Judgment D. Murugesan, J. Totally 22 accused were arrayed in Sessions Case No.104 of 2006 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.I), Thoothukudi and they stood charged for the offences as detailed below:- (i) Accused-1 to 22 - Ss, 148, 302 r/w 149 IPC (ii) Accused-1 - S.307 IPC (iii) Accused-2 to 22 - S.307 r/w 149 IPC (iv) Accused-11, 12 & 14 - S.3 of Explosive Substances Act (v) Accused-1 to 10, 13 & S.3 of Explosive Substances Act r/w 15 to 22 - S.149 IPC 2. On completion of trial, the trial Court found guilty, convicted and sentenced Accused-1 to 10 to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 148 IPC; Accused-1 to 10 each to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs.5, 000/-, in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC. In addition to the above, Accused-1 was also sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1, 000/-, in default to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 IPC and all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However, the trial Court acquitted Accused-1 to 10 in respect of the other charges and acquitted Accused-11 to 22 of all the charges framed against them. Questioning the conviction and sentence, Accused-1 to 5 & 7 to 9 have preferred Criminal Appeal (MD) No.415 of 2007, Accused-6 has preferred Criminal Appeal (MD) No.430 of 2007 and Accused-10 has preferred Criminal Appeal (MD) No.467 of 2007. 3. The case of the prosecution as placed before the trial Court is as follows:- The accused party belonged to Thoothukudi Sivanthi Adithanar Narpani Mandram and the deceased-Selvaraj and the prosecution party belonged to Thoothukudi Kamaraj Makkal Kazhagam. As the members of Kamaraj Makkal Kazhagam gained the goodwill of the public in respect of their social activities, the members of Sivanthi Adithanar Narpani Mandram had developed grudge against them. In commemoration of the 97th birth anniversary of their leader Thiru.Kamaraj on 15.7.99, the members of Kamaraj Makkal Kazhagam organised a function at Krishnarajapuram Main Road, Thoothukudi. As the members of Kamaraj Makkal Kazhagam gained the goodwill of the public in respect of their social activities, the members of Sivanthi Adithanar Narpani Mandram had developed grudge against them. In commemoration of the 97th birth anniversary of their leader Thiru.Kamaraj on 15.7.99, the members of Kamaraj Makkal Kazhagam organised a function at Krishnarajapuram Main Road, Thoothukudi. While the function was going on at 10.00 p.m., Accused-1 to 4, 8 to 10 & 18 and 19 armed with aruvals, Accused-5, 11, 21 & 22 armed with knives, Accused-6, 7, 15 to 17 & 20 armed with swords and Accused-11, 12 & 14 armed with country bombs, after forming themselves into an unlawful assembly with a common object of murdering the deceased-Selvaraj, came to that place and Accused-1 to 10 started to cut the deceased on his head, forehead, face, ribs, thigh, hand and other parts of the body with aruvals. Accused-1 by name Pattu alias Patturaj also cut the police constable, P.W.6, on his right shoulder, as he made attempts to prevent the occurrence. Likewise, Accused-11, 12 & 14 threw country bombs on the prosecution party, which exploded, and thereby made everyone to run helter-skelter. 4. P.W.1, who also sustained injury, went to Thoothukudi North Police Station at about 11.00 p.m., on the same day and lodged the complaint, Ex.P13 to P.W.40, the Sub Inspector of Police, which was reduced into writing. The said complaint was registered in Crime No.698 of 1999 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 307, 332, 506(ii), 302 of IPC and under Sections 3 to 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and the printed First Information Report is Ex.P-14. He sent the original First Information Report and the complaint to the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thoothukudi through the Grade I Constable, P.W.38 and also the copies to the higher police officials. 5. Thereafter, the investigation was taken over by one Thiru. Syed Sahabudeen, Inspector of Police (since deceased). As per the evidence of P.W.45, Deputy Superintendent of Police, the deceased Inspector of Police proceeded to the scene place at about 1.00 a.m., on 16.7.99 and prepared the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P31 and rough sketch, Ex.P32 in the presence of P.Ws.19 & 20. 