Judgment R. Regupathi, J. Appellants-1 and 2 are father and son respectively and the third appellant is the wife of the first appellant. The gist of the charge is that, on 03.12.2003 at about 3 P.M., appellants-1 and 2/A1 & A2 armed with aruval and the 3rd appellant/A3 with iron rod, on account of their enmity against one Subburathinam, who won the case against them in respect of 40 cents of land, with the common intention to murder the said Subburathinam, waylaid him and his son Sundarapandian while they were coming alongside the thrashing field and by saying 'how dare you bring the Tractor to plough the field; because of you, we are walking between police station and court and only if you are finished off, we would feel relieved', A2 cut the deceased with aruval on right and left wrist and attacked Sundarapandian on the right side of the back and shoulder; A1 attacked the deceased twice on the head and the third accused beat Sundarapandian with iron-rod on the neck and right elbow. The trial court framed the charge against A-1 for the offences under Sections 307 and 302 read with 34 IPC. and against A2 and A-3 under Sections 302 and 307 read with 34 IPC. By order dated 30.07.2007, passed in Sessions Case No.27 of 2006, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC No.4, Periakulam, held against the accused and the details of conviction and sentence are given below:- The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. As against the said order of conviction and sentence passed by the court below, the accused have come up with the present Appeal. 2. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined PWs-1 to 22, marked Exs.P1 to P48 and produced MOs-1 to 8. On the side of the defence, 14 documents were filed as Exs.D1 to D14 however no oral evidence was let in. 3. The case of the prosecution, as delineated by its witnesses, is precisely narrated below, i) PW-1 is the son of the deceased and he is the injured eye witness. He has deposed that his family owned 40 cents of land in Dharmathupatti and in respect of the said land, there was a dispute between his father and the brother of A-1 and the decision of the court came in favour of his father and thereafter, the land was sold to PW-8. He has deposed that his family owned 40 cents of land in Dharmathupatti and in respect of the said land, there was a dispute between his father and the brother of A-1 and the decision of the court came in favour of his father and thereafter, the land was sold to PW-8. In respect of the occurrence, he has stated that he could not exactly say that the accused had murdered his father and that, after he was injured in the incident, he only made a statement to the police under Ex.P1 assigning his signature therein. He however stated that the attack was made with MO-1 aruval and MO-3 iron rod. He also identified MOs-4 to 6 as the dress worn by him and his father at the time of occurrence. ii) PWs-2 and 4 did not support the case of the prosecution and therefore, they were treated as hostile. The evidence of PW-3 also is not useful to the prosecution case. iii) P.W.5 is cited as an eye witness in the case and he is an employee of PW-8. He has stated that, as per the instructions of P.W.8, who purchased the disputed land from the deceased, he went to the field along with PW-4. When they were doing agricultural operations in the land with tractor, the accused came there and stating that there is a dispute with regard to the said land, asked P.W.5 not to do the work and also threatened him, whereupon, PW-5 stopped the operation. A-1 and A-2 armed with aruval and A-3 with iron-rod proceeded towards eastern side and in the same road, the deceased and his son PW-1 came from the southern side. PW-5 further stated that, at that time, the accused, by remarking at the deceased 'how long we have to wander with you between the police station and court', started attacking him. A-2 cut him on the hands and wrist and A-1 twice at the head. When PW-1 attempted to prevent, A-2 cut him on the back and right hand and A-3 beat on the neck with iron rod. On seeing the villagers coming to that place, the accused ran away from there. He further stated that at night, PW-1 took the deceased to Andipatti Government Hospital and thereafter to the Government Hospital at Madurai. At 8.50 P.M., he came to know that the deceased died. On seeing the villagers coming to that place, the accused ran away from there. He further stated that at night, PW-1 took the deceased to Andipatti Government Hospital and thereafter to the Government Hospital at Madurai. At 8.50 P.M., he came to know that the deceased died. iv) PW-6 is the first wife of the deceased, who has spoken to about the motive part of the prosecution case, viz., the land dispute between the deceased and the accused. The said aspect has also been spoken to by PW-17, another wife of the deceased. v) PW-7 is the Driver of the Bus in which the deceased was taken to the hospital. PW-8 is another eye witness who corroborated the evidence of PW-5. PWs-9 and 10 did not support the prosecution case, however, they