Judgment : M. Chockalingam, J. This judgment shall govern these three criminal appeals namely C.A.194/2008 by A-4, C.A.197/2008 by A-1 and A-2 and C.A.813/2008 by A-3. 2. All these three appeals challenge a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.II, Chennai, whereby the appellants ranked as A-1 to A-4 respectively along with A-5 stood charged, and on trial, A-1 to A-4 were found guilty and awarded punishment as follows: TABLE 3. Short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals can be stated as follows: (a) P.Ws.1 and 2 were the Head Constables attached to C2 Elephant Gate Police Station. On 11. 2006, they were on duty between 7.00 A.M. and 2.00 P.M. at a place within the jurisdiction of C1 Flower Bazaar Police Station. P.W.7 is the father; P.W.8 is the sister; and P.W.9 is the brother-in-law of the deceased Dillibabu. One Veera, the brother of A-1 and A-2, was murdered. They were under the impression that it was Dillibabu who murdered their brother. A-3 and A-4 are the associates of A-1 and A-2. (b) On the date of occurrence namely 11. 2006, at about 1.30 P.M., Dillibabu went to the Central Prison to meet a few of his friends who were in custody, and he was coming back near the Central Railway Station by walk. At that time, when he was just near the Police Booth situated near the Central Railway Station, A-1 to A-4 armed with deadly weapons chased him. On seeing this, he began to run and fell at a place in front of the police booth. At that time, A-3 pointing towards the deceased uttered "It was he who murdered their brother Veera. Cut him". On his instigation, A-1 and A-2 cut him. The same was witnessed by P.W.1. When P.W.1 went to the rescue, immediately, A-3 and A-4 caught hold of him and were showing a knife. At that time, A-3 and A-4 leaving P.W.1 joined others in cutting the deceased. The occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.1, 3 to 6, 21, 23 and 29. P.W.1 and others went nearby and found Dillibabu was breathing and alive. At that time, there was drizzling. The driving license was found in the pocket of Dillibabu. A photo was also pasted in that. From that, they came to know that it was Dillibabu, and his fathers name was one Mohanraj. P.W.1 and others went nearby and found Dillibabu was breathing and alive. At that time, there was drizzling. The driving license was found in the pocket of Dillibabu. A photo was also pasted in that. From that, they came to know that it was Dillibabu, and his fathers name was one Mohanraj. P.W.2 was a duty constable in the bus stop. He came nearby to whom P.W.1 informed about the occurrence. (c) P.W.30, the Sub Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent police station, was on patrol that day. On receipt of the information, he rushed to the spot and stopped a fish cart which was on the way, and the body of Dillibabu was taken by him along with one Rajendran to the Government General Hospital. P.W.22, the Doctor, who was in the Hospital, on medical examination, declared him dead. He noted the injuries found in the dead body, and the copy of the accident register is marked as Ex.P10. (d) P.W.1 gave an intimation to P.W.31, the Inspector of Police, attached to C1 Flower Bazaar Police Station. He also came to the spot. P.W.1 accompanied P.W.31, and they went to the Government General Hospital. There they came to know that Dillibabu is already dead. Thereafter, they went to the respondent police station where P.W.1 gave Ex.P1, the report, on the strength of which a case came to be registered in Crime No.625 of 2006 under Sections 341, 302, 342, 352 and 506(2) of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P32, was despatched to the Court. (e) P.W.31 took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P33, and a rough sketch, Ex.P34. Then he conducted inquest on the dead body of Dillibabu in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P36. Photographs were taken through P.W.10, the photographer. The photos and negatives are marked as M.O.15 series. (f) Pursuant to a requisition made, the dead body was subjected to postmortem by P.W.15, the Tutor in Forensic Medicine, Madras Medical College. The Doctor has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P5, with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of head injury (multiple chop wounds). (g) Pending investigation, the Investigator came to know that A-1 to A-3 surrendered before the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, on the next day i.e., 11. 2006. The Doctor has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P5, with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of head injury (multiple chop wounds). (g) Pending investigation, the Investigator came to know that A-1 to A-3 surrendered before the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, on the next day i.e., 11. 2006. Then police custody was sought for, and the same was ordered. They were taken to police custody on 11. 