5. Thereafter, the investigation was taken over by one Thiru. Syed Sahabudeen, Inspector of Police (since deceased). As per the evidence of P.W.45, Deputy Superintendent of Police, the deceased Inspector of Police proceeded to the scene place at about 1.00 a.m., on 16.7.99 and prepared the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P31 and rough sketch, Ex.P32 in the presence of P.Ws.19 & 20. Thereafter, he seized the bloodstained earth, M.O.8, sample earth, M.O.9, bloodstained tarpaulin, M.O.7, bit of cloth, M.O.5 and bits of thread, M.O.6 from the scene place under the cover of mahazar, Ex.P33 in the presence of the same witnesses. He also seized the bicycles, M.Os.10 & 11 under the cover of mahazar, Ex.P34. He proceeded to the Thoothukudi Government Hospital and conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 6.00 a.m., and 9.00 a.m., in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses, namely, P.Ws.1 & 23, and prepared the inquest report, Ex.P35. He sent a requisition, Ex.P6 through the Head Constable, P.W.37 to the doctor for conducting postmortem. 6. In the meantime, the injured-Selvaraj was taken to Thoothukudi Government Hospital on 15.7.99 at 10.30 p.m., where he was declared brought dead by the duty doctor, P.W.24. She sent the death intimation under Ex.P8 to the Thoothukudi North Police Station. She also treated the injured police constable, P.W.6 at 10.35 p.m., and issued the accident register, Ex.P9 with the following noting:- “Incised wound of about 5 x 3 x bone depth once rt. shoulder (out. aspect). Pt. admitted in MAE ward.” 7. P.W.22, Assistant Surgeon attached to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Tuticorin, on receipt of the requisition, Ex.P6, commenced post-mortem at 10.50 a.m., on 16.7.99 on the body of the deceased and he noted the following:- “Cold symmetrical, black complexion wounds (1) Incised wound over forehead (i) 10 x 2 cm x bone depth (ii) 4 x 2 cm x bone depth. Frontal base fractured. (2) Incised wound right cheek 6 x 2 cm muscle cut. (3) Incised wound mandible region connecting with lower lip 4 x 1 x 1 cm. (4) 3 incised wound horizontal right side of head are below the other 20 x 4 x 5 cm. Subjacent bone fracture, brain injured upper part of external ear cut. The injury may be due to multiple assault at the same place. (ii) 10 x 1 x 4 cm bone fracture, brain cut. (iii) 4 x 1 x 1 cm. (4) 3 incised wound horizontal right side of head are below the other 20 x 4 x 5 cm. Subjacent bone fracture, brain injured upper part of external ear cut. The injury may be due to multiple assault at the same place. (ii) 10 x 1 x 4 cm bone fracture, brain cut. (iii) 4 x 1 x 1 cm. (5) Incised wound 'Y' shaped right side of vertex 3 x 1 x 1 cm, 6 x 1 x 1 cm. (6) Incised wound vertex 2 in number 4 x 2 cm bone depth, fracture bone present. (7) Incised wound elbow right posteriorly 4 x 2 x 2 cm. (8) Superficial oblique injury with starting of skin over the dorsum of right hand 4 x 2 cm. Tendon exposed. (9) Incised wound right side of abdomen 5 in number (i) 10 x 5 cm (ii) 4 x 2 cm, other 3 numbers are superficial. i & ii peritoneal into the abdominal cavity resulting intestine outside. (10) Incised wound right thigh 6 x 3 cm muscle depth. (11) Incised wound over (torn) Pattella 5 x 1 x 0.5 cm. (12) Incised wound palm extending left from the Thenar to hipthenar eminence. (13) As 12th right side. (14) Incised wound left forearm above wrist 1 x 1 cm. (15) A small incised wound over the medium raple of scrotum. (16) Incised wound left leg 5 x 1 cm muscle exposed. (17) Multiple superficial abrasion over right thigh. Tongue inside 8|8. All the internal organs normal and pale. Hyoid intact. 100 ml light (n.c) colour fluid inside the abdomen. Right lobe of liver lacerated fracture skull present and brain lacerated under skull wounds.” He issued the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P7 with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries to vital organs and the death would have occurred 12 to 14 hours prior to post-mortem. 8. The Inspector of Police, continuing with his investigation, examined the witnesses P.Ws.3 to 5, 9, 19, 20 and recorded their statements. He went in search of the accused at around 7.00 p.m., on 16.7.99 along with the police party and arrested the Accused-9, 8, 10, 12 & 11 near Isakkiamman temple at Karuvaikulam Road in the presence of P.W.21. 