave request to the Superintendent of Prison to furnish particulars with reference to the visitors who met the accused S.A. Basha S/o Abdul Rahman between 9. 1996 and 30.11.1996. Ex.P.16 reply was given stating that those records were gutted in fire in the riot which took place in the Central Prison on 111. 1999. 13. The said Thangavelu also placed a request before the Special Judge for Bomb Blast Cases at Coimbatore, for issuance of copies of confession statement given by A5 and also Chotta @ Ismail given in Cr.No.151 of 1998 in Coimbatore B-1, Bazaar Police Station, which was also furnished to him. He also gave request to the Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam to issue P.T. Warrant to the above said accused on the strength of the above said confession Statement, in pursuance of which A5 was produced before the above said Judicial Magistrate on 8. 2001. He was taken to police custody under the direction of the said Judicial Magistrate. The statement of A-5 was recorded in the office of the Special Investigating Team at Coimbatore on 8. 2001. He was then produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam on 11.08.2001 at 4.00 p.m. On 18.08.2001 the said Thangavelu went to Kerala State, Palghat District, Kizhgakkampuram village. He examined the witness Sivam @ Sivaprakasam P.W.17 and recorded his statement. He was working as Room Boy in the Welcome Lodge, Chennai, during the relavant period. He also obtained a signature on the reverse of the photographs of the accused to evidence that he could identify. He also examined Lakshmanan P.W.16, Manager of Welcome Lodge, Peria Medu, Chennai. In a same fashion he has also obtained the signature on the reverse of photographs of the accused to shoe that he could identify them. 14. He also examined the doctor P.W.8, Police Jeep Driver P.W.28 and other witnesses and recorded their statements. P.W.15 and one Shajahan represented that they could identify the accused and hence their signatures were obtained on the reverse of their photographs. After the completion of the further investigation, on 210. 2001, the said Thangavelu filed amended Charge Sheet before the Court. 15. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating materials available against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, they denied complicity in the offence. After the completion of the further investigation, on 210. 2001, the said Thangavelu filed amended Charge Sheet before the Court. 15. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating materials available against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, they denied complicity in the offence. The first accused told that the case was falsely foisted against them when they came to Dharga for prayer. The second accused represented that it is a false case and he gave complaint before the lower Court to get the blank paper in which the police obtained signature from him. The third accused also represented in the same line. The fourth accused had stated that he was arrested in the Dharga while he was attending the Nagoor Kandoori festival and he was implicated in the false case. They did not adduce any evidence and no documents were marked on their behalf. .16. We have heard both sides with rapt attention. Mr. V. Gopinath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused 1 to 3 would vehemently argue that while the circumstances available in this case are subjected to be a careful scrutiny, the Court could easily reach a conclusion that the accused are innocents and the prosecution versions are incorrect. Assailing the judgement of the trial Court, he placed as many as five points in order to support his contention before us to show that the prosecution theory is improbable. 17. Mr. Ashokkumar, learned Senior Counsel who is appearing for 4th accused would contend strenuously that no prosecution witness has deposed about any motive on the part of the accused to commit murder and they are not at all acquainted with them and in the absence of those circumstances, it is very difficult to find the accused guilty of the charges framed against them. 18. Mr.P. Kumaresan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would meet the above said arguments by stating that the motive is not at all material, if the commission of offence is otherwise proved by the prosecution and that acquaintance will not play a vital role as far as the facts of this case is concerned. It is his mainstay that the blameworthy antecedents of P.W.1 had attracted the accused who are allegedly involved in the Coimbatore Bomb blast cases to commit the crime against P.W.1 and his family members. .19. It is his mainstay that the blameworthy antecedents of P.W.1 had attracted the accused who are allegedly involved in the Coimbatore Bomb blast cases to commit the crime against P.W.1 and his family members. .19. As far as the first and foremost contention of the learned Senior Counsel Mr. V. Gopinath is concerned, it is pointed out that even before lodging of F.I.R., the police came to the scene of crime and investigated by examining the witnesses and the investigation in this case precedes registration of F.I.R. which would ultimately prejudice the valuable rights of the accused in this case. He draws attention of this Court to various portions of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 wherein they have stated to the effect that the police came to the scene of crime early and thereafter a case was registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police while P.W.1 was under medical treatment. We have gone through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which