Judgment : Per D. MURUGESAN, J. 1. These appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 12.7.2005 passed by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai (in-charge III Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai) in Sessions Case No.223 of 2004 convicting each of the appellants/A-1, A-2 & A-4 for the offence under Sections 147 and 302 IPC and convicting the appellant/A-3 for the offence under Sections 147 and 302 read with 149 IPC and sentencing each of the appellants/A-1, A-2 & A-4 to one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 148 IPC and to life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Likewise, appellant/ A-3 was also sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 147 IPC and to life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the present appeals have been preferred by the appellants. 2. A-5 to A-7, who were tried along with the appellants, were convicted for the offence under Section 148 IPC and each was sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and they have not preferred any appeal before this Court. 3. Initially six accused namely, A-1 to A-6 were tried in S.C.No.223 of 2004. As the seventh accused was absconding, the case in respect of A-7 was split up and tried separately in S.C.No.224 of 2004. However, as the trial in respect of both the cases related to one occurrence, the learned Sessions Judge tried A-7 also along with A-1 to A-6 in respect of the charges framed against them and convicted each of them for the offences as stated above. 4. The Inspector of Police, R-5, Choolaimedu Police Station laid the final report for the offence under Sections 148, 341 and 302 IPC against A-1, A-2 & A-4 to A-6; for the offence under Sections 147, 341, 302 read with 149 IPC against A-3 and for the offence under Sections 148, 341, 302 read with 149 IPC against A-7 on the charge that the deceased-Pandi Kannan was running a hotel under the name and style “New Velu Chettinad Hotel” at No.84, Tiruvalluvarpuram First Street, Choolaimedu,Chennai. A-1 to A-7 in this case used to take lunch in the said hotel, but did not pay the bill. The deceased used to demand money from A-1 to A-7 whenever they visited the hotel. Enraged over the said demand of money by the deceased, A-1 to A-7 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and armed with knives and aruval with an intention to commit the murder of the deceased, went to the hotel on the midnight of 12.8.2002 and while A-3 caught hold of the deceased, the other accused attacked the deceased on his hands, legs, right shoulder, back, stomach, chest, cervical, face and head and caused bleeding injuries as a result of which, the deceased succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses, marked 32 exhibits and produced 12 material objects. 6. The accused were put on trial on the following prosecution case:- P.W.1-Pandi Durai, P.W.2-Vadivel and the deceased-Pandi Kannan are the sons of P.W.3-Chintamani. The deceased was residing in the first floor of Door No.84, Tiruvalluvar Salai,Choolaimedu along with his mother-P.W.3 and his sisters daughters Ishwarya and Nithya Devi. The “New Velu Military Hotel” was run by the deceased in the ground floor of the said premises. Just one and half years prior to the occurrence, the deceased was doing the business of lending money in the place where the hotel was run. P.Ws.1 & 2 were the residents of Mannady. P.W.3 was residing alongwith the deceased. P.W.1 used to visit the house of the deceased once in two days. After the closure of the hotel, the deceased demanded money from A-1 to A-3 for the food they had taken. In view of such repeated demand, A-1 to A-3 got angry and scolded the deceased and also threatened him that it was not good for the deceased to demand money from them. At about 10.00 p.m., on 12.8.2002, P.Ws.1 & 2 have visited the house of the deceased. Prior to their arrival, even at 7.30 p.m., the accused had met the deceased and threatened him that they will murder the deceased before midnight on the ground that he has tarnished their image by demanding money for the food they had taken. P.W.1 pacified the deceased who was sitting in his office in the ground floor and went upstairs along with his mother and others. P.W.1 pacified the deceased who was sitting in his office in the ground floor and went upstairs along with his mother and others. At about 12.30 p.m., when they were taking dinner upstairs, they heard the shouting of the deceased and rushed to the ground floor. They saw the accused having surrounded the deceased and all except A-3 were in possession of knives in their hands. At that time, the temple lamp, street lamp and the lamps in the ground floor of the office were glowing. All the witnesses requested the accused to leave the deceased, but the accused threatened the witnesses not to come near them and thereafter, while A-4 cut the deceased on his head and when the deceased shouted, A-3 closed his mouth and A-1 cut on his stomach, A-2 cut on his ribs and all the other accused cut the deceased on the various parts of his body. On the yelling made by the witnesses, the accused left that place along with the knives. Thereafter, P.Ws.1 to 3 & 5 took the injured in an auto-rickshaw to Kilpauk Medical College & Hospital. 7. P.W.8, the duty doctor attached to casualty ward of the said hospital, examined the injured at 12.45 a.m., on 13.8.2002 and at that time the patient was conscious. He administered first-aid to the injured and after noting the injuries in Ex.P-8-Accident Register, he referred the injured to Government General Hospital for further treatment. 8. P.W.7, the duty doctor attached to Government General Hospital, examined the injured and at that time, though the injured was conscious, he could not talk as he sustained injuries to his throat. She admitted the injured as in-patient in Ward No.1 and she issued the accident register, Ex.P-7 after noting the injuries. However, in spite of the treatment given to the injured, he breathed his last at 2.10 a.m., in the hospital. 9. P.W.1, thereafter went to R-5 Choolaimedu Police Station and lodged the complaint, Ex.P-1 to P.W.14, the Inspector of Police at about 3.00 a.m., on 13.8.2002. He registered the case in Cr.No.799 of 2002 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 IPC and prepared the First Information Report, Ex.P-20. He thereafter forwarded the express reports to the higher officials as well to the Court. He proceeded to the scene of occurrence at 3.30 a.m., and deputed the police personnel for security. He registered the case in Cr.No.799 of 2002 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 IPC and prepared the First Information Report, Ex.P-20. He thereafter forwarded the express reports to the higher officials as well to the Court. He proceeded to the scene of occurrence at 3.30 a.m., and deputed the police personnel for security. Thereafter, he proceeded to the Government General Hospital at about 4.00 a.m., and obtained the death intimation. He returned to the place of occurrence at 4.30 a.m., and prepared the Observation Mahazar and drew rough sketch, Ex.P-21 in the presence of Senthil and Anwas. He caused photographs of the scene of occurrence with the help of the photographer-P.W.4 in Ex.P-22 series. He recovered the bloodstained tar pieces and the sample tar pieces under the mahazar, Ex.P-3 in the presence of the witnesses. Between 8.45 a.m., and 10.45 a.m., he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the Government General Hospital in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses and recorded their statements. The inquest report is Ex.P-23. He thereafter sent the body of the deceased to the doctor for conducting post-mortem. He recovered the bloodstained brief and pant of the deceased under the mahazar at 11.30 a.m. 10. P.W.10, Assistant Professor, Institute of Forensic Medicine, Madras Medical College commenced post-mortem at 3.00 p.m., on 13.8.2002 on the body of the deceased and he noted the following injuries:- “ (1) Oblique incised wound 1×0.5cm × skin deep on front of upper third of right leg. (2)Oblique incised wound 4×1cm× bone deep over the outer aspect of right knee. (3)Oblique incised wound 2×0.5cm × skin deep over the outer aspect of middle third of right thigh. (4)Oblique incised wound 2.5×0.5cm × tendon deep over the back of right hand 2.5cm below right wrist. (5)Oblique incised wound 3.5×1cm × tenden deep over back of right hand 8 cm below right wrist. (6)Oblique incised wound 2×5×0.5 cm × skin deep over the inner aspect of proximal part of right thumb. (7)Oblique incised wound 1.5×0.5cm × skin deep over the back of proximal part of right index finger. (8)Oblique gaping incised wound 4×1.5cm × bone deep over the back of right hand 2.5cm below the right wrist joint exposing the severed muscles, tendons and the 1st metacarpal bone and the depth of the wound is 2cm. (7)Oblique incised wound 1.5×0.5cm × skin deep over the back of proximal part of right index finger. (8)Oblique gaping incised wound 4×1.5cm × bone deep over the back of right hand 2.5cm below the right wrist joint exposing the severed muscles, tendons and the 1st metacarpal bone and the depth of the wound is 2cm. (9) Oblique incised wound 4×1cm × muscle deep over the outer aspect of middle third of right forearm. (10)Oblique incised wound 2.5×1cm × muscle deep over the outer aspect of upper third of right forearm. (11)Oblique incised wound 3×0.5cm × skin deep over the outer aspect of upper third of right arm with tailing of 3 cm over the posterior and (12)Curved incised wound 6×1cm × skin deep on top of right shoulder. (13)Oblique incised wound 6×0.5cm × skin deep over back of right shoulder with 8cm long tailing over the inner end. (14)Oblique incised wound 4×1cm × bone deep on front of left knee. (15)Oblique incised wound 1×0.5 cm × skin deep over the outer aspect of upper third of left thigh. (16)Vertical stab wound 3×1 cm over back of inner aspect of left hand (entry wound) and 6×1 cm over the inner aspect of palmar aspect of left hand (exit wound). On dissection the muscles, tendons and blood vessels are completely severed between 4th and 5th metacarpal bones and the distance between entry and exit wound is 3.5 cm. (17)Oblique incised wound 5×1 cm × muscle deep on front of lower third of left forearm. (18)Curved incised wound 16×0.5cm × muscle deep on front of right side abdomen with an oblique tailing the posterior and to a length of 6 cms. (19)Oblique incised wound 3.5×1cm × skin deep on front and outer aspect of right side chest. (20)Oblique incised wound 3×2cm × skin deep over outer aspect of right side chest. (21)A spindle shaped stab wound 6×2cm on front of left side chest the lower inner and lies 2cm below the inner end of left collar bone and 3 cm away from midline. On dissection there is an oblique cut 3 cm long over upper border of 2nd costal cartilege and intercostal muscle communicating with thoracic cavity. The left lung found collapsed and the pleural cavity contain 150 ml of fluid blood. On dissection there is an oblique cut 3 cm long over upper border of 2nd costal cartilege and intercostal muscle communicating with thoracic cavity. The left lung found collapsed and the pleural cavity contain 150 ml of fluid blood. On further dissection oblique cut over the outer aspect of upper lobe of left lung to an extent of 2×0.5×0.5 cm with reddish black contusion and surrounding tissues 4×2×1 cm. The direction of the wound is obliquely upwards and backwards and outwards. (22) Oblique stab wound 3.5×1 cm over the back of left side of chest 25cm below the left acromion 12cm away from midline of the back. On dissection there is an oblique cut over 8th intercostal muscle communicating with left thoracic cavity. On further dissection there is an oblique through and through cut over the inferior border of lower lobe of left lung to a length of 5 cms. The direction of the wound is downwards, forwards and inwards. (23) Horizontal gaping incised wound 5×1 cm over left loin 4 cm above the crest of ileum and 14cm from midline of back and the wound is not communicating with abdominal cavity. (24) Oblique incised wound 2.5×1cm muscle deep over the outer aspect of left side of chest and the wound is not communicating with thoracic cavity. (25)Oblique stab wound 3×1 cm over the outer aspect of back of right side of chest 20 cm below the right acromion and 15cm away from midline of the back. On dissection there is an oblique cut over 7th intercostal muscle 2.5 cm long communicating with right thoracic cavity. Right lung found collapsed and 200 ml fluid blood found in right thoracic cavity. On further dissection there is an oblique cut 4×0.5×0.5 cm over the outer aspect of lower lobe of right lung with contusion of surrounding tissues to an extent of 6×1×1 cm. The direction of the wound is downwards and forwards. (26) Oblique stab wound 3×1 cm on front of right side of neck 3cms away from midline and 1cm below middle of body of mandible on right side. On dissection there is an oblique cut over and upper end of oesophagus is obliquely out at the level of body of third cervical vertebra. The hyoid bone, thyroid partilege and the traches and the major blood vessels are not injured. On dissection there is an oblique cut over and upper end of oesophagus is obliquely out at the level of body of third cervical vertebra. The hyoid bone, thyroid partilege and the traches and the major blood vessels are not injured. The depth of the wound is 5 cm and direction of the wound is upwards and backwards. (27) Horizontal incised wound 3×1cm × skin deep over the outer aspect upper part of right side of neck. (28) Oblique incised wound 4×1 cm × muscle deep over right mastoid region with complete severance of pinna of right ear into two. (29) Oblique incised wound 5×1cm × bone deep over right side of occipital region of the scalp with an oblique cut over the underlying vault bone 5×0.5×0.5 cm and the wound is not communicating with cranial cavity. (30)Oblique incised wound 5×1 cm × bone deep over right parietal eminence with a cut over the underlying vault bone 4×0.5×0.5 cm and the wound is not communicating with cranial cavity. (31)Oblique incised wound 7×1cm × muscle deep over back of neck 5 cm below the occipital protruborance. (32)Oblique incised wound 5×1cm × muscle deep over outer aspect of right side of neck. (33)Oblique incised wound 5×1cm × muscle deep over outer aspect of right side of neck 0.5 cm below injury no.32.” He issued the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-13 with his opinion that the deceased died of shock and haemorrhage due to stab injuries to the left and right lung. 11. In the meantime, P.W.14 went to Kilpauk Medical College & Hospital on 16.8.2002 and examined the first-aid doctor, P.W.8 and recorded his statement. He also went to Government General Hospital and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He also examined the post-mortem doctor and recorded his statement. On 19.8.2002 at about 7.00 a.m., he arrested A-3, A-4, A-5 & A-7 near the Flower Bazaar bus stop along with police party. In pursuance of the admissible portion of their confession statements under Exs.P-24 to P-26, he recovered the bloodstained knives, M.Os.1 to 3 from a bush near the Nungambakkam Railway Station under the Exs.P-5 & P-6 in the presence of witnesses. He brought them to the police station and remanded them to judicial custody. In the meantime, A-1, A-2 and A-6 surrendered before the Court on 26.8.2002. He brought them to the police station and remanded them to judicial custody. In the meantime, A-1, A-2 and A-6 surrendered before the Court on 26.8.2002. He took custody of those accused for interrogation on 28.8.2002 and in pursuance of their confessional statements under Exs.P-27 to P-29, he recovered the knives, M.Os.4 to 6 which were hidden in Surya Nagar Cemetery under the mahazar, Ex.P-9 in the presence of witnesses. He also recovered the bloodstained shirts of A-1 & A-2 from their houses under the mahazars, Exs.P-10 & P-11. Thereafter, he remanded them to judicial custody. He sent the seized material objects to the Court under Form-95 along with a requisition for chemical examination. On 17.9.2002, he gave requisition to the Metropolitan Magistrate for conduct of test identification parade in respect of A-4, A-5, A-6 & A-7. After the completion of the test identification parade by the Metropolitan Magistrate at the Chennai Central Prison and after completing investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offence as stated earlier. 12. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code as to the incriminating materials appearing against them, they pleaded not guilty and stated that a false case has been foisted on them. On the side of the defence, one Dakshinamoorthy was examined as D.W.1 and two documents namely, Exs.D-1 & D-2 were marked. The learned Sessions Judge, however, found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced them for the offences as stated earlier. 13. V. Gopinath, learned senior counsel appearing for A-1 and A-3 would submit that the motive aspect has not been established by the prosecution, there is absolutely no evidence to show that P.W.3, the mother of the deceased was residing in the premises where the occurrence had taken place and admittedly, P.Ws.1 & 2 were not residing in the said house and all of them came to the said place to see the deceased and also there is absolutely no proof as to whether a hotel was run by the deceased in the said premises and the accused refused to pay the money for the food they had taken. The learned senior counsel would submit that the presence of P.Ws.1,2 & 3 namely, the eye-witnesses in the scene of occurrence is highly doubtful and the conviction based on their evidence is illegal and erroneous. The learned senior counsel would submit that the presence of P.Ws.1,2 & 3 namely, the eye-witnesses in the scene of occurrence is highly doubtful and the conviction based on their evidence is illegal and erroneous. In any event, according to the prosecution, all the above three witnesses had taken the injured firstly to the Kilpauk Medical College & Hospital and thereafter to the Government General Hospital, where the injured succumbed in spite of the treatment. The occurrence was at 12.30 a.m., the deceased died at 2.10 a.m., and the complaint, Ex.P-1 was given at 3.00 a.m. Though all the witnesses have admitted that their clothes were stained with blood as they carried the injured to the hospital, none of the clothes have been recovered to show their presence by the Investigating Officer. He would also submit that though the witnesses have stated that at about 7.30 p.m., on 12.8.2002 i.e., just five hours before the occurrence the accused came and threatened the deceased, they did not choose to give any complaint, which indicates that they were not present in the scene of occurrence. The learned senior counsel would also submit that in fact P.W.5, who happened to see the injured for the first time, had taken the injured to the hospital and he has also been examined as witness in the inquest and an intimation was also sent to the police immediately as to the occurrence, but P.W.5 has not spoken anything about the presence of P.Ws.1 to 3 when he took the injured to the hospital. Hence the learned senior counsel submitted that P.Ws.1 to 3 are the put up witnesses much after the occurrence had taken place and therefore the prosecution case should fail and the accused are entitled to an acquittal. 14. R. Shanmugasundaram, learned senior counsel appearing for A-4 would once again reiterate the very same contention namely, that P.Ws.1 to 3 could not have been present at the scene of occurrence. He would also rely upon the vital discrepancies in the accident registers, Exs.P-7 & P-8 recorded at the two hospitals and submit that Ex.P-8-Accident Register was prepared by P.W.8-doctor in the Kilpauk Medical College & Hospital in which it is referred that the deceased was attacked by five persons, whereas in Ex.P-7-Accident Register recorded by P.W.7-doctor attached to Government General Hospital, it is referred that the deceased was attacked by four persons. According to the learned senior counsel, Ex.P-8-Accident Register was prepared by P.W.8 only as per the instructions of the police and it is only a fabricated document. He would also submit that P.W.2 could not have been present, as his name does not find a place in the First Information Report. He would further submit that the S.161 Cr.P.C., statements recorded from the above witnesses even on 13.8.2002 reached the Court only on 20.12.2002 after a period of more than four months creating a serious doubt as to the veracity of the statements themselves and absolutely there is no explanation. He would also submit that the test identification parade was conducted after two months and in between at least three remands have been made and there is every possibility of the witnesses coming to know of A-4 to A-7. In fact, objections were also made to the Metropolitan Magistrate, P.W.12 who conducted test identification parade as to the fact that the accused were photographed in the police station in the presence of the witnesses. Hence the test identification parade has no evidentiary value. He would also submit that all the three eye-witnesses are the relatives of the deceased i.e., P.Ws.1 & 2 are the brothers of the deceased and P.W.3 is the mother of the deceased and there is no independent witness examined and in the circumstances, placing reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 for conviction is unsafe. 15. N. Vijayaraj, learned counsel appearing for A-2 has adopted the arguments of the respective learned senior counsel and he would submit that the name of A-2 is not mentioned in Ex.P-8-Accident Register. He would once again submit that though there was a quarrel at 7.30 p.m., on 12.8.2002 prior to the occurrence, there was no complaint given by P.Ws.1 to 3 throwing a serious doubt about their presence in the scene of occurrence. He would further submit that the mahazar witnesses are from Mannady where P.Ws.1 & 2 reside, throwing a serious doubt about their presence. 16. On the other hand, Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that barring some minor infirmities pointed out by the respective learned senior counsel, the prosecution can sustain its case solely on the ground of medical records. 16. On the other hand, Mr.P.Kumaresan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that barring some minor infirmities pointed out by the respective learned senior counsel, the prosecution can sustain its case solely on the ground of medical records. The occurrence had taken place at 2.30 p.m., and the injured was admitted in the Kilpauk Medical College & Hospital at 12.45 a.m., i.e., within 15 minutes. Ex.P-8-Accident Register prepared by the doctor-P.W.8 discloses the name of P.W.3 for having brought the injured to the hospital. The noting of the name of P.W.3 in Ex.P-8 would show that she was an eye-witness to the occurrence. He would also submit that Ex.P-7, another accident register prepared by P.W.7-doctor attached to Government General Hospital, Chennai, discloses that the injured was brought by the relatives. In both the records, it is stated that the injured was assaulted by known persons. Only after the above records, the complaint was given implicating A-1 to A-3 and others. Each of the witnesses has spoken about the specific overt acts on the part of each of the accused and the medical evidence also corroborates the injuries as spoken to by the witnesses. Hence the presence of P.Ws.1 to 3 at the time of occurrence cannot be doubted. In that event, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 should be believed as they have spoken about the occurrence. For all the above reasons, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution has established its case beyond any reasonable doubt. 17. We have given our careful consideration to the rival submissions. The foremost contention of the respective learned counsel for the appellants is that the presence of P.Ws.1 to 3 in the scene of occurrence is doubtful. According to P.W.1, the deceased was running a hotel under the name and style “New Velu Military Hotel” in the first floor at No.84,Tiruvalluvarpuram First Street, Choolaimedu and he closed the hotel prior to one and half years of the date of occurrence. It is his evidence that he is residing at No.39,Saiva Mudali Street, Mannady and he used to go to the above place to see his brother, the deceased daily or once in two days. It is his evidence that he is residing at No.39,Saiva Mudali Street, Mannady and he used to go to the above place to see his brother, the deceased daily or once in two days. Similarly, the evidence of P.W.2, who is also another brother of the deceased, goes to show that the deceased was running a hotel in the place of occurrence and he closed the business prior to one and half years of the occurrence. The accused, A-1, A-2 & A-3 refused to give money for the food they took from the hotel and therefore the deceased used to demand the said money. Hence there were frequent quarrels between the accused and the deceased. He would also state that after the closure of the business, the deceased stayed in the same place and he would come to that place to see his brother, the deceased from his place of residence namely, No.39,Saiva Mudali Street,Mannady. P.W.3, who claims to be the mother of the deceased, has stated that she resided along with the deceased in the place of occurrence. From the above evidence, it is seen that P.Ws.1 and 2 did not reside in the house where the occurrence had taken place and had come to the place only on the evening of the date of occurrence. P.W.3, though has stated that she stayed along with the deceased, no evidence was adduced by the prosecution to prove