8. The Inspector of Police, continuing with his investigation, examined the witnesses P.Ws.3 to 5, 9, 19, 20 and recorded their statements. He went in search of the accused at around 7.00 p.m., on 16.7.99 along with the police party and arrested the Accused-9, 8, 10, 12 & 11 near Isakkiamman temple at Karuvaikulam Road in the presence of P.W.21. On the basis of the admissible portion of the confession statements of Accused-9, 8 & 10 under Exs.P36, P38, P40, he seized the aruvals, M.Os.12, 13 & 14 under the cover of mahazars, Exs.P37, P39 & P41 in the presence of the said witness. He also examined P.Ws.12 & 6 and recorded their statements. He examined P.Ws.7, 8, 14 and other witnesses on 17.7.99, 18.7.99 and 19.7.99 and recorded their statements. He arrested Accused-13 on 19.7.99 at 6.00 p.m., near Ettayapuram Esakkiamman temple in the presence of P.Ws.26 & 27. On the basis of the admissible portion of the confession under Ex.P42, he seized the knife, M.O.15 under the cover of mahazar, Ex.P43. He came to the police station and remanded the accused to judicial custody. On 20.7.99 he examined the post-mortem doctor, P.W.22 and recorded his statement. He also examined the Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.40 and P.Ws.31, 37 & 38 and recorded their statements. He searched for the absconding accused. He gave a requisition, Ex.P15 to the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi for conducting test identification parade in respect of Accused-11 & 12. He received intimation on 19.7.99 that Accused-1 to 3, 7 & 5 have surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram. He received intimation on 24.7.99 that Accused-4 and the deceased accused Subramania Nadar have surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikundam on 23.7.99. He gave requisition to the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi on 26.7.99 for taking police custody of Accused-1, 3, 7 & 5. He also gave requisition to the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thoothukudi for conducting test identification parade in respect of Accused-13. On 27.7.99 he took police custody of Accused-4 and the deceased accused Subramania Nadar and recorded their statements in the presence of P.W.44. On the basis of the admissible portion of the confession statement of Accused-4 under Ex.P44, he recovered the bloodstained aruval, M.O.16 from him under the cover of mahazar, Ex.P45. He remanded Accused-4 to judicial custody. On 27.7.99 he took police custody of Accused-4 and the deceased accused Subramania Nadar and recorded their statements in the presence of P.W.44. On the basis of the admissible portion of the confession statement of Accused-4 under Ex.P44, he recovered the bloodstained aruval, M.O.16 from him under the cover of mahazar, Ex.P45. He remanded Accused-4 to judicial custody. He took police custody of Accused-1, 2, 3, 7 & 5 on 28.7.99 and recorded their statements in the presence of witnesses Benedict & Raja. On the basis of the admissible portion of their confession statements under Exs.P46, P48, P50, P52 & P54, he seized the aruvals, M.Os.17 to 19, knife, M.O.20 & sword, M.O.21 under the cover of mahazars, Exs.P47, P48, P51, P53 & P55. He remanded them to judicial custody. On 30.7.99 he received intimation that Accused-6 had surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tirunelveli. Likewise, he received intimation that Accused-21 had surrendered before the Court in Chennai. On 2.8.99 he recorded the confession statement of Accused-6 and on 3.8.99 he arrested Accused-22 near the Thoothukudi new bus stand in the presence of P.W.44. On the basis of the admissible portion of the confession statement of Accused-22 under Ex.P56, he seized the knife, M.O.22 under the cover of mahazar, Ex.P57. On the basis of the admissible portion of the confession statement of Accused-6 under Ex.P58, he seized the sword, M.O.23 under the cover of mahazar, Ex.P59. He remanded Accused-6 & 22 to judicial custody. He searched for the remaining accused. He gave requisition on 7.8.99 to the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi for conducting test identification parade in respect of Accused-16, 17, 20, 21 & 22 and accordingly conducted the parade on 9.8.99 in the Palayamkottai Central Prison. He recorded the further statement of P.W.1. He received intimation on 9.8.99 that Accused-14 has surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tirunelveli. He also received intimation