show that the Investigating Officer P.W.31 and the Sub-Inspector of Police P.W.29 came to the scene of crime immediately after getting information about the occurrence and enquired the witnesses also in the occurrence place. No doubt they enquired the witnesses but there is no material to find out that they recorded the statement of witnesses and thereafter the complaint was registered. In this regard, it has to be concluded that in order to find out the truth, P.W.31 made enquiries and took the accused who were already detained by the public in the scene of occurrence itself, to the police station. The steps taken by the police personnel in the scene of crime, by no stretch of imagination, could be stated to be an investigation but only termed to be the preliminary enquiry. In such view of this matter there could be no prejudice caused to the rights of the accused. 20. As for the second contention on behalf of the accused 1 to 3, there were discrepancies in the versions of prosecution witnesses as to the apprehension of the accused. In this context, we could not find out any glaring discrepancy or variation in the statements of witnesses before the Court. 20. As for the second contention on behalf of the accused 1 to 3, there were discrepancies in the versions of prosecution witnesses as to the apprehension of the accused. In this context, we could not find out any glaring discrepancy or variation in the statements of witnesses before the Court. P.Ws.1 to 4 who are injured and P.W.7, P.W.13 and P.W.28 say in a same tone that at the time of occurrence the injured in the house of P.W.1 and others who were present there raised alarm and on hearing the same, the neighbours residing in the street trooped to the place of occurrence, apprehended all the four accused, thrashed them and detained them, expecting the arrival of police. P.Ws.29 and 30 deposed that thereafter the accused were taken to the hospital for treatment. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that the statements of the accused before the Doctor, which are available in their Accident Registers Ex.P.39 to 42 would go to the effect that they received injuries while they were running and they were assaulted by the public. The contents in the Accident Registers may appear to vary from the aspects from the oral evidence aforementioned. In our view the said discrepancies do not loom large for the reason that no material is available to show that the accused were caught hold of by the public and were assaulted elsewhere other than the scene of crime. In short, it could be comprehended that while they started to quit the scene of occurrence, the public assaulted them. Hence no question of discrepancy would arise. 21. Yet another contention projected on behalf of the accused 1 to 4 is that even though it is stated by the prosecution agency that 4 knives were recovered in the scene of crime, only one knife was sent for analytical purpose, retaining the other three knives, which is remarkable setback for the prosecution case. In view of the proof of circumstance that the accused were caught red handed in the scene of crime itself and it is also established that the knives were seized in the scene of occurrence, the failure on the part of the Investigating Officer to send the other three knives for Chemical analysis would not constitute a ground to reject the prosecution case. 22. 22. While an identical circumstance was discussed by the Honourable Supreme Court in a decision reported in AIR 1963 SC 340 Gurcharan Singh vs. State of Punjab, it is held as follows: "There is no inflexible rule that in every case when a person is charged with murder caused by a firearm, the prosecution can succeed only by examining an expert to prove that the injuries could be caused by the weapon alleged to have been used. Where the direct evidence is not satisfactory or disinterested or where the injuries are alleged to have been caused with a gun and they prima facie appear to have been inflicted by a rifle, the apparent inconsistency can be cured or the oral evidence can be corroborated by the evidence of a ballistic expert." 23. In another case in Karnail Singh and others vs. The State of Punjab reported in AIR 1971 SC 2119 , the Honourable Supreme Court has held, when direct evidence are available to support the prosecution version, even though if there was inconsistency between prosecution evidence and the expert evidence, it is not material. In the said decision it is observed thus: "19. Before this Court it was argued that judging from the area of spread, the gunshots were probably fired from a distance of 36 yards which would make the prosecution story inconsistent with the above theory. But this is a case where eye-witnesses gave direct evidence of the crime. In view of what has been said about light, identification was not in doubt. That being so, the question of distance loses much of its strength. We see no substance in this argument." While the above said judicial pronouncements are followed, it could be observed that when oral accounts of prosecution witnesses are natural, cogent and convincing, they would prevail over the expert evidence.Hence, the lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer in this regard is not a circumstance to show that the investigation was slipshod. 