2006, and were interrogated. A-1 came forward to give a confessional statement voluntarily. The same was recorded. The admissible part is marked as Ex.P38. He produced M.O.6, aruval, and M.O.7, shirt, which were recovered under a cover of mahazar. A-2 gave a confessional statement voluntarily, which was recorded. The admissible portion is Ex.P40. He produced M.O.8, knife, and M.O.9 shirt, which were recovered under a cover of mahazar. A-3 gave a confessional statement which was recorded. The admissible part is Ex.P42. He produced M.O.10, aruval, and M.O.11, shirt, which were recovered under a cover of mahazar. The accused were sent for judicial remand. (h) P.W.32, the Inspector of Police, took up further investigation. A-5 was arrested on 111. 2006. He volunteered to give a confessional statement which was recorded. The admissible part is Ex.P44. Then he produced a knife which was recovered under a cover of mahazar. The Investigator came to know that A-4 surrendered before the Court on 112. 2006, and police custody was taken. He gave a confessional statement which was recorded. Ex.P48 is the admissible part. He produced a knife and a shirt which were recovered under a cover of mahazar. A-4 and A-5 were sent for judicial remand. (i) The test identification parade was conducted by P.W.27, the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. The identification parade proceedings are marked as Ex.P18. All the material objects were subjected to chemical analysis, which resulted in Ex.P4, the Chemical Analysts report, and Ex.P6, the Serologists report. On completion of investigation, the Investigator filed the final report. 4. The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 32 witnesses and also relied on 49 exhibits and 15 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 32 witnesses and also relied on 49 exhibits and 15 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false. On the side of the defence, one Vasan was examined, through whom one document was marked as Ex.D1. The trial Court heard the arguments advanced, looked into the materials available and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence entered a judgment of conviction and sentence. Insofar as A-5, the trial Court has made an order of acquittal. Under the circumstances, these appeals have arisen at the instance of A-1 to A-4 respectively. 5. Advancing arguments on behalf of A-1 and A-2, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.Gopinath would submit that in the instant case, the occurrence, according to the prosecution, has taken place on 11. 2006 at 1.30 P.M.; that P.Ws.1, 3 to 6, 21, 23 and 29 were shown as eyewitnesses out of whom P.Ws.5, 6, 21 and 23 have turned hostile; that the evidence that was available for the prosecution before the trial Court was that of P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and 29; that P.W.2 has claimed that he came to the place of occurrence after the incident was over; and that out of these witnesses, P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 are Police Constables. 6. The learned Senior Counsel assailing the prosecution story would submit that in the instant case, P.W.1 could not have been in the place of occurrence; and that Ex.P1, the report, pursuant to which the case has been registered, could not have been the first information at all. The learned Senior Counsel pointing to the evidence of P.W.22, the Doctor, and also the accident register copy, Ex.P10, would submit that it is mentioned therein that the deceased was an unknown person, and he was also attacked by four unknown persons. The learned Senior Counsel pointing to the evidence of P.W.22, the Doctor, and also the accident register copy, Ex.P10, would submit that it is mentioned therein that the deceased was an unknown person, and he was also attacked by four unknown persons. He would further submit that according to P.W.1, he was on duty, and he found that the deceased was actually walking and the accused persons four in number were actually chasing him, and out of this four, one of the accused was a tall man, and he called A-1 and A-2 by names and pointing to the deceased uttered that it was he who murdered their brother Veera, and thus he should be finished off; and that Ex.P1 would contain the names of A-1 and A-2; but, the names of A-3 and A-4 are not shown therein. 7. 7. Added further the learned Counsel that the occurrence has taken place at about 1.30 P.M.; that P.W.1 would claim that he was also present at the place of occurrence; but he did not accompany the deceased to the hospital, and he kept himself there, and he was waiting for the arrival of P.W.31, the Inspector of Police; that the body was actually taken, according to the prosecution case, by P.W.30, the Sub Inspector of Police, and one Rajendran; but the said Rajendran was not examined by the prosecution; that from the evidence of P.W.1, it would be quite evident that the information before the Court namely Ex.P1, was not the first information as he has categorically admitted that after he went to the Government General Hospital along with P.W.31, he was enquired, and he gave a statement, and the same was recorded by P.W.31, and thereafter he