that Accused-15 was arrested in connection with Crime No.780 of 1999 on the file of Thoothukudi North Police Station on 2.8.99. On 15.8.99 he arrested Accused-19 near the Sethu Road in the presence of witnesses, Anthony & Charles and on the basis of the admissible portion of the confession statement under Ex.P60, he seized the aruval, M.O.24 under the cover of mahazar, Ex.P-61. He remanded him to judicial custody. He examined the other witnesses and recorded their statements. On 15.8.99 he arrested Accused-19 near the Sethu Road in the presence of witnesses, Anthony & Charles and on the basis of the admissible portion of the confession statement under Ex.P60, he seized the aruval, M.O.24 under the cover of mahazar, Ex.P-61. He remanded him to judicial custody. He examined the other witnesses and recorded their statements. He seized the bloodstained khaki shirt, M.O.1 of P.W.6 and the hire books under Exs.P62 & P63 of B.M.Cycle Company and Mani Cycle Mart. He seized the birthday commemoration notice. Ex.P64 of Thiru.Kamaraj. On the directions of the District Collector under Ex.P30, he registered the case against Accused-11, 18 & 14 under the provisions of Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act. After obtaining legal opinion and after completing investigation, he laid the charge sheet against all the accused except Accused-18 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 332, 307, 506(ii) & 302 IPC on 24.1.2000. Thereafter, on 2.8.2000 Accused-18 was also arrested and produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thoothukudi and was remanded to judicial custody. 9. In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 45 witnesses, marked as many as 64 exhibits and produced 24 material objects. 10. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as to the incriminating materials appearing against them, they stoutly denied each and every material as false. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the defence. Before the trial Court, P.Ws.1 to 5, 9 to 11, 15, 16, 23 & 25 have turned hostile. However, the trial Judge, accepting the evidence of the prosecution, more particularly, the evidence of P.Ws.6, 7, 8 & 14, found the Accused-1 to 10 guilty of the offence as stated earlier and acquitted others. Hence the present appeals. 11. Mr.V.Gopinath, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants/Accused-1 to 5 & 7 to 9 in Crl.A.(MD) No.415 of 2007 would put forth the following contentions. Inasmuch as P.W.1, who gave the complaint, Ex.P13, has turned hostile, there is no evidence as to the lodging of the complaint as such, except the evidence of P.W.40, the Sub Inspector of Police and the evidence of P.W.23 who has attested the complaint. As the author itself has disowned the complaint, the very complaint itself is doubtful. Inasmuch as P.W.1, who gave the complaint, Ex.P13, has turned hostile, there is no evidence as to the lodging of the complaint as such, except the evidence of P.W.40, the Sub Inspector of Police and the evidence of P.W.23 who has attested the complaint. As the author itself has disowned the complaint, the very complaint itself is doubtful. He would submit that though the prosecution had examined P.Ws.1 to 5, 6, 7, 8 & 14 as to the occurrence, out of them, P.Ws.1 & 6 are the injured witnesses. As P.Ws.1 to 5 have turned hostile, the prosecution is left only with the evidence of P.Ws.6, 7, 8 & 14. He would further submit that P.W.6 who is also said to have sustained injury in the occurrence has stated that immediately after the occurrence, the superior police officers came to the scene place at about 10.30 p.m., and he gave a statement to them as to the occurrence, which was reduced into writing. In the said statement he has also signed. Thereafter, he was sent to Thoothukudi Government Hospital, where he was treated by the doctor, P.W.24 and she issued the accident register, Ex.P9. The said statement has been suppressed by the prosecution. Hence the learned senior counsel would submit that the complaint said to have been given by P.W.1 is only an after-thought and was recorded as per the directions of the police officers and for that reason only, P.W.1 had turned hostile by disowning the complaint itself. In this context, the suppression of the statement given by P.W.6 to the police, which could be considered to be the first information, assumes importance. 