were not treated by the prosecution as hostile. vi) PW-19, the Sub Inspector of Police, has stated that, on 03.12.2003 at about 4.45 P.M., the deceased and PW-1 appeared at the police station and on noticing that they are severely injured, in order to save their lives, without recording any statement, he forwarded them with a medical memo to the Andipatti Government Hospital. Thereafter, at 5.30 P.M., he recorded the statement of PW-1 at the Hospital under Ex.P1, returned back to the police Station and registered F.I.R. under Ex.P.30 in Crime No.378 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 326, 324, 307 and 109 IPC. While recording the statement of PW-1 at the Hospital, he recovered MO-5, blood-stained shirt of PW-1 and MO-4, blood stained dhothi of the deceased under Form -95, marked as Ex.P31, and forwarded the same to the court along with copy of the F.I.R. through speed post. He also sent copies thereof to the Inspector of Police and superior officers in the Department. vii) PW-13 is the Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the statement of PW-1 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. P.W.14 is another Judicial Magistrate, who, on receipt of requisition/Ex.P7 from the Medical Officer on 03.12.2003, went to the Hospital and recorded the dying declaration of the deceased under Ex.P.8. viii) PW-15 is the Medical Officer, who, after examining the deceased as well as PW-1 and giving first aid, referred them to the Government Hospital at Madurai. Ex.P10 is the accident register issued by him in respect of the deceased and Ex.P11 is the wound certificate issued for PW1. viii) PW-15 is the Medical Officer, who, after examining the deceased as well as PW-1 and giving first aid, referred them to the Government Hospital at Madurai. Ex.P10 is the accident register issued by him in respect of the deceased and Ex.P11 is the wound certificate issued for PW1. ix) Since the Inspector of Police by name Kannan, who investigated the case, was no more at the time of trial, PW-22, who is conversant with his handwriting, deposed with regard to the investigation done by the said Kannan. According to him, the Investigating Officer, on receipt of the First Information Report, took up investigation and at 7.30 P.M., proceeded to the scene of occurrence and, in the presence of PW-16/VAO and PW-18/Village Assistant, prepared observation mahazar Ex.P37 and rough sketch Ex.P38 and recovered MOs-7 and 8, bloodstained earth and sample earth. On 03.12.2003 at 08.50 PM, he received intimation from the hospital about the death of the deceased, whereupon, the penal provisions were altered as one under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324 and 302 read with 109 IPC. and the altered F.I.R. was sent to court through PW-11. On the next day, he conducted inquest over the body of the deceased between 9 and 11 A.M. and sent the body for post mortem through PW-12, the Head Constable. The inquest report is marked as Ex.P47. x) PW-20 is the Doctor, who, on receipt of the requisition from the Investigating Officer, conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased on 04.12.2003 at 10.15 A.M. Ex.P32 is the Post Mortem certificate wherein the Doctor has noticed the following:- " 1. Above downwards oblique cut injury noted on the back of Right forearm 4 cm above the wrist joint measuring 12 cm x 3 cm x cutting the underlying muscles, vessels, nerves, tendon and both bones of forearm and found attached with the tag of skin on its front measuring 4 cm. 2. Above downwards oblique cut injury noted on the back of left forearm 4 cm above the wrist measuring 16cmx4cmxcutting the underlying muscles, vessels, nerves, tendons and both bones of forearm. 3. An oblique cut injury 7 cmx1cmxbone deep noted on the left parieto temporal region 7 cm above the left eyebrow. 4. An oblique cut injury 8cmx1cmxbonedeep noted on right parieto occipital region. 5. 3. An oblique cut injury 7 cmx1cmxbone deep noted on the left parieto temporal region 7 cm above the left eyebrow. 4. An oblique cut injury 8cmx1cmxbonedeep noted on right parieto occipital region. 5. Contusion 8 cm x 2 cm with deformity noted on the middle of back of left forearm. On dissection, the underlying both bones found fractured in its surrounding bruising is noted. " The Doctor has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to cut injuries to both forearms. xi) On 06.12.2008, the Investigating Officer arrested the accused in the presence of PWs-16, 18 and other witnesses. Subsequent to the arrest, the accused made voluntary confession statements and the admissible portions thereof are marked as Exs.P40 to 42. The accused produced the weapons MOs-1 to 3 and the same were recovered under Exs.P43 to 45. The material objects were despatched to the court with Ex.P33 requisition to forward the same for chemical examination. PW-21/Head Clerk in the Court, on receipt of the same, sent those items with letter of the court under EX.P34 to the forensic Laboratory. Ex.P46 is the forensic report. On completion of the investigation, final report was filed before court. 4. When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating materials adduced by the prosecution against the accused, they denied their complicity in the crime and pleaded innocence. The learned trial Judge, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence adduced and considering the submissions made on either side, passed the order of conviction and sentence as aforementioned. Challenging the same, the accused have preferred the present Appeal. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, by referring to the testimony of PW-1, points out that PW-1, son of the deceased, deposed that he cannot say that the accused have caused the death of the deceased; further, he has also stated that he did not lodge the complaint with the police but only gave a statement. According to him, the so-called injured eye witness cited by the prosecution, did not even detail the specific overt act attributable to each of the accused except stating that the deceased sustained injury on the wrist and head. According to him, the so-called injured eye witness cited by the prosecution, did not even detail the specific overt act attributable to each of the accused except stating that the deceased sustained injury on the wrist and head. At one place, he bluffly stated that he sustained injuries on the shoulder and hand but did not say as to who caused those injuries and, at another place, he states that A-2 and A-3 armed with stick attacked him. According to the counsel, the evidence of PW-1 corrodes from inconsistency and lack material details, hence, it is totally unsafe to rely on his testimony. In his endeavour to impeach the testimony of PW-5, another eye witness, learned Senior Counsel, by pointing out that even as per the prosecution case A-1 inflicted two cut injuries on the head of the deceased and A-2 on the wrist and that PW-1 sustained two cut injuries at the hands of A-2 and one injury due to the attack by A-3 with iron rod on the neck, submits that there is no explanation by PW-5 with reference to injury No.5 found on the deceased and injury No.4 on PW-1. He points out that, in the cross examination, the said witness has stated that he came to know about the occurrence only through newspapers and further, he could give the names of the accused only after hearing those names at the police station. In such circumstances, it is abundantly clear that the evidence of PW-5 is clouded with contradictions and it is wholly unsafe to place reliance on the same. Similarly, PW-8, in the cross-examination, has stated that he did not have personal knowledge of the occurrence as an eye-witness but he related the occurrence only from the information he gathered from the public in the village; hence, naturally, he did not mention the specific overtact against the accused; in such circumstances, his evidence would not advance the case of the prosecution. Annotating that the case of the prosecution with regard to actual number of the accused persons involved in the offence remains to be murky, he points out that the prosecution has shown the appellants/A1 to 3 as the persons who attacked the deceased and murdered him, whereas in Exs.P10 and P11/Accident Register and wound certificate issued by PW-15 at 5 and 5.15 P.M., it is recorded that the injured were assaulted by five known persons armed with aruval and stick while Ex.P.1/statement given by P.W.1 on the basis of which F.I.R. was registered, proceeds to the effect that apart from the accused, two more persons by name Mayajothi and Natarajan also attacked the deceased and spade is introduced as one of weapons. Added to the above inconsistency, the deceased, in his dying declaration, stated that he was attacked by 16 persons including the above persons. No reason/explanation has been assigned/offered on this vital aspect by the prosecution; on the face of it, the testimonies of PWs-1, 5 and 8 are shriveling, for, two of these witnesses have stated in the cross examination that they did not actually witness the occurrence but narrated the incident on the basis of the information gained by them. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court has proceeded on a wrong footing to hold against the accused; hence, the appeal may be allowed. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the motive part of the prosecution case has been well established through the evidence of PWs-1, 6 and 17. There is no delay in despatching the F.I.R. to the court. Though PW-1 is categorised as interested witness, his evidence stands corroborated by the testimonies of PWs-5 and 8. When these eye witnesses have categorically and consistently spoken to about the sequence of events, their evidence cannot be so simply brushed aside due to minor contradictions or omissions therein. Though names of other accused have been mentioned in Ex.P1 as well as in the dying declaration of the deceased, since the investigation revealed that they did not actually participate in the offence, their names were omitted in the Final Report. Though names of other accused have been mentioned in Ex.P1 as well as in the dying declaration of the deceased, since the investigation revealed that they did not actually participate in the offence, their names were omitted in the Final Report. The evidence of the Village Administrative Officers and mahazar witnesses coupled with the documentary evidence corroborates the case put forth by the prosecution; hence, it is pleaded that the order passed by the trial court may be confirmed. 7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made on either side and meticulously perused the materials available on record. 8. PW-1 is the son of the deceased and he is the injured eye witness. PWs-5 and 8 are independent eye witnesses. PWs-6 and 17 are the wives of the deceased, who speak about the motive part of the prosecution case. PWs-9 and 10 say that they do not know about the dispute between the accused and the deceased, however, they have not been treated as hostile. 9. Undoubtedly, the case of the prosecution mainly hinges upon the testimony of PW-1, because, the best person to speak about the attack on the deceased is PW-1, for, he accompanied his father and in his presence, the incident is said to have occurred and in the transaction, he was also attacked by the accused. But curiously, while deposing before court, he did not give the details as expected from him. He has deposed that he could not say whether all the three accused present in the court had caused the murder of his father; to some extent, he disowns the F.I.R.; being an injured witness, he did not specify the over tact on the part of each accused and further, though he was attacked with iron rod by A-3, he stated that she beat him with stick; thus, his testimony is rambling and it raises a doubt in our mind whether PW-1 was present at the time of attack on the deceased. In such circumstances, as rightly pointed out, when PW-1 does not speak about the material aspects of the prosecution case, it is totally unsafe to rely on his evidence and accordingly, we discard the same. 10. PW-5 is the employee of PW-8, who had purchased the land from the deceased. In such circumstances, as rightly pointed out, when PW-1 does not speak about the material aspects of the prosecution case, it is totally unsafe to rely on his evidence and accordingly, we discard the same. 10. PW-5 is the employee of PW-8, who had purchased the land from the deceased. Though PW-5 had stated that he had witnessed the occurrence, in the cross examination, he stated that he actually came to know about the occurrence through newspapers and he could give the names of the accused only after hearing the same at the police station. In the same line, PW-8 also stated in cross examination that he did not witness the occurrence and he came to know of the same only through other persons in the village. If we assess the evidence of these two witnesses in the light of the contradiction pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant as regards the number of the accused involved in the case, we have no other option but to reject their evidence as unreliable. 11. Of course, the motive part of the prosecution case has been established through PWs-6 and 17. But, when the evidence of the star witnesses of the prosecution has been watered down, such aspect would in no way save the prosecution case which had already crumbled to ground, for, motive is not always capable of precise proof and even if proved, it may only lend additional support to strengthen the possibility of commission of offence by the person accused of but the absence of motive does not ipso facto warrant an acquittal. 12. In this case, from the various aspects adverted to above, it is not feasible to separate truth from falsehood, and grain and chaff are so inextricably mixed up, in the process of separation, there is an inevitable risk that an absolutely new cause would be reconstructed by divorcing essential details presented by the prosecution completely from the context and background against which they are made; thus, the only available course to be adopted is to discard the evidence of the prosecution in toto. In view of the rambling testimony of PW-1/author of Ex.P1 on the basis of which F.I.R. registered, who himself, to an extent, disowned the said document, unworthy testimonies of other eye witnesses ie., PWs-5 and 8, coupled with the gloomy part of the prosecution case as regards the actual number of the accused in the case, we hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. It follows that the order of conviction and sentence passed by the court below is liable to be set aside. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is set aside and the appellants/accused are acquitted from all the charges. It is reported that Appellants-1 and 2/A-1 and A2 are in jail and the 3rd appellant/A3 has been enlarged on bail. Appellants-1 and 2 ie., A1 and A2, are directed to be released forthwith unless their custody is required otherwise. The bail bond executed by the third appellant/A3 shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants/accused, is directed to be refunded.