that she was staying along with the deceased. According to her, she has been residing in that place for over a period of more than seven years, but was not able to produce any materials much less like ration card, etc. 18. Further, all the three witnesses have stated that at about 7.30 p.m., on the date of occurrence, the accused came and threatened the deceased. It is their categorical evidence that there was a dispute between the deceased and the accused over the non-payment of the amount for the food taken by the accused for nearly one and half years. They all know that due to that enmity only, the accused came and threatened the deceased that he will be murdered. In spite of such a threat and in the above background, none of the witnesses have chosen to lodge the complaint to the police. Their conduct throws serious doubt about their presence at about 7.30 p.m., on the date of occurrence. In spite of such a threat and in the above background, none of the witnesses have chosen to lodge the complaint to the police. Their conduct throws serious doubt about their presence at about 7.30 p.m., on the date of occurrence. 19. P.W.1, the author of the complaint, Ex.P-1 given at 3.00 a.m., on 13.8.2002 has specifically mentioned the names of the accused A-1, A-2, A-3 and some others. He also speaks of the presence of P.Ws.2 & 3. On the other hand, P.W.1 for the first time has implicated A-4 in the Court throwing a serious doubt about his very complaint itself. P.W.2, who happened to be in the scene of occurrence, has also strangely implicated A-4 only in the Court, but has not spoken to the presence of A-1 and A-2. Though he has strangely implicated A-3, he has stated that A-3 was unarmed contrary to the complaint Ex.P-1. P.W.3 also has implicated A-4 only at the time of chief examination in the Court. The Investigating Officer, P.W.14 has specifically stated that none of the witnesses have implicated A-4 when he recorded the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 20. That apart, though P.Ws.1 to 3 have taken the injured firstly to Kilpauk Medical College & Hospital and thereafter to the Government General Hospital, Chennai and claim that their clothes were stained with blood, the Investigating Officer has not cared to recover the bloodstained clothes of the witnesses. P.W.1 had gone to the police station to give the complaint wearing the very same clothes. However, his explanation namely that he washed the clothes to remove the blood stain has no reason behind it in the wake of specific implication of the accused. There is no reason as to why he should wash the clothes. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 are also to the same effect. Their conduct throws serious doubt about their presence in the scene of occurrence. 21. Further, P.W.5, who also accompanied the injured to the hospital, has not mentioned anyone of the names of P.Ws.1 to 3 for having accompanied the deceased to the hospital. It must be kept in mind that he is also residing in the very same place and he is known to the witnesses as well. In these circumstances, the presence of P.Ws.1 to 3 in the scene of occurrence itself is doubtful. 22. It must be kept in mind that he is also residing in the very same place and he is known to the witnesses as well. In these circumstances, the presence of P.Ws.1 to 3 in the scene of occurrence itself is doubtful. 22. Much was argued by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor as to Exs.P-7 & P-8, the accident registers recorded at the two hospitals. According to him, as Ex.P-8 contains the name of P.W.3, her presence in the scene of occurrence cannot be doubted. On the other hand, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the very Ex.P-8, accident register itself is fabricated. In this context, it is relevant to note that normally the doctors will not refer to the names of the assailants in the accident register. Strangely, the doctor, P.W.8 has not only mentioned the names of the accused, but also the address of the place where the occurrence had taken place. While he deposed before the Court, he has specifically stated that he has not mentioned about the injuries on the larynx of the deceased. Had the doctor actually seen the deceased for the first time, a serious injury on the neck and the larynx could have been easily noticed. Secondly, the evidence of P.W.7 is categorical that she has noticed such an injury and in view of such injury, the injured was not in a position to speak. When the doctor-P.W.7 was of the opinion that due to the injury no.7 in Ex.P-7, the injured could not speak, the reference to the names of the assailants and the place of occurrence by the deceased himself, as could be seen from the evidence of P.W.8, is highly doubtful. It must be also seen that P.W.5 was the person who had taken the injured to the hospital along with yet another person. He has not spoken anything about the witnesses namely, P.Ws.1 to 3 for having accompanied them to the hospital. In these circumstances, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that Ex.P-8 itself is a fabricated document must be accepted. Even for the sake of arguments if Ex.P-8 is accepted, the entries relating to the names of the assailants and the place of occurrence cannot be made applicable. 23. In these circumstances, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that Ex.P-8 itself is a fabricated document must be accepted. Even for the sake of arguments if Ex.P-8 is accepted, the entries relating to the names of the assailants and the place of occurrence cannot be made applicable. 23. Ordinarily the value of medical evidence is only corroborative and the medical evidence cannot prevail over direct testimony of the witnesses which is reliable and satisfactory. A doctor who sees the injured is not at all concerned as to who committed the offence or the place where the offence was committed. His primary effort is only to save the life of the person brought to him and to inform the police in medico legal cases. A Doctor is not even supposed to mention the names of the assailants. 24. In Basheer v. State (1993) Crl.LJ 2173 the Apex Court has held even if the doctor had incorporated about the statement made by the person who brought the deceased that statement can be ignored. 25. The object being that at the guise of giving information, innocent persons could likely to be implicated and the doctor have no opportunity to verify the veracity of such information as could be done by investigation officer. Nevertheless, when the wound certificate is challenged as fabricated, the endorsements made by the doctors can be taken in to consideration to find out the purpose for such endorsements are made. 26. In the present case, the material contradictions between the evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.8 both doctors who have seen the deceased are relevant to find out the veracity of the endorsement made by P.W.8. P.W.7 has found injury in the throat which is corroborated by the Post Mortem Certificate. But on the contrary the evidence of P.W.8 is that he has not seen such an injury. P.W.8, is admittedly the doctor who has seen the deceased first and while he stated that he has not noticed such an injury. However, the Post Mortem Certificate shows the presence of a deep injury in the larynx of the deceased. This evidence does not support the stand of P.W.8. There is every justification for suspicion as to Ex.P.8 issued by P.W.8. Hence we eschew the said document from consideration. 27. However, the Post Mortem Certificate shows the presence of a deep injury in the larynx of the deceased. This evidence does not support the stand of P.W.8. There is every justification for suspicion as to Ex.P.8 issued by P.W.8. Hence we eschew the said document from consideration. 27. For all the above reasons, we are of the considered view that the presence of P.Ws.1 to 3 in the scene of occurrence is highly doubtful and consequently, the very complaint, Ex.P-1 is also doubtful. 28. The next submission relates to the delay in conducting Test Identification Parade. So far as the test identification parade is concerned, it has been held by the Apex Court in number of cases that it is not a substantial piece of evidence and it can be only used as corroborative evidence. Mere delay in the conduct of Test Identification Parade by itself would not be fatal to the prosecution case. However, it is desirable that the identification parade is held at the earliest possible opportunity. Value of the identification depends on promptitude in point of time with which suspected persons are put up for identification. 29. The effect of unexplained and unreasonable delay in the conduct of test identification parade came up for consideration before the Apex Court and the Apex Court in judgment Rajnat v. State of U. P . In (1988) SCC 345 has held as follows: “ 8. Even on the premise that there was no such prior acquaintance, the evidence establishing the identity of the culprits assumes particular materiality in a case, as here, of a dacoity occurring in the darkness of the night. The evidence of the test identification would call for a carefull scrutiny. In a case of this kind where the eye witnesses, on their own admission, did not know the appellants before the occurrence, their identification of the accused persons for the first time in the dock after a long lapse of time would have been improper. In halsburys Law of Engliant (IV Edn. In a case of this kind where the eye witnesses, on their own admission, did not know the appellants before the occurrence, their identification of the accused persons for the first time in the dock after a long lapse of time would have been improper. In halsburys Law of Engliant (IV Edn. Volume II, Para 363) this passage occurs and is worth recalling: “It is undesirable that witnesses should be asked to identify a defendant for the first time in the dock at his trial; and as a general practice it is preferable that he should have been placed previously on a parade with other persons, so that potential witness can be asked to pick him out.” In such cases, it is needless to say, the test identification at an identification parade to test the power of recollection of the witnesses assumes added significance. Prosecution has, therefore, relied upon the result of the test identification (Exhibit 30) where the appellants were picked out by P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4. The conduct of an identification parade belongs to the realm and is part of the investigation. The evidence of test identification is admissible under S.9, Evidence Act. But the value of the test identification depends on the promptitude in point of time with which the suspected persons are put up for test identification. If there is unexplained and unreasonable delay in putting up the accused persons for a test identification, the delay by itself detracts from the credibility of the test. 30. The Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. B. Ramana Raddy AIR 1991 SCC (Crl) 1018: (1992) 1 MLJ (Crl) 288 has held that even the delay of 10 days in the conduct of Identification Parade throw suspicion on the very identification itself. 2. 31. In Rajesh Govind Jagedsha v. State of Maharastra AIR 2000 SC 160 : (1999) 8 SCC 428 : (2000) 1 MLJ (Crl) 325, the Apex Court has held that if the explanation of the prosecution as to the delay is not acceptable, the prosecution case would be untrustworthy. 32. It is neither possible nor prudent to lay down invariable rule as to the period within which the test identification parade must be held to sustain a conviction. Whether the delay in test identification parade has affected the prosecution case depends upon the facts of each case. 32. It is neither possible nor prudent to lay down invariable rule as to the period within which the test identification parade must be held to sustain a conviction. Whether the delay in test identification parade has affected the prosecution case depends upon the facts of each case. Only in the event there is an explained and unreasonable delay in putting up the accused persons for test identification, the delay by itself detracts from the credibility of the test. 33. Coming to the facts of this case. It must be noticed that the test identification parade was conducted almost after two months. The date of occurrence was on 13.8.2002 and the test identification parade was conducted on 3.10.2002 and there is no explanation whatsoever for the delay in the conduct of test identification parade, throwing a serious suspicion in the prosecution case. In this context it could be seen that A3, A4, A6 and A7 were arrested on 19.8.2002 and A1, A2 and A5 were surrendered before the Court on 26.8.2002. There is absolutely no explanation as to why the Test Identification Parade was not conducted till 3.10.2002. As we have doubted the prosecution case as to the presence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 in the scene of occurrence and the complaint also, the test identification parade assumes importance in this case. Moreover, from the evidence of P.W.12, the Metropolitan Magistrate, it is clear that even at the time of test identification parade, the accused have objected to the conduct of test identification parade on the ground that the accused were photographed in the police station in the presence of witnesses and therefore the witnesses were made known of the accused even before the test identification parade was conducted. 34. Moreover, the test identification parade was conducted after a period of two months and in between there were three remands and the witnesses had the opportunity to see the accused. The Apex Court in the judgment in Vijayan @ Rajan v. State of Kerala in (1999) SCC (Crl.) 378, has held that evidence of identification by witness is unworthy of credit in the event it is established that the photographs of the accused was earlier published in the news papers and the witness had opportunity to see such photographs. The Apex Court in the judgment in Vijayan @ Rajan v. State of Kerala in (1999) SCC (Crl.) 378, has held that evidence of identification by witness is unworthy of credit in the event it is established that the photographs of the accused was earlier published in the news papers and the witness had opportunity to see such photographs. If the witnesses were made aware of the accused even before the test identification parade, such test identification parade loses its importance. 35. There is one more lacuna in the investigation which has materially affected the prosecution case, especially as to the challenge to the presence of the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 3 namely, their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., were recorded on 13.8.2002, but the statements were sent to the Court only on 3.10.2002 after a period of two months. There is absolutely no explanation whatsoever as to the above delay. 36. For all these reasons, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has not established its case beyond reasonable doubt and the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the judgment under challenge is set aside and the criminal appeals are allowed. The appellants/A-1 to A-3 in Crl.A.Nos.982 of 2005, 91 & 504 of 2006 shall be released forthwith, unless their custody is required in connection with any other case. Fine amount, if any, paid is ordered to be refunded. Bail bond executed by the appellant/A-4 in Crl.A.No.672 of 2005 shall stand terminated.