12. He would further submit that even P.W.6, who is an injured witness, implicates only Accused-1, 5 and deceased accused apart from Accused-20, who was acquitted. The accident register, Ex.P9 also cannot be relied upon, as there are lot of corrections. In the column relating to the nature of injury and treatment, though it was initially written as “assaulted by ten unknown persons”, later on, it was corrected as “assaulted by ten known persons”. Though the doctor has made an attempt to explain the same, as she has made the correction, the very statement given by P.W.6 before the doctor has been suppressed. Though the doctor has made an attempt to explain the same, as she has made the correction, the very statement given by P.W.6 before the doctor has been suppressed. Had the statement of P.W.6 given to the police officers and the intimation as to the cause of injury as stated before P.W.24 been brought forth before the Court, the truth would have come as to the involvement of the real culprits. Hence the evidence of P.W.6 is highly unreliable. 13. Insofar as the evidence of P.W.7, the Sub Inspector of Police, he implicates only Accused-1 & 4 apart from the deceased accused. Though he claims that he was also present in the scene of occurrence, his evidence is also unreliable for the simple reason that even though he was aware that P.W.6 also sustained injury in the occurrence, the evidence as to the injury sustained by P.W.6 from Accused-1 was only a hearsay. There is no explanation as to how he came to know of Accused-1 & 4 that too, in the absence of any test identification parade. In this context he would also submit that Accused-4 has been implicated only by one witness, namely, P.W.7 and in the absence of at least two witnesses examined to speak about the overt act in a case where large number of accused persons had jointly attacked the deceased, it would be unsafe to convict the accused solely on the basis of the evidence of one witness. 14. Insofar as the evidence of P.W.8, Grade I Constable, he implicates only Accused-1, 5 and deceased accused apart from Accused-20, who was acquitted. His evidence is also totally unreliable, as he speaks of cut injury on the ribs, but the said evidence is not supported by medical evidence, as the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P7 does not contain any corresponding injury. The evidence of the doctor, P.W.22, who conducted post-mortem, also shows that there was no injury on the ribs of the deceased. Hence the learned senior counsel would submit that the evidence of P.W.8 is untrustworthy. Insofar as the evidence of P.W.14, Grade I Constable, the learned senior counsel would submit that he implicates only Accused-1 and the deceased accused. Even P.W.14 has deposed in general as to the causing of injuries on the deceased, except the specific overt act on Accused-1. Hence the learned senior counsel would submit that the evidence of P.W.8 is untrustworthy. Insofar as the evidence of P.W.14, Grade I Constable, the learned senior counsel would submit that he implicates only Accused-1 and the deceased accused. Even P.W.14 has deposed in general as to the causing of injuries on the deceased, except the specific overt act on Accused-1. He would submit that the recovery of weapons used in the occurrence was also not accepted by the trial Court and the absence of recovery of weapons also adds to the fact that the prosecution has come up with a false case before the trial Court. He would also submit that the investigating officer also died before trial and therefore, P.W.45, who was examined to speak about the investigation carried on by Syed Sahabudeen, has only narrated from the records and he has no first hand information as to the actual investigation done, particularly the recovery. He would submit that added to the above, the prosecution has failed to mark the accident register copy of the deceased. 15. Mr. V. Kathirvelu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Accused-6 in Crl.A.(MD) No.430 of 2007, adopting the arguments of Mr. V. Gopinath, would in addition submit that even though the trial Court believed the evidence of P.Ws.6 to 8 & 14 to convict the accused, the said witnesses have not specifically spoken about the involvement of Accused-6 and hence there is absolutely no evidence for his involvement in the offence. 16. Mr. R. Shunmugasundaram, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants/Accused-10 in Crl.A.