accompanied P.W.31 to the police station where he gave another statement, and the said statement has also been recorded; that from the evidence of P.W.1, it would be quite clear that that there were two statements recorded by P.W.31, one at the Government General Hospital and the other at the police station; that now at this juncture, the FIR though claimed to be registered at 3.30 P.M., has reached the Metropolitan Magistrate at about 10.30 P.M. after a lapse of seven hours; and that P.W.31 was cross-examined about the delay; but he did not know how the delay was caused, and he would claim that the FIR was handed over to the Head Constable to be taken to the Court immediately; but for the reasons best known to the prosecution, when there was an inordinate delay, the Head Constable to whom the FIR has been handed over was not examined. 8. 8. Now the learned Senior Counsel would submit that P.W.8 has categorically stated that two persons A-1 and A-2 came to her house and threatened that her brother Dillibabu would be murdered; that P.W.8 has also claimed that she came to the hospital at about 4.00 P.M.; that it would be quite clear that the names of these accused namely A-1 and A-2, were actually known to P.W.8, and hence their names should have been taken from her and the second report, Ex.P1, what is now placed before the Court has been prepared; and that the earlier report which was originally recorded by P.W.31 from P.W.1 at the hospital has been suppressed. 9. Added further the learned Senior Counsel that in the instant case, P.W.7, the father of the deceased, would claim that his son Dillibabu came in a motorbike on the day; that P.W.9 the brother-in-law of the deceased, would also claim that the motorbike belonged to him; that they have also given the registration number of the motorbike as TN 02 B 6823; that so far as this motorbike is concerned, on the day a photo was taken by a news reporter from Dhinamalar, and it also came in the newspaper as a news item on 11. 2006; that D.W.1 has been examined to that effect; that in that photograph, the particular motorbike with the registration number is also exhibited, and thus it was a defence plea that on the date when the occurrence had taken place, the deceased came in a motorbike which was actually found in the place of occurrence; that under the circumstances, the evidence of P.W.1 and the other witnesses that he was coming by walk at that time was nothing but false; that it would be indicative of the fact that the witnesses could not have seen the occurrence at all; and that the prosecution has failed to put forth any explanation how the said motorbike happened to be in the place of occurrence. 10. 10. Added further the learned Counsel that as far as the other witnesses are concerned, it is not the case of the prosecution that they actually knew the accused already; that as far as the identification parade was concerned, those witnesses were not taken to the identification parade; that it was only P.W.1 who was taken; that all these accused persons actually surrendered before the Court, and they were taken to police custody on 111. 2006 and were kept in custody till 111. 2006; that they were in custody for a period of four days; and that it would be clearly indicative of the fact that there was all possibility for the police to show them to P.W.1 who was the Head Constable of the particular police station. 11. The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that P.W.27, the Metropolitan Magistrate, conducted the test identification parade; that at the earliest opportunity, the accused persons complained him that they were shown to the witnesses, and apart from that, photographs were also shown to them, and thus the test identification parade was of no consequence at all. 12. Added further the learned Senior Counsel that in the instant case, the inquest report and the statement of P.W.1 reached the Court only on 111. 2006, after a period of four days; that in the inquest report which was claimed to have been prepared on the evening hours of the very day, the name of P.W.1 did not find place; that further Column No.14 of the inquest report would clearly indicate that the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased after the postmortem was over, at about 2.30 P.M. on 11. 2006; that when such a fact of handing over of the dead body on the next day has been incorporated in the inquest report, it would clearly indicate that the inquest report could not have been prepared on 11. 2006, but at a later date; that the postmortem has taken place earlier; but the inquest report has been prepared according to the convenience of the Investigator; that no inquest report as claimed by the prosecution was prepared on 11. 2006; and that it can be well stated that no inquest was conducted at all. 13. 2006, but at a later date; that the postmortem has taken place earlier; but the inquest report has been prepared according to the convenience of the Investigator; that no inquest report as claimed by the prosecution was prepared on 11. 