Judgment Per Mrs. R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. This Appeal arises out of judgment dated 31. 2008 in S.C. No. 58 of 2000 on the file of learned Special Judge (Principal Sessions Judge), Villupuram, convicting appellant/A3 – Saravanan under Section 302 IPC read with. Section 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. (P.A) Act 1989 and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and also imposing a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. Trial Court acquitted A2 to A5 and A6 to A8 of various charges. 2. Case of prosecution in a nut-shell is as follows: (i) P.W.3 – Mary is the wife of deceased Arunagiri. The deceased Arunagiri is Aunt’s son of P.W.1 – Venkatesan. P.W.4 – Parvathi is the mother of deceased Arunagiri. P.W.2 – Kumaravel is the brother of deceased Arunagiri. Appellant/A3 – Saravanan is the son of A4 – Natesan. A6 – Rajendran, A7 – Singaram and A8 – Thangarasu are brothers. The deceased Arunagiri belonged to Hindu, Adi-Dravidar Community and A1 to A5 belonged to Hindu, Vanniyar Community. (ii) Deceased Arunagiri paid Rs. 1,000/- to A1 – Arumugam. Arunagiri and P.Ws. 1 & 2 viz., Venkatesan and Kumaravel, demanded to return the amount. On instigation by A1 – Arumugam, appellant/A3 – Saravanan cut Arunagiri with knife on his head; A4-Natesan assaulted with stick on his back; A5-Rajavelu assaulted deceased Arunagiri with iron pipe on his chest. Deceased Arunagiri fell down and blood was oozing from the mouth and nose of deceased Arunagiri. While P.W.2-Kumaravel, brother of deceased Arunagiri, intervened, accused chased him and P.W.2 fell down in a coconut groove. While P.W.3-Mary intervened, A1 – Arumugam and A4-Natesan assaulted her with stick. Since, P.W.3 -- Mary was in the advanced stage of pregnancy (9 months), she was not able to get up. (iii) Deceased Arunagiri and P.W.3-Mary were taken to Government Hospital, Tindivanam. P.W.4-Parvathi, mother of deceased Arunagiri was cooking at the time of occurrence and she came to know about the occurrence and proceeded to the Government Hospital. Tindivanam and found her son with injuries, Subsequently, deceased Arunagiri and P.W.3-Mary were referred to Government Hospital at Chennai, where Arunagiri died. P.W.3-Mary gave birth to a child in Government Maternity Hospital. (iv) On 26. Tindivanam and found her son with injuries, Subsequently, deceased Arunagiri and P.W.3-Mary were referred to Government Hospital at Chennai, where Arunagiri died. P.W.3-Mary gave birth to a child in Government Maternity Hospital. (iv) On 26. 1999, P.W.12 – Sub – Inspector of Police proceeded to the scene of occurrence and inspected the same in the presence of P.W.6-Elumalai, Village Assistant and one Thangaraj and prepared Exhibit P-2-Observation Mahazar and Exhibit P – 19 – Rough Plan. P.W.12 also recovered M.O.1 – Blood Stained Earth, M.O.2 – Sample Earth and M.O.3 –Piece of Dhoti under Exhibit P-3-Mahazar. Since Arunagiri died, P.W.-12 altered the charge to under Section 302 IPC and prepared Exhibit P-20-Alteration Report. (v) P.W.7 –Dr. Valavan, Assistant Surgeon, Tindivanam Government Hospital, examined Arunagiri on 20.6.1999 and noted the following injuries viz., (i) A lacerated injury on the left parietal region; (ii) A contusion on the left side fore head; and (iii) A lacerated injury on the left side chin. (vi) on the same day (20.6.1999) at about 8.30 p.m., P.W.7 – Dr. Valavan examined Mary and noted the following injuries: (i) A contusion on the right wrist; (ii) A contusion on the left fore arm; (iii) A contusion on the left side of the anterior abdominal wall; (iv) A contusion on the left side hip. (vii) P.W.1 – Venkatesan sent to Brammadesam PS on 20.6.1999 in the night at about 11.00 p.m. and lodged Exhibit P-17-Complaint, On the basis of Exhibit P-17-Complaint, P.W.12-Palanisamy, Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in Cr. No. 289 of 1999 under Section 147, 148, 323, 324 and 506 (ii) IPC. (viii) P.W.13 – Nithiyanandan, Inspector of Police, had taken up the case for further investigation. On 26. 1999, P.W.13 went to Government Hospital, Chennai and in the presence of Panchayatars witnesses were examined and inquest was held on the body of deceased Arunagiri. Exhibit P-21 is the Inquest Report. After inquest, the body was sent to autopsy. P.W.14 – Dr. Shanmugam, Tutor in Forensic Medicine, Madras Medical College, Madras, conducted autopsy on the body of deceased Arunagiri on 26. Exhibit P-21 is the Inquest Report. After inquest, the body was sent to autopsy. P.W.14 – Dr. Shanmugam, Tutor in Forensic Medicine, Madras Medical College, Madras, conducted autopsy on the body of deceased Arunagiri on 26. 1999 at 1.40 p.m. and noted the following injuries: (i) Oblique sutured wound 4 cms long with 4 sutures over right side scalp; (ii) Vertical sutured wound 3 cms long with 3 sutures over top of the scalp; (iii) Cut injury 2 x 0.5 cm x bone deep over right side fore head; (iv) A sutured wound 3 cms long with 3 sutures over left side of lower lip; (v) Abrasions were noted on both legs (right leg, left leg and left knee). On dissection, extensive bruising of scalp tissue with fissured fracture of left side frontal and occipital lobes and fracture separation of sagittal and coronal sutures. On further dissection, Epiduralhaematbma over mid parietal and left side frontal regions were noted. Opining that deceased Arunagiri died of head injuries sustained by him, P.W.14 – Dr. Shanmugam issued Exhibit P-28-Post-Mortem Certificate. (ix) During investigation P.W.13 – Nithiyanandan, Inspector of Police, came to know that accused abused the deceased by calling his Caste name and hence, altered the charges into Section 147, 148, 323, 324, 506(ii) and 302 IPC and prepared Exhibit P-23-Alteration Report. P.W.11 – Subramanian, Tahsildar, Tindivanam, issued Exhibit P– 16-Community Certificate stating that deceased Arunagiri and A6 to A8 belonged to Hindu Adi-Dravidar Community and A1 to A6 belonged to Hindu, Vanniyar Community. (x) On 26. 1999 at about 5.00 a.m., P.W.13 – Inspector of Police arrested appellant/A3-Saravanan and other accused Natesan (A4), Rajavelu (A5) and Thangarasu (A8). Confession statement of appellant/A3-Saravanan led to recovery of M.O.4-Billhook under5 Exhibit P-25-Seizure Mahazar. Confession statement of other accused led to recovery of M.O.6 to M.O.8-Thorny Sticks and M.O.9 to M.O.11-Eucalyptus Sticks under Exhibit P-25-Mahazar. Confession statement of Rajavelu (A5) led to recovery of M.O.5-Iron Pipe under Exhibit P-26-Seizure Mahazar. After receipt of Chemical Analysis Report (P-13) and on completion of due investigation, final report was filed against accused under Section 147, 148, 323, 324, 506(ii), 302 IPC read with 149 IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of S.C/S.T Act. (xi) To substantiate the charges against accused, prosecution had examined P.Ws.1 to 15. Exhibit P-1 tp P-28 and M.Os. 1 to 11 were marked. (xi) To substantiate the charges against accused, prosecution had examined P.Ws.1 to 15. Exhibit P-1 tp P-28 and M.Os. 1 to 11 were marked. Accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidence and circumstances. Accused denied all of them and pleaded not guilty and stated that a false case was foisted against them. (xii) Upon consideration of evidence, learned Special Judge (Principal Sessions Judge), Villupuram held that evidence and other circumstances convincingly establish that appellant/A3 – Saravanan was responsible for the death of deceased Arunagiri and convicted appellant/A3 – Saravanan as stated in Para (1). Learned Special Judge (Principal Sessions Judge) acquitted A2 to A5 and A6 to A8 of various charges. 3. Learned counsel for appellant Mr. K.V. Sridharan contended that P.Ws.2 and 3 being related witnesses their evidence cannot be believed. It was further submitted that other than appellant/A3 – Saravanan all other accused were acquitted and while so, P.Ws.2 and 3 are not wholly reliable witnesses and in the absence of corroboration, it would be unsafe to base the conviction upon evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance upon number of decisions. 4. Taking us through evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and the recovery of incriminating articles, learned Public Prosecutor (Incharge) Mr. P. Kumaresan submitted that consistant evidence of eye witnesses (P.W.2 – Kumaravel and P.W.3 – Mary) cannot be rejected merely on the ground that their evidence has not been accepted with regard to some other accused. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor would further submit that it would not be justifiable to doubt the version of P.Ws.2 and 3 on the ground that they are related witnesses. Learned Public Prosecutor would further submit that evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is amply corroborated by medical evidence and other objective findings during investigation and the conviction of appellant warrants no interference. 6. P.Ws.2 and 3 have spoken in one voice that appellant/A3 – Saravanan cut Arunagiri with knife on his head; Natesan (A4) beat the deceased with stick on his back; Rajavely (A5) assaulted with iron pipe on his chest. Deceased Arunagiri fell down. While P.W.2-Kumaravel, brother of deceased Arunagiri, intervened, accused chased him and P.W.2 fell down in a coconut groove. While P.W.3-Mary intervened, A1-Arumugam and A4-Natesan assaulted her with stick. 7. Deceased Arunagiri fell down. While P.W.2-Kumaravel, brother of deceased Arunagiri, intervened, accused chased him and P.W.2 fell down in a coconut groove. While P.W.3-Mary intervened, A1-Arumugam and A4-Natesan assaulted her with stick. 7. Case of prosecution is based on evidence of eye witnesses-P.W.2-Kumaravel, brother of deceased Arunagiri and P.W.3-Mary, wife of deceased Arunagiri. Evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 was assailed contending that P.Ws.2 and 3 being brother and wife of deceased Arunagiri are “Interested Witnesses” and while so, it would be unsafe to base the conviction. Evidence of a witness is not to be disbelieved simply because, he is related to deceased. It is to be weighed, whether the witness was present or not. Relationship with the deceased does not affect the credibility of witness. It would be unreasonable to contend that evidence of related witnesses is to be discarded. From Exhibit P-2-Observation Mahazar and Exhibit P-19-Rough Plan, it is seen that occurrence was near deceased Arunagiri’s house. While so, PWs2 and 3, being brother and wife of deceased Arunagiri are natural and probable witnesses to speak about the occurrence. 8. Contending that place of occurrence is surrounded by other houses, it was submitted that non-examination of independent witnesses is fatal to the prosecution case. As we pointed out earlier, the occurrence was near the house of Arunagiri. Other houses are situated little far away and therefore, prosecution cannot be faulted for non-examination of independent witnesses. In any event, the occurrence was between Arunagiri, an Adi-Dravidar and Caste Hindus, When the occurrence was between two factions, it would be futile to expect evidence from independent sources. In any event, there is no provision of law which says that evidence of related witnesses is not to be believed. 9. In Masalti and Others v. State of U.P. AIR 1965 SC 202 : (1965) 1 MLJ (Crl) 312, the Supreme Court observed as under at p. 318: “But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses… The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the pea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct.” (See also, State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh AIR 1973 SC 2407 : (1974) 3 SCC 277 : (1973) SCC (Cr) 886 : (1974) 1 MLJ (Crl) 150. and Lehna v. State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 76 .” 10. As observed by Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Teja Ram and Others air 1999 sc 1776 : (1999) 3 SCC 507 : (1999) SCC (Cr) 436 : (1999) 1 MLJ (Crl) 580 the over-insistence on witnesses having no relation with the victims often results in criminal justice going awry. When an incident happens in a dwelling house or nearby, the most natural witnesses would be the inmates of that house. 11. Deceased Arunagiri died of head injuries. In Exhibit P-17-Complaint and Exhibit P-18-FIR, it is stated that A6 to A8 beat the deceased with sticks. Learned counsel for appellant contended that overtact of other assailants (A6 to A8) might have also caused injuries on the head and while so, appellant/A3 – Saravanan cannot be held responsible for causing the head injuries. 12. Taking us through evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and medical evidence, learned counsel for appellants contended that evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 being found contradictory to medical evidence, Trial Court disbelieved their version in respect of A1, A2 and A4 to A8. Placing reliance upon Lawkwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2003) Crl. LJ 3058, it was contended that where the evidence is not wholly reliable, conviction cannot be based on their testimony. In the said case, three out of 7 accused put on trial were acquitted on finding of non-participation in offence though allegation of participation was made by witness. In such facts and circumstances, Supreme Court has held that the witness is not wholly reliable and conviction cannot be based on his testimony alone. 13. The ratio of above decision cannot be applied to the instant case, as presence of P.Ws.2 and 3 in the place of occurrence as been convincingly established by unimpeachable evidence. In such facts and circumstances, Supreme Court has held that the witness is not wholly reliable and conviction cannot be based on his testimony alone. 13. The ratio of above decision cannot be applied to the instant case, as presence of P.Ws.2 and 3 in the place of occurrence as been convincingly established by unimpeachable evidence. From Exhibit P-7-Accident Register, it is seen that P.W.3-Mary sustained contusions on the right wrist, left forearm, left side of the anterior abdominal wall and left side hip. In her evidence, P.W.3-Mary has stated that she was beaten by A1-Arumugam and A4-Natesan. Exhibit P-7-Accident Register of P.W.3-Mary corroborates P.W.3’s testimony. 14. In Lawkwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) case. Accused sustained 19 injuries, which were not explained by prosecution. In such facts and circumstances of that case, Supreme Court has held that 3 out of 7 accused put on trial were acquitted, which would show that witness is not wholly reliable. In the instant case, Exhibit P-7-Accident Register would amply prove presence of P.W.3 in the scene of occurrence. Being an injured witness, evidence of P.W.3 has its relevance and efficacy and stands on higher footing. Unless there are convincing and formidable reasons the evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted. In our considered view, there are no formidable reasons to disbelieve the version of P.W.3-Injured Eye Witness. 15. Drawing our attention to Exhibit P-7-Accident Register, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that P.W.3-Mary being an injured eye witness her evidence stands on higher footing. Observing that the fact that the witness sustained injuries shows presence of such witness at the scene of occurrence in Mohar v. State of U.P., AIR 2002 SC 3279 : (2002) 7 SCC 606 : (2003) SCC (Cri) 121, Supreme Court has held as under: “11. The testimony of an injured witness has its own efficacy and relevancy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries on his body would show that he was present at the place of occurrence and has seen the occurrence by himself. Convincing evidence would be required to discredit an injured witness. Similarly, every discrepancy in the statement of a witness cannot be treated as fatal. The fact that the witness sustained injuries on his body would show that he was present at the place of occurrence and has seen the occurrence by himself. Convincing evidence would be required to discredit an injured witness. Similarly, every discrepancy in the statement of a witness cannot be treated as fatal. A discrepancy which does not affect the prosecution case materially cannot create any infirmity…..” The same view was reiterated in Surendra Singh Rautella v. State of Bihar, AIR 2002 SC 260 : (2002) 1 SCC 266 : (2002) SCC (Cri) 165. 16. Presence of P.W.2 also cannot be doubted. Even during inquest, P.W.2-Kumaravel was examined in the presence of Panchayatars. The fact that P.W.2 was examined during inquest lends assurance to his credibility and that he was present at the time of occurrence. 17. Reliance was also placed upon Jagdish Prasad v. Bawan Kumar, (1995) SCC (Cri) 160, wherein a reference was made to Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 614 . In Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras (supra) case, Supreme Court has classified the testimony of a witness into three categories viz., (1) wholly reliable (2) wholly unreliable and (3) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable and observed that although in the first two categories of classification, there may not be any difficulty in coming to a conclusion either accepting or rejecting the testimony, it is in the third category of cases that the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony either direct or circumstantial. 18. Learned counsel for appellant contended that evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 was not found acceptable to Trial Court insofar as overtact of A1, A2, A4 to A8 and while so, their evidence is totally unreliable for basing conviction of appellant/A3. 19. Consistent evidence of eye witnesses cannot be rejected merely on the ground that their evidence has not been accepted with regard to some other accused. Evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 cannot be rejected merely because a part of their testimony was not accepted in respect of A1, A2 and A4 to A8. 20. The doctrine falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable in India. Evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 cannot be rejected merely because a part of their testimony was not accepted in respect of A1, A2 and A4 to A8. 20. The doctrine falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable in India. In such a case, the only requirement of law will be that the testimony of these witnesses in regard to the remaining version or the case against the other accused must be considered with more care and caution. In a criminal trial especially in a case of eyewitnesses, the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus cannot apply and the Court has to make efforts to sift the grain from the chaff. When a witness is said to have exaggerated in his evidence and has tried to involve many more accused and if that part is not found acceptable the remaining part of evidence has to be scrutinized with care (vide Hari Chand v. State, AIR 1996 SC 1477 : (1996) SCC (Cr) 950 : (1996) 1 MLJ (Crl) 248 : (1996) (Cri.LJ) 1701) 21. To the same effect is the observation of Supreme Court in Ranbir v. State of Punjab, AIR 1973 SC 1409 : (1973) SCC (Cr) 858, which is as under. “7. No doubt, in cases of party factions, there is generally speaking, tendency on the part of the prosecution witnesses to implicate some innocent persons also along with the guilty ones, but normally where the general substratum of the occurrence cannot be held to arouse any reasonable doubt or suspicion about its having taken place, then the prosecution witnesses, provided they are held to have witnessed the occurrence and to be in a position to identify the assailants, are ordinarily not to be assumed to have left out the actual offenders or the guilty persons. Although the witnesses for the prosecution are in such circumstances prone to exaggerate the culpability of the actual assailants as also to extend the participation in the occurrence to some possible innocent members of the opposite party as well, the Court has to sift the evidence and after a close scrutiny with anxious care and caution to try to come to a judicial conclusion as to who out of the accused persons can be safely considered to have taken part in the assault. As pointed out in Deep Chand v. State of Haryana, (1969) 3 SCC 890 the maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not a sound rule to apply in the conditions in this country and, therefore, it is the duty of the Court in cases where a witness has been found to have given unreliable evidence in regard to certain particulars, to scrutinize the rest of his evidence with care and caution. If the remaining evidence is trustworthy and the substratum of the prosecution case remains intact, then the Court should uphold the prosecution case to the extent is considered safe and trustworthy……” 22. In a murder trial, on meticulous examination of the evidence of all the witnesses it is found that the assault was pre-planned and there was motive for the assault minor variances in the evidence as to assailants cannot be given undue weight to doubt the commission of crime. When large number of accused persons are involved and the witness was also injured in the incident, the witnesses may get confused and some discrepancies may not affect the truth of their testimony. 23. P.W.3 was in the advanced stage of family way and in fact, she was given birth to a child on the very next day of occurrence. On seeing her husband Arunagiri being attacked by number of assailants, P.W.3 might have got confused and it could not have been possible for her to individualize blows. Though evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 was not found acceptable in respect of A1, A2 and A4 to A8, in our considered view, insofar as appellant/A3-Saravanan is concerned, their evidence is safe and trustworthy. 24. Arrest, Confession Statement leading to recovery of M.O.4-Billhook is yet another circumstance relied upon by prosecution. In the Chemical Analysis, human blood was detected in M.O.4-Billhook. Learned counsel for appellant contended that presence of human blood in M.O.4 though relied upon as incriminating circumstance, presence of human blood in M.O.4 was not specifically put to the appellant during questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It was further argued that, when the appellant was not afforded opportunity of explaining the same cannot be taken as an incriminating circumstance and the appellant/Accused cannot be connected to the offence. 25. In support of his contention, learned counsel for appellant placed reliance upon Vikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 732. 25. In support of his contention, learned counsel for appellant placed reliance upon Vikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 732. Observing that circumstances must be put to the accused in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and referring to Tara Singh v. State AIR 1951 SC 441 : (1951) 2 MLJ 291, Supreme Court in Vikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) case has held as under: “23. It is now a well-settled principle of law that the circumstances which according to the prosecution lead to proof of the guilt against the accused must be put to him in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was not done. 24. In Tara Singh v. State, AIR 1951 SC 441 : (1951) 2 MLJ 291, the law is stated in the following terms: “The High Court also bases its conclusion on the circumstantial evidence arising from the production of the kripan and recovery of the shirt from the appellant. Those articles are said to be stained with human blood. The appellant was not asked to give any explanation about this. The serologist’s report had not been received when the appellant was questioned by the Committing Magistrate. Therefore, he could not be asked to explain the presence of human bloodstains on the kripan. All he was asked was whether the bloodstained kripan was recovered at his instance. That is not enough. He should also have been asked whether he could explain the presence of bloodstains on it. The two are not the same. Then, in the Sessions Court there was the additional evidence of the imperial serologist showing that the kripan had stains of human blood on it. That was an additional and very vital piece of evidence which the appellant should have been afforded an opportunity of explaining.” 25. A knife was recovered purported to be pursuant to a confession made by the appellant. The statement was admissible in evidence but the knife was recovered from the place of incident without something more which would lead to a discovery of fact. It, therefore, may not have much evidentiary value (See Kora Ghasi v. State of Orissa, (1983) SCC (Cri) 387).” 26. The said case (supra) was based upon circumstantial evidence and recovery of knife and presence of blood was relied upon as one of the incriminating circumstance to render conviction. It, therefore, may not have much evidentiary value (See Kora Ghasi v. State of Orissa, (1983) SCC (Cri) 387).” 26. The said case (supra) was based upon circumstantial evidence and recovery of knife and presence of blood was relied upon as one of the incriminating circumstance to render conviction. In the instant case, prosecution rests upon direct evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3. Recovery of M.O.4-Billhook and presence of human blood thereupon is relied upon only as one of the additional circumstances. Specifically not putting questions in respect of M.O.4-Billhook may not adversely affect the prosecution case. 27. By perusal of Section 313 questioning put to accused, we find that appellant/A3-Saravanan was specifically questioned about recovery of M.O.4-Billhook and about sending of M.O.4 to Chemical Analysis. Insofar as recovery of M.O.4-Billhook, it was a total denial, while so, it cannot be said that non-putting of questions regarding presence of human blood in M.O.4-Billhook would prejudicially affect the appellant. 28. In his evidence, P.W.2-Kumaravel has stated that he informed the police over phone about the occurrence. In the cross-examination, it was elicited from P.W.3-Mary that she has informed the police about the occurrence. Drawing our attention to evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, learned counsel for appellant submitted that P.Ws.2 and 3 appear to have given complaints were suppressed by the prosecution, which would throw serious doubts origin of occurrence. In their evidence, P.Ws.2 and 3 have stated that they informed the police about the occurrence Mere information/cryptic statement made to Police about the occurrence cannot be construed as a complaint. We find no substance in the contention that prosecution has suppressed the other complaints. 29. In his evidence, P.W.2-Kumaravel has stated that one Jayaraman has instigated, but the case of prosecution is that A1-Arumugam has instigated other accused and such variation in prosecution version is irreconcilable. In Exhibit P-23-Alteration Report, name of said Jayaraman was shown as A9 and in Alternation Report it was further stated that Jayaraman led the other accused. But, later action against said Jayaraman was dropped. Since Jayaraman was earlier shown as one of the accused (A9), quite naturally P.W.2-Kumaravel has referred to name of Jayaraman and therefore, P.W.2 cannot be termed as a witness making embellishments and improvements in his version. 30. Dropping Jayaraman from the case was a conduct on the part of Investigating Officer (IO). But, later action against said Jayaraman was dropped. Since Jayaraman was earlier shown as one of the accused (A9), quite naturally P.W.2-Kumaravel has referred to name of Jayaraman and therefore, P.W.2 cannot be termed as a witness making embellishments and improvements in his version. 30. Dropping Jayaraman from the case was a conduct on the part of Investigating Officer (IO). Interest of justice demands that such acts or omissions of IO’s should not be taken in favour of accused. Based on the consistent evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 corroborated by medical evidence, learned Sessions Judge rightly arrived at the conclusion that appellant/A3-Saravanan, who caused head injuries was responsible for the death of deceased Arunagiri. The nature of weapon (M.O.4-Billhook) used and the vital organ viz., head, on which the injury was inflicted and the number of assailants having assembled to attack deceased Arunagiri would clearly manifest the intention of appellant/A3-Saravanan to cause the death of deceased Arunagiri. The conviction of appellant/A3-Saravanan under Section 302 IPC warrants no interference. 31. Accused/A3-Saravanan was also charged for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.t.(P.A) Act 1989. When any person commits an offence under Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment for a term of 10 years or more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste is liable to be punishable under Section 3(2)(v). The evidence adduced by the prosecution would establish that appellant committed murder of deceased Arunagiri and Arunagiri being a member of SC, the act committed by Accused/A3-Saravanan is also punishable under Section. Section 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. (P.A) Act 1989. 32. In the result, The conviction of appellant/A3 Saravanan under Section 302 IPC read with. Section 3 (2)(v) of S.C./S.T. (P.A) Act 1989 and sentence of life imprisonment are confirmed and Appeal is dismissed. The fine imposed upon appellant/A3-Saravanan shall stand confirmed. The learned Special Judge (Principal Sessions Judge), Villupuram, shall take steps to secure the presence of appellant/A3-Saravanan and commit him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.