(MD) No.467 of 2007 would submit that none of the witnesses, namely, P.Ws.6 to 8 &14, had implicated Accused-10 and there is absolutely no other evidence for his involvement in the offence. 17. On the above contentions, we heard Mr. P.N. Pandithurai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well. 18. Let us first discuss about the challenge to the conviction and sentence imposed upon Accused-6 & 10, the appellants in Crl.A.(MD) Nos.430 & 467 of 2007. Though the trial Court has accepted the evidence of P.Ws.6 to 8 & 14 to convict them, it is seen that those witnesses have not spoken either about the presence of these accused or any overt act caused by them on the deceased Selvaraj or P.W.6, the police constable. This fact is also not disputed by the prosecution. Though the trial Court has accepted the evidence of P.Ws.6 to 8 & 14 to convict them, it is seen that those witnesses have not spoken either about the presence of these accused or any overt act caused by them on the deceased Selvaraj or P.W.6, the police constable. This fact is also not disputed by the prosecution. The recovery said to have been made has also been disbelieved by the trial Court. In such circumstances, there is no evidence whatsoever to hold that Accused-6 & 10 had involved in the occurrence. Hence the conviction and sentence imposed upon Accused-6 & 10 are totally unsustainable and liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 19. Coming to the conviction and sentence imposed upon Accused-1 to 5 & 7 to 9, the appellants in Crl.A.(MD) No.415 of 2007, it is by now well settled that even a slight suspicion enters into the mind of the Court as to the prosecution case, the Court must be very cautious while scrutinizing the evidence. P.W.1, who is an eye-witness and the author of the complaint, Ex.P13, has disowned not only the contents of the complaint, but also the fact that he lodged such a complaint to P.W.40, the Sub Inspector of Police as alleged by the prosecution. The fact that P.W.1 had turned hostile assumes importance if the other circumstances are also taken into consideration. It is the admitted case of P.W.6 that when Accused-1 attacked the deceased, he tried to prevent the further attack and in that process, he sustained injury. The said occurrence had taken place at 10.00 p.m., on 15.7.99. Though the deceased Selvaraj was immediately taken to the hospital, P.W.6 was not sent to the hospital at least for further half-an-hour time. According to his evidence, the superior police officers came to the scene place and they enquired him about the occurrence. He has narrated the entire happenings to the police and the said statement was reduced into writing. This had occurred at 10.30 p.m. However, the First Information Report said to have been given by P.W.1 was recorded at 11.00 p.m. It is quite obvious that even before the complaint, Ex.P13 and the First Information Report, Ex.P14 came to be registered, the police had arrived at the scene of occurrence and has commenced the investigation by recording the statement of P.W.6. Strangely, the said statement has been suppressed by the police. In our opinion, the statement given by P.W.6 is the first information given to the police and not the complaint, Ex.P13 said to have been given by P.W.1 to P.W.40, which was registered in Ex.P14 at 11.00 p.m. When the very origin or genesis of the First Information Report itself is doubtful, the prosecution case cannot be believed. That apart, the suppression of the earlier information, which could be treated as first information, also throws a serious doubt about the very prosecution case itself. See 1980 SCC (Crl.) 985 (Marudanal Augusti v. State of Kerala). Division Bench judgments of this Court in 2005 (2) L.W. (Crl.) 779 (Secretary @ Mara Naicker and 7 others v. State by Sub Inspector of Police, Sathyamangalam) & in 2005 (2) L.W. (Crl.) 787 (Subramani @ Manian v. Subramanian). 20. Keeping the above in mind, if the evidence of P.Ws.6 to 8 & 14 are considered, the discrepancies in their statement also assumes importance. As the occurrence had taken place at 10.00 p.m., the deceased, who sustained injury, was taken to the hospital. P.W.6 is none other than the police constable. Though he also sustained injury, he did not accompany the injured Selvaraj to the hospital not only to admit the injured, but also to take treatment for himself. From the evidence of P.Ws.7, 8 & 14, it is seen that P.W.6 was sent to the hospital in a separate van and was treated by the doctor, P.W.24, who issued the accident register, Ex.P9 at about 10.35 p.m. The doctor has also admitted as to the corrections made in Ex.P9 in respect of the number of persons who have attacked P.W.6 as well as whether they are known or unknown persons. So far as the entry as to the known or unknown persons made by the doctor is concerned, it may not be relevant, as it is the duty of the doctor to ensure that proper treatment is given to the injured who is brought before him. Even if the doctor was informed of the names of the assailants and such names are noted in the accident register, they may not have any evidentiary value. 21. The doctor is not at all concerned as to who has committed the offence, as his primary effort is only to save the life. Even if the doctor was informed of the names of the assailants and such names are noted in the accident register, they may not have any evidentiary value. 21. The doctor is not at all concerned as to who has committed the offence, as his primary effort is only to save the life. See (1985) 4 SCC 80 = 1986 (1) MLJ Crl. 23 - (Pattipati Venkaiah v. State of A.P.) -, paragraph 17. Further, the doctor can also ignore any statements made by persons who brought the injured for treatment either to the occurrence or as to the name of the assailants, whether known or unknown. See 1993 Crl.L.J 2173 (Basheer vs. State). 22. Nevertheless, for the purpose as to the whether the version of P.W.6 could be accepted or not, the correction made by the doctor in Ex.P9 has vital relevance. Firstly, the statement of P.W.6 given to the police officers at the very scene place has been suppressed by the police. Secondly, the next statement of P.W.6 given to the doctor has not been correctly reflected in Ex.P9, as there are corrections. Thirdly, P.W.6, who is a constable by himself, though has implicated number of persons in his evidence, has not explained as to how he came to know of the identity of these accused, except Accused-1 who he claims to have known by name. In such circumstances, it is highly improper to rely upon the evidence of P.W.6. 23. Coming to the evidence of P.Ws.7, 8 & 14, though they claim to have witnessed the occurrence, out of 22 accused, they have only implicated Accused-1, 5 and the deceased accused alone. So far as P.W.7 is concerned, he has implicated only Accused-1, 4 and the deceased accused. P.W.8 has implicated Accused-1, 5, 20 apart from the deceased accused. P.W.14 has implicated only Accused-1 and the deceased accused. All these witnesses are Sub Inspector of Police and Police Constables and there is no test identification parade conducted to identify the accused. The occurrence had taken place at about 10.00 p.m., and that too, when three country bombs had exploded in the scene of occurrence, it would be quite unnatural for these police personnel alone to have identified the assailants in the absence of any earlier acquaintance with them and also in the absence of any test identification parade. The occurrence had taken place at about 10.00 p.m., and that too, when three country bombs had exploded in the scene of occurrence, it would be quite unnatural for these police personnel alone to have identified the assailants in the absence of any earlier acquaintance with them and also in the absence of any test identification parade. The evidence of P.Ws.6 to 8 & 14 are consistent in respect of sending P.W.6 for treatment in a separate van. Therefore, as the police personnel were in the scene of occurrence, as could be seen from the evidence of P.W.6 that even at 10.30 p.m., before he was sent to the hospital, it can be reasonably presumed that he was sent for treatment in a separate van accompanied by the police personnel. Nevertheless, from the evidence of P.W.24-doctor who examined P.W.6, it is clear that P.W.6 had come for treatment on his own. From the above, it is clear that the prosecution has not come forward with a true version of the case and the police officer who brought P.W.6 to the hospital has been suppressed. That apart, P.W.6, being an injured police constable, has not been given any first-aid in the scene of occurrence by his colleagues who are examined as P.Ws.7, 8 & 14. They have not also taken any care to send him to the hospital along with Selvaraj, who was sent immediately after the occurrence. Further, the entire case of the prosecution is that the occurrence had taken place by the explosion of three country bombs. After appreciation of evidence, the trial Court has disbelieved the prosecution case insofar as the explosion of bombs is concerned. This is also an added factor throwing suspicion over the prosecution case. P.W.7 has also spoken about the injuries sustained by the deceased on his ribs, which is not corroborated by the medical evidence, throwing a serious doubt about his very presence in the scene of occurrence. 24. So far as Accused-4 is concerned, only one witness had implicated him, namely, P.W.7. P.W.7 has also spoken about the injuries sustained by the deceased on his ribs, which is not corroborated by the medical evidence, throwing a serious doubt about his very presence in the scene of occurrence. 24. So far as Accused-4 is concerned, only one witness had implicated him, namely, P.W.7. The question as to whether a conviction could be safely made on the basis of the evidence of solitary witness when large number of accused were involved in the offence came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the judgment in Masalti and others v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 202 , wherein it has been held that “where a criminal court has to deal with evidence pertaining to the commission of an offence involving a large number of offenders and a large number of victims, it is usual to adopt the test that the conviction could be sustained only if it is supported by two or three or more witnesses who give a consistent account of the incident.” This judgment was quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, 1997 SCC (Crl.) 333, wherein it has been held that “testimony of a single witness, if wholly reliable, is safe. However, when size of unlawful assembly is quite large, it would be safe to insist on at least two reliable witnesses.” The very same view has been taken in the subsequent judgment in Chandra Shekhar Bind and others v. State of Bihar, 2001 Crl.L.J.4693. 25. From the above discussion, we have no other option except to conclude (i) that the earliest information regarding the occurrence made by P.W.6 to the police officer and that too in the place of occurrence has been suppressed and such suppression of the earliest information is fatal to the prosecution case. (ii) In view of the above said reason, the subsequent complaint said to have been given by P.W.1 to the police is doubtful and cannot be relied upon; more so, P.W.1, the author of the complaint, himself has disowned such complaint. (iii) Even on merits, the evidence of P.Ws.6, 7, 8 and 14 cannot be believed, though they narrated the incident and consequently the implication of Accused-1 to 5 & 7 to 9 for the offence have not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. (iii) Even on merits, the evidence of P.Ws.6, 7, 8 and 14 cannot be believed, though they narrated the incident and consequently the implication of Accused-1 to 5 & 7 to 9 for the offence have not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. (iv) There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever against Accused-6 & 10. 26. For the above said conclusion, we are of the considered view that the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the trial court cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the benefit of doubt must go in favour of the appellants only. 27. Accordingly, all the criminal appeals are allowed and consequently the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants in all the appeals by the trial court are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges leveled against them. It is seen from the records that the Accused-1, 4 & 5, the appellants-1, 4 & 5 in Crl.A.(MD) No.415 of 2007, are in jail. Hence they are directed to be released forthwith, unless their presence is required in connection with any other case. So far as the other Accused, 2, 3, 7 to 9, the appellants-2, 3, & 6 to 8 in Crl.A.(MD) No.415 of 2007 and Accused-6, the appellant in Crl.A.(MD) No.430 of 2007 and Accused-10, the appellant in Crl.A.(MD) No.467 of 2007 are concerned, it is seen from the records that they are on bail. In view of their acquittal, the bail bonds shall stand terminated. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants is ordered to be refunded.