2006; and that it can be well stated that no inquest was conducted at all. 13. Added further the learned Senior Counsel that as far as the alleged confessions and recovery of the material objects were concerned, the prosecution examined P.W.28 in respect of A-1 to A-3; but, he has turned hostile, and as far as A-5 was concerned, P.W.26 was examined; but, he has turned hostile, and under the circumstances, no importance could be attached to the recovery also; that as far as the other witnesses are concerned, except P.W.1 others were not taken to identify the accused at the parade; that it is a case where they claimed that in a public place the occurrence has taken place within a few minutes; that under the circumstances, the identification was a must; but not done so; that while the Investigator thought it fit that identification parade was to be conducted as far as P.W.1 was concerned, it was equally applicable to the other witnesses also, but not done so, and this would affect the prosecution story; that as far as P.W.1 was concerned, from the materials available it would be quite clear that P.W.1 could not have been in the place of occurrence at all; that under the circumstances, the trial Court has misdirected itself since it was a murder in a public place and that too in a day light and also in the city, and has taken an erroneous view, and hence they are entitled for acquittal. 14. 14. Apart from adopting the contentions put forth by the other Counsel, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan putting forth the case on behalf of A-3 in CA 813/2008 would submit that Ex.P1 placed before the trial Court, was not the first information and should have been rejected by the trial Court since P.W.1 has categorically admitted that he gave two statements; that as far as the identification parade was concerned, three witnesses were taken for that purpose; but, except P.W.1, two other witnesses could not identify; that as far as P.W.1 was concerned, the identification proceedings should have been completely rejected for the reasons that both A-3 and others were taken on police custody and were kept in custody for three days; that P.W.1 was a police constable; that under the circumstances, there was all possibility for him to easily identify them; that apart from that, A-3 and other accused at the time of identification parade made a complaint before the Magistrate that the photographs were taken, and they were already identified to the witnesses, and thus the identification parade loses its significance. 15. Added further the learned Senior Counsel that the place of occurrence was also found to be different; that the deceased was also coming in a motorbike; but no explanation was tendered; that as far as P.W.29 was concerned, he was examined as a witness by the Investigator after a period of nearly one or two months; that no explanation was tendered; that even the address of P.W.29 was not known; that he was a witness who was actually brought before the Court to strengthen the prosecution case if possible; that the entire case rested upon the evidence of P.W.1; but P.W.1 could not have been in the place of occurrence at all; that under the circumstances, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case, and hence A-3 is entitled for acquittal since the trial Court has taken an erroneous view. 16. Advancing arguments on behalf of A-4, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram would submit that the name of A-4 is not found place in Ex.P1 or FIR; that he actually surrendered before the Court on 111. 2006; that he was taken to police custody; that he was in police custody for four days i.e., till 111. 16. Advancing arguments on behalf of A-4, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.R.Shunmugasundaram would submit that the name of A-4 is not found place in Ex.P1 or FIR; that he actually surrendered before the Court on 111. 2006; that he was taken to police custody; that he was in police custody for four days i.e., till 111. 2006; that he is alleged to have given a confessional statement, and the admissible part is marked as Ex.P48; that though the prosecution claimed that a knife and a shirt were recovered from him and two witnesses are shown in the list of witnesses, they have not been examined; that as far as A-4 was concerned, no identification parade was conducted; that as far as the other witnesses are concerned, P.Ws.3 and 4 did not participate in the identification parade; that the statements of P.Ws.3, 4 and 29 have reached the Court on 23. 2007 after a long lapse of time; that further A-4 has actually complained to the Magistrate at the time of identification parade that the photographs were taken, and he was also identified already; that apart from that, the identifying witness was a police constable who could easily identify the accused since they were in police custody for number of days, and under the circumstances, he is entitled for acquittal in the hands of this Court. 17. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 18. It is not in controversy that following the incident that took place at about 1.30 P.M. On 11. 