24. It is another leaf of contention on behalf of A1 to A3 that even though it is stated by the prosecution witnesses that the accused were apprehended and retained in the scene of occurrence itself by tying them with rope, their medical examinations do not show any rope mark on them. 24. It is another leaf of contention on behalf of A1 to A3 that even though it is stated by the prosecution witnesses that the accused were apprehended and retained in the scene of occurrence itself by tying them with rope, their medical examinations do not show any rope mark on them. We entirely differ with the contention since the crowd assembled was large and there could have been no possibility for the accused to escape from them and hence they might not have been tied with ropes. P.W.2 alone has stated that the public tied them with wooden blanks and no other witness has mentioned that they were tied with rope. Hence this ground also has no legs to stand. 25. Yet another argument advanced on behalf of the accused 1 to 3 is that even though there was no previous acquaintance between P.W.1 and the accused, and it is an admitted fact that he saw the accused for the first time at the time of occurrence, a question arises how could P.W.1 furnish the names and addresses of the accused persons in his complaint and the specific overt acts attributed to each of the accused by the prosecution witnesses do not tally with each other. As far as the identity of the accused is concerned it is in evidence that the recording of complaint follows the enquiry of police officials about the accused in the scene of crime. The oral testimonies go to show that in the site of occurrence while responding to the queries of the police officials, the accused stated their names and addresses and after knowing the same P.W.1 has given them in his complaint and there is nothing to smell rat on this aspect. In so far as attributing the overt acts against each of the accused is concerned, it is established that all the four accused were present in the scene of occurrence. They were apprehended in the scene of crime itself. They were holding knives and they caused injuries on the prosecution witnesses. Since the circumstances go thus, in our considered view, it is immaterial to prove the specific overt acts attributed to all the accused. 26. Mr.Ashok kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 4th accused would assert that in the lack of any evidnece showing motive or acquaintance, the accused could not be inflicted with penalty. Since the circumstances go thus, in our considered view, it is immaterial to prove the specific overt acts attributed to all the accused. 26. Mr.Ashok kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 4th accused would assert that in the lack of any evidnece showing motive or acquaintance, the accused could not be inflicted with penalty. Meeting this point, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would state that as for circumstances available in this case, since the accused were caught hold by the public themselves immediately after the occurrence, the question of motive or acquaintance would have no role to play. The said contention could not be discountenanced. Non-existence of motive will not weaken the case of the prosecution when every circumstance has been amply proved by the prosecution. 27. In this context the principles laid down by the Supreme Court have to be followed. The Apex Court in Brijpal Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. New Delhi others reported in AIR 1994 SC 1624 = 1994 SCC (Cri) 419 held that when there is evidence of direct witnesses, the motive aspect does not assume much importance. In this case also the direct evidence as to the occurrence is very much available to portray the occurrence and hence even though no motive has been attributed to the accused, still the prosecution version can be accepted. So existence of bad-blood, motives or acquaintance is not at all a criteria to arrive at an upshot while the material aspects gathered proof. 28. Much was said about the failure on the part of the prosecution to conduct Test Identification Parade to identify the accused since the accused were not known to the prosecution witnesses prior to the occurrence. Responding to this contention the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that since the accused were apprehended in the scene of crime itself, there had been no necessity to conduct Test Identification Parade to identify the accused, which contention deserves to be accepted. 29. A conspectus of all the materials in this case would pave way to conclude that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. 29. A conspectus of all the materials in this case would pave way to conclude that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. All the injured witnesses viz., P.W.1 to P.W.4 have stated about the crime perpetrated by the actors namely the accused, and the other circumstances such as apprehension of accused in the scene of crime and the oral evidence of P.W.5 and other witnesses who were present subsequently in the scene of crime would also duly corroborate their version. 30. We have bestowed our careful attention to the rival submissions placed by both sides. We have also scrutinized the oral evidence on record as well as the exhibits marked by the prosecution. As far as the conspiracy part is concerned it is rightly disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge. The findings and observations recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, are correct which need not be disturbed by this Court. The Judgment and sentence deserve confirmation, which are accordingly confirmed. We do not find merits in this case and which is liable to be dismissed. 31. In fine, the Judgment made in S.C.No.359 of 2005 by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam dated 06.04.2005 is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed.