Judgment : Per V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH, J. 1. The appeal is directed the conviction and sentence passed against the accuses (A.1), whose case was splitted from that of the other three accused from S.C.No. 231 of 1999, to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months in S.C. No. 137 of 2003 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court No. 2, Salem. 2. The case of the prosecution was that on 28.3.1998 a about 6.00 p.m. when the deceased Mathesh was at his house at Kuppanoor, the accused (A.1) had come with two persons namely Deivam and Srinivasan and had questioned the deceased Mathesh as to why he had asked his junior paternal uncle to pay the fine amount to the Panchayat and on an altercation with the said Mathesh. While answering that Mathesh replied that the paternal uncle of the accused had paid the fine on his own and the matter was already over. Immediately he accused (A.1) had asked two person namely Deivam and Srinivasan to guard the deceased Mathesh and went to get his junior paternal uncle (Chithappa) Duraisamay to verify the same. After some time, A.1 had come back with the said Duraisamy and the altercation continued and on the instigation of the said Duraisamy the accused (A.1) had, with the Koduval in his hand, attacked the deceased Mathesh, on the right shoulder, in front of his house and thereby caused an injury and from the melee, the said Mathesh, ran towards the house of one Ponnusamy; but the accused (A.1) had chased him and when Mathesh, was about to enter into the house of Ponnusamy, he had attacked him on the back neck of the Mathesh, two times and caused injuries and thereby the said Mathesh, died on the spot. The accused (A.1) had fled away from the scene of occurrence with the weapon of offence. The lower Court had tried the case in S.C. No. 231 of 1999 against A.2 to A.4 since the present accused (A.1) was absconding then and, after a full fledged trial, the trial Court had acquitted A.2 to A.4. The accused (A.1) had fled away from the scene of occurrence with the weapon of offence. The lower Court had tried the case in S.C. No. 231 of 1999 against A.2 to A.4 since the present accused (A.1) was absconding then and, after a full fledged trial, the trial Court had acquitted A.2 to A.4. After securing the present accused, he was tried in S.C.No. 137 of 2003 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, who after appreciating the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution, had convicted and sentenced the accused / appellant herein, to undergo life imprisonment and fine as stated supra. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. K.V. Sridharan, would submit in his argument that the lower Court had miserably failed to appreciate the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution that they were concocted for the purpose of convicting the accused herein and the discrepancies in the prosecution witnesses have not been taken note of by the trial Court, and therefore, the lower Court had wrongly landed up in ordering conviction and thereby sentenced the accused hereinto undergo life imprisonment. He would further submit in his argument that the lower Court had based his conviction upon the interested testimony of P.Ws.1 to 3 who are said to be the eye witnesses and there is no circumstantial evidence to support the case of the prosecution and however, the evidence of the witnesses who are close relatives of the deceased were absolutely relied upon without any reason whatsoever. He had also submitted further in his argument that the prosecution witnesses did not speak about the presence of the other accused and their respective overt acts and therefore, the presence of others in the scene of occurrence is also doubtful. He had also submitted further in his argument that the prosecution witnesses did not speak about the presence of the other accused and their respective overt acts and therefore, the presence of others in the scene of occurrence is also doubtful. It is further argued that the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place on 28.3.1998 at 6.00 p.m. and the complaint was said to have been given by P.W. 1 to the Veeranam Police Station on 29.3.1998 morning by 3.50 a.m. and the reasons stated by P.W. 1 is that she had to walk 15 kms from her place to Veeranam Police Station to give the complaint cannot be sustained and there are buses available to Veeranam from the place and nearby villages upto 10.30 p.m. whereas the occurrence was said to have been committed by 6.30 p.m. on that day itself and between the time of occurrence and 10.30 p.m. there is no explanation as to what happened to the witnesses and why they did not go by bus to give a complaint. Moreover, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that information could have been given by the witnesses to the police station through the phone available in the said village even though the house of the victim did not have any telephone connection. 4. Apart from that, he had also submitted in his argument that the circumstantial evidence namely the recovery of the weapon and the cloths belonging to the accused were not proved by examining any independent witnesses and the weapon said to have been seized also does not have any blood stains and these circumstances, would not support the interested testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 3. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 would not also disclose the presence of any other men at the time of occurrence whereas A.2 to A.4 were said to have been present along with the accused herein (A.1) and A.2 Duraisamy was said to have instigated the accused (A.1) to kill Mathesh. Further-more, he would stress in his argument that P.Ws. 1 to 3 would not also disclose the presence of any other men at the time of occurrence whereas A.2 to A.4 were said to have been present along with the accused herein (A.1) and A.2 Duraisamy was said to have instigated the accused (A.1) to kill Mathesh. Further-more, he would stress in his argument that P.Ws. 1 to 3 had spoken about the injury said to have been caused by the accused on the right shoulder of Mathesh in front of his house and also two injuries inflicted on the back neck of the deceased at the entrance of Ponnusamys house, whereas the Doctor P.W.7 had deposed that the deceased had sustained as many as 15 injuries and the post mortem certificate Ex. P.8 would also prove the same and therefore, the prosecution witnesses namely the eye witnesses have materially contradicted the medical evidence and, therefore, their presence at the scene of occurrence is doubtful and the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. He would also submit that the alleged motive for the cause of occurrence is said to have been a dispute in between the deceased Mathesh and the accused during the month of January (Thai) 1998 when the Jallikattu was performed in the village as conducted by the accused to which the deceased Mathesh and his friends objected and was intervening with the Jallikattu; the deceased Mathesh and his friends were assaulted by the accused; therefore, a Panchayat was held; in the said Panchayat the accused did not pay the fine amount and on his behalf his junior paternal uncle (Chittappa) Duraisamy (A.2) was imposed with the fine of Rs. 4,000/-; Duraisamy paid the same and enraged upon the said imposition of fine on the accused and the insistance of payment of fine through his junior paternal uncle, the accused got wild and had committed the murder after a period of two months is very flimsy. The evidence of P.W. 2 would also go a long way to show that he deceased Mathesh and the accused were in talking terms even after the panchayat and there was no enmity between them. The evidence of P.W. 2 would also go a long way to show that he deceased Mathesh and the accused were in talking terms even after the panchayat and there was no enmity between them. In such circumstances, the motive projected by the prosecution is not sustainable and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses need not be relied upon because they are all interested witnesses ad therefore, for all these reasons the accused may be acquitted of all the charges by giving him the benefit of doubt. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. V.R. Balasubramaniam would submit in his reply argument that the delay in giving the complaint to police has been properly explained by P.W.1 namely she had no bus facility to reach Veeranam on the fateful day immediately after the incident and soon after the complaint was registered, the police had taken steps to commence the investigation, the observation mahazar was prepared and other records and material objects were recovered on the spot, which were sent to Court on 30.3.1998 itself without any delay. He would also submit that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 cannot be discarded merely because they are related to the deceased Mathesh, when they have very categorically implicated the accused in the crime in their evidence and when their evidence regarding the injuries sustained by the deceased is corroborated by the medial evidence According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, it is not necessary that they should speak about all the injuries as the incident had taken place in two places. The observation mahazar and the seizure of blood stained earth, sample earth and other material objects would prove that the occurrence had taken place first in front of the house of the deceased and secondly in front of the house of Ponnusamy. He would further submit in his argument that there is no necessity to examine any independent witnesses when ample evidence of the eye witness is available on record. He would also submit in his argument that the trial Court, after a thorough consideration of the evidence on record, had found the accused guilty of the offences alleged against them and had imposed the sentences as stated above, with which there is no reason for this Court to interfere with and hence, this appeal may be dismissed. 6. He would also submit in his argument that the trial Court, after a thorough consideration of the evidence on record, had found the accused guilty of the offences alleged against them and had imposed the sentences as stated above, with which there is no reason for this Court to interfere with and hence, this appeal may be dismissed. 6. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on either side. We see from the records and other materials available that there is no independent witness examined as eye witness in this case. P.W. 1 i the mother of the deceased; P.W. 2 is the sister of the deceased; P.W.3 is the wife of the deceased and P.W. 4 is the elder brother of the deceased Mathesh who was not an eye witness to the occurrence but, he had spoken to the fact that he accompanied his mother P.W.1 to go over to Police Station at Veeranam for giving the complaint. The evidence of these witnesses is to the effect that A.1 attacked on the right shoulder of the deceased in front of the house of the deceased on the fateful day and when the deceased ran towards the house of Ponnusamy, the accused had chased him and inflicted two more injuries on the back neck of the deceased and Mathesh died of these injuries in front of the house of Ponnusmay. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 would also show that there was number of person witnessing the occurrence. The prosecution did not examine any other witness despite the fact that many independent witnesses were witnessing the occurrence as per the statement of P.Ws. 1 to 3 recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. The evidence of the Investigating Officer P.W. 16 that there was no other eye witness except P.Ws. 1 to 3 could not be correct in view of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 contradicting this stand. Apart from that, the seizure of M.O. 4 at the place of occurrence through Ex.P.4 would show that there was a pair of chapels belonging to the accused. However, no witness was examined to connect the said material object M.O.4 with that of the accused. 