2006, in front of the Central Railway Station where a police booth is situated, one Dillibabu was done to death. Immediately the body was taken to the Government General Hospital where he was declared dead by P.W.22, the Doctor. The accident register copy is marked as Ex.P10. Following the registration of the case in Crime No.625 of 2006 and the inquest made by P.W.31, the Inspector of Police, attached to C1 Flower Bazaar Police Station, the dead body was subjected to postmortem by P.W.15, the Doctor, who has given a categorical opinion that he died out of head injury (multiple chop wounds). The fact that Dillibabu died out of homicidal violence was never disputed by the appellants before the trial Court. The fact that Dillibabu died out of homicidal violence was never disputed by the appellants before the trial Court. Hence the trial Court felt no impediment in recording so and rightly too. 19. In order to substantiate that the appellants have attacked Dillibabu and caused his death at the time of occurrence, the prosecution adduced evidence by marching P.Ws.1, 3 to 6, 21, 23 and 29 as eyewitnesses, out of whom P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and 29 have supported the prosecution case, while others have turned hostile. As far as these four witnesses were concerned, P.W.1 was the Head Constable attached to C2 Elephant Gate Police Station, and P.Ws.3 and 4 were Head Constables attached to the respondent police station. Admittedly, they were on duty at the time when the occurrence has taken place. P.W.29 was an independent witness. 20. At the outset, it must be stated that it is not a case where independent witnesses were not examined; but, actually independent witnesses were examined, out of whom number of witnesses have turned hostile. However, the prosecution had to its benefit the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and 29. The occurrence has taken place at about 1.30 P.M. on 11. 2006. It is not in controversy that P.W.1 was actually on duty at the time when the occurrence has taken place. P.W.1 has categorically deposed that he was on duty near the place; that at that time, the deceased was found running; that four persons were chasing him out of whom, a tall person called A-1 and A-2 by names and uttered the words pointing to the deceased that he was the person who committed the murder of their brother Veera, and hence he should be finished off; that when that tall man pointed out so, A-1 and A-2 began to cut the deceased on different parts of the body; that when he fell down, the tall person also joined others in cutting him; that looking at this, he (P.W.1) went tot he rescue; that at that time, the tall person and the other held him; that he tried his best, but could not relieve himself; that the tall person further told A-1 and A-2 to finish him off till he dies; that accordingly they cut him; and that when he (P.W.1) was relieved, all the four persons fled away from the place of occurrence. All the Senior Counsel appearing for the respective appellants at the outset made a comment that P.W.1 could not have been in the place of occurrence. This contention has got to be discountenanced for the simple reason that it was P.W.1 who was at the place of occurrence and witnessed the same. He also made an attempt to rescue and that too as a Head Constable he was duty bound. He also narrated the way in which it has occurred. The very way in which he has given the narration in Ex.P1 and also evidence before the trial Court, in the considered opinion of the Court, inspires the confidence of the Court, and hence it has got to be believed. 21. So many comments and criticisms as recorded above, were levelled against the prosecution case. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, P.W.1 has given two statements, one at the Government General Hospital and the other at C1 Flower Bazaar Police Station, and thus two statements have come into existence, and the first statement has been suppressed, and now what was placed before the trial Court namely Ex.P1, was not the first information, but the second information which should have been rejected. This contention cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that P.W.1 who witnessed the occurrence has immediately given a message to P.W.30, the Sub Inspector of Police, who was on patrol duty. P.W.30 immediately rushed to the spot. At that time, the deceased Dillibabu was found breathing and alive. Then P.W.30 took the body along with one Rajendran and entered into the Government General Hospital situated nearby. Even according to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 30, P.W.1 was at the place and gave an intimation to nearby C1 Flower Bazaar Police Station. P.W.31, the Inspector of Police, on duty rushed to the spot and both of them later went inside the hospital, and they were informed that Dillibabu was declared dead. Thus it would be quite clear that P.W.1 did not accompany the body of Dillibabu when it was taken to the hospital. 22. P.W.31, the Inspector of Police, on duty rushed to the spot and both of them later went inside the hospital, and they were informed that Dillibabu was declared dead. Thus it would be quite clear that P.W.1 did not accompany the body of Dillibabu when it was taken to the hospital. 22. According to the learned Senior Counsel, a driving license was taken from the pocket of Dillibabu wherein his name was noted as Dillibabu, and thus the name of Dillibabu was actually known to P.W.1 at that time itself, and when an enquiry was made by P.W.30, he should have informed the name, and when P.W.30 along with Rajendran took the body of Dillibabu to the hospital, P.W.30 informed to P.W.22, the Doctor, that the dead person was unknown person as found in Ex.P10, the accident register copy, and thus it would be quite clear that when the name of the deceased was actually known to P.W.1 and informed to P.W.22, then it should have been recorded in Ex.P10; but, the dead person is shown as unknown person, and under the circumstances, it would be quite evident that it was one later introduced. Further they would add that all the four accused persons were shown as unknown persons. At this juncture, these contentions have got to be rejected outright for the simple reason that it is not the case of the prosecution that at the time of occurrence P.W.30 was present; but, immediately after the occurrence was over, on information of P.W.1, P.W.30 who was on patrol duty, rushed to the spot and took the body to the hospital. At that time, Dillibabu was found breathing. In such circumstances, the anxiety of the Police Officer would have been to take him to the hospital in order to make him alive. But at the time when he was taken to the hospital, on the way he was found dead. Merely because P.W.30, who was not an eyewitness to the occurrence, has stated to the Medical Person that the deceased was an unknown person and the name was not mentioned, the case of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved. 23. The contention put forth that P.W.1 has given two statements cannot also be believed. P.W.31 was the Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent police station, who came to the place and along with him, P.W.1 entered into the hospital. 23. The contention put forth that P.W.1 has given two statements cannot also be believed. P.W.31 was the Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent police station, who came to the place and along with him, P.W.1 entered into the hospital. P.W.31 has categorically deposed that he got only one statement from P.W.1 at the police station, and on the strength of that statement, a case came to be registered in Crime No.625 of 2006. A suggestion was also put contra; but, he has denied the same. As rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, it is quite natural P.W.1 should have been enquired by P.W.31 at the spot and also at the hospital. But, it did not mean that any statement could have been recorded. It is true that P.W.1 has stated that he was enquired, and a statement was also recorded. He has also further added that a statement was recorded at the police station within a short span of time, and the case has been registered. If to be so, the evidence of P.W.1 that a statement was recorded at the Government General Hospital was over enthusiastic or even it can be taken as truncated document, by which the Court is unable to agree with the contentions put forth. 24. In the case on hand, all the narrative of the incident by P.W.1 would clearly indicate that he has given the correct version as an eyewitness. The way in which P.W.1 has conducted himself at the time of occurrence by going to the rescue in order to save the person when he was being brutally attacked by the other would be indicative of the fact that he has actually been present at the place where the occurrence has taken place. This evidence adduced by P.W.1 stood corroborated by the medical evidence. Now at this juncture, the earliest document which has come into existence in the case on hand is Ex.P10, the accident register copy. The statement that four unknown persons have attacked him is also made mention thereof. This evidence adduced by P.W.1 stood corroborated by the medical evidence. Now at this juncture, the earliest document which has come into existence in the case on hand is Ex.P10, the accident register copy. The statement that four unknown persons have attacked him is also made mention thereof. The contention put forth that a license has been recovered; that the name has actually been known to the witness, and therefore it has not been stated so, all these things have got to be rejected for the simple reason that the identify of the deceased Dillibabu was never disputed by the appellants at any point of time, and it is also not in question. Thus, the person who was attacked was Dillibabu, and he died. The inquest has also been made on his dead body. Under the circumstances the earliest statement given as unknown person, will not in any way affect the prosecution case. Further, four unknown persons and the time and date of occurrence are also made mention in that document. 