1 to 3 contradicting this stand. Apart from that, the seizure of M.O. 4 at the place of occurrence through Ex.P.4 would show that there was a pair of chapels belonging to the accused. However, no witness was examined to connect the said material object M.O.4 with that of the accused. In other words, no witness was examined to show that the accused was wearing those chapels and that he had left them at the scene of occurrence at the time of commission of offence. No doubt the complaint has been lodged by P.W.1 on 29.3.1998 at 3.50 a.m. to P.W. 15. The reason for the delay in lodging the complaint was said to have been explained by stating that there was no bus facility from the place of occurrence to Veeranam form 11.00 p.m. onwards, and, therefor P.W. 1 and her elder son P.W. 4 had to walk about 15 kms. to give the compliant. The evidence of P.W.3 would show that P.Ws. 1 and 4 had started to police station to lodge a compliant by 11.00 p.m. P.W. 4 himself had spoken to the fact that on the fateful day he had returned to his house at 7.00 p.m. and he found his brother Mathesh lying dead due to the injuries. The return of P.W. 4 at 7.00 p.m. was also spoken to by P.W. 3 in the cross examination. Therefore, the delay in proceeding to the police station at Veeranam form 7.00 p.m. till 11.00 p.m. was not properly explained by the prosecution witnesses. if at all P.Ws. 1 and 4 would have started to the police station immediately after the return of P.W. 4 at 7.00 p.m. they would have got a bus and thus they would have reached the police station early. Thus, there is no explanation form the side of the prosecution witnesses as to why they had not chosen to lodge the complaint immediately after the arrival of P.W. 4 at 7.00 p.m. This would throw serious doubt about the time of occurrence and also about the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 about the time and manner in which the occurrence came to be committed. 7. The suggestion of the defence is to the effect that the deceased could have been murdered at the place of occurrence by some other enemies and therefore, P.Ws. 1 to 3 about the time and manner in which the occurrence came to be committed. 7. The suggestion of the defence is to the effect that the deceased could have been murdered at the place of occurrence by some other enemies and therefore, P.Ws. 1 to 4 could not have reached the police station by getting the bus and the complainant, P.W.1 had utilised the opportunity to implicate the accused and other persons because of the enmity developed between them on an earlier occasion. The said motive aspect of Jallikattu started in the month of January 1998. Materials available on record would show that subsequent to the trouble, Panchayat was convened on 17.1.1998 and in the Panchayat the accused were imposed with a fine of Rs. 4,000/- and the deceased was imposed with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- As. A.1 did not attend the Panchayat, A.2, junior paternal uncle of A.1 paid the fine in Panchayat. The present incident had taken place on 28.3.1998 two months after the date of the said Panchayat. The evidence of P.W.2 would go a long way to show that after the said Panchayat, the deceased Mathesh and the accused were in talking terms and there was no enmity prevailing between both the parties. It is also suggested by the defence that the deceased Mathesh was a ‘Rowdy‘ in that area; that therefore, many people were annoyed with him; that one of the enemies should have murdered him and that due to the earlier enemity, the prosecution witnesses have turned their fingers on the side of the accused. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. K.V. Sridharan, has also cited an authority in State of Punjab v. Sucha Singh and others AIR 2008 SC 1471 : (2003) 3 SCC 153 : 2003 Crl. L.J. 1210 in support of his contention. The relevant passage in that judgment reads as follows:- Apart form discrepancy between ocular and medical evidence with regard to the injuries sustained by the deceased Sarabjit Singh on his body, the fact that the deceased suffered as many as 24 bodily injuries makes all the more doubtful the presence of P.Ws. 4 and 5 at the place of occurrence. The relevant passage in that judgment reads as follows:- Apart form discrepancy between ocular and medical evidence with regard to the injuries sustained by the deceased Sarabjit Singh on his body, the fact that the deceased suffered as many as 24 bodily injuries makes all the more doubtful the presence of P.Ws. 4 and 5 at the place of occurrence. Inflicting 24 injuries on the body of deceased by the three accused persons would require a considerable amount of time… Any father, worth the name, would not remain a mute spectator when his son is being inflicted as many as 24 injuries at his every nose.” On the basis of the aforesaid judgement also he would stress in his argument that the witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 3 had spoken about three injuries only whereas P.W. 7 had spoken about 13 injuries found on the body of the deceased as explained in Ex.P.8. 8. On a careful perusal of the seven injuries listed in Ex.P.8 we could see that the first injury is three gapping oblique cut injuries presenting as a single injury measuring 25cm × 10cm × bone deep and the second injury is two oblique gapping cut injuries on right shoulder 15cm × 5 cm × bone deep cut fracture and dislocation of right shoulder joint present. The three attacks infliced on the neck, lower jaw, left forearm, left ring finger, thumb and incised wound over left side of the chest were spoken to by P.Ws. 1 to 3. In their evidence P.Ws. 1 to 3 had categorically spoken to the effect that A.1 had inflicted one cut injury on the right shoulder and two injuries at the back neck of he deceased. When there is discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws, 1 to 3 in not speaking about the remaining injuries which were spoken to by the medical evidence, we are of the view that the principle laid down by the Apex Court that “The ocular evidence, when it does not corroborate with the medical evidence, the presence of the eye witnesses at the scene of occurrence is doubtful”. is applicable to the present case. is applicable to the present case. We had already seen that the delay in lodging the complaint by P.W. 1 was not properly explained and, therefore, it is clear that the occurrence had not taken place exactly in the manner in which it was spoken to by the prosecution witnesses. 9. On a overall consideration of the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution, we are of the view that the involvement of the accused in the alleged occurrence is doubtful and the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts. The prosecution has failed to examine any independent witnesses despite the fact that such witnesses were shown to have been present at the scene of occurrence. The nexus of the recovery of the material objects was also not spoken to by any of the witnesses. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the trial Court convicting the accused and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. Consequently, the appellant is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. This criminal appeal stands allowed and the appellant is directed to be set at liberty forthwith if his presence is not otherwise required in connection with any other case.