25. The further contention is that the motorbike that was actually found in the place of occurrence is exhibited in Ex.D1, Dhinamalar newspaper, and D.W.1 has been examined; that P.W.7 is the father, and P.W.9 is the brother-in-law and also the owner of the motorbike; that all have deposed that he took the motorbike that day; that the prosecution was unable to explain how the motorbike was actually found in the place of occurrence; that P.W.1 cannot also account for the same, and thus the evidence of P.W.1 has got to be doubted. But this contention cannot be countenanced. P.Ws.7 and 9 have deposed that Dillibabu actually took the motorbike that day. The case of the prosecution was that he went to the Central Prison to meet his friends. Even assuming to be so that he went to the Central Prison in the motorbike and he was coming back, the case of the prosecution was that he was actually waylaid, and all the four persons were chasing him. Even according to the evidence of P.W.1, he witnessed the deceased person running and four persons chasing him with deadly weapons. From this it would be quite clear that at the place where P.W.1 found so, the motorbike was actually not driven by him. Even according to the evidence of P.W.1, he witnessed the deceased person running and four persons chasing him with deadly weapons. From this it would be quite clear that at the place where P.W.1 found so, the motorbike was actually not driven by him. At this juncture, it remains to be stated that the evidence of D.W.1 was of no avail to the defence. According to D.W.1, when and by whom the photographs were taken was not known to him. Under the circumstances, no reliance could be placed on either the evidence of D.W.1 or the newspaper what is now taken by the defence before the trial Court or before this Court. So long as there is nothing to indicate that the motorbike was actually driven upto the place where he was attacked, the Court cannot accept the contention put forth by the appellants. That apart, the non-explanation tendered by the prosecution as to the availability of the motorbike in no way would affect the prosecution case. 26. Much comment was made on the inquest made that according to the Investigator, P.W.31, the inquest was made on the evening hours of 11. 2006; but, column No.14 would indicate that the dead body was handed over to the relations at about 2.30 P.M. on 11. 2006; and that by insertion of this clause, the inquest report could not have been prepared on the previous day. Now at this juncture, it could be made clear that the inquest is actually conducted only to make the cause of death known. In the case on hand, the FIR is the earliest document wherein it is mentioned that four persons have attacked him, and cause of death was also made known. As could be seen from the available materials, there was a delay caused in the conduct of inquest by which the prosecution case, in the considered opinion of this Court, cannot be rejected while other evidence is available to the prosecution. 27. As far as the identification parade is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that it was of no significance or legal consequence in the present case. P.Ws.1, 3 and 29 were taken for identification parade. But P.W.1 was the only person who was able to identify, and others could not identify any one of the accused. 27. As far as the identification parade is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that it was of no significance or legal consequence in the present case. P.Ws.1, 3 and 29 were taken for identification parade. But P.W.1 was the only person who was able to identify, and others could not identify any one of the accused. Further at the time of identification parade, a complaint was made by the accused that they were actually shown to the witnesses at the police station. It is a case where all the accused persons surrendered before the Court, and police custody was ordered. They were kept in police custody for number of days. It is quite natural and possible that these accused could have been shown to the witnesses easily. Under the circumstances, it would be quite easier for P.W.1 and that too a police witness, to identify them. In every case identification parade is not a must. In a case where identification parade was conducted and the witnesses were unable to identify, the subsequent evidence before the Court cannot get any evidentiary value. Apart from that, in the instant case, when they were in the police custody and the witnesses were attached to the very same police station, there is all possibility for them to identify quite easily at the time of parade and also before the Court, and thus the identification parade has got to be rejected since it was of no consequence or legal value at all. 28. Apart from the above, the witnesses examined for the purpose of the confessional statements and recovery of the material objects namely P.Ws.26 and 28, have turned hostile. Thus the alleged recovery has got to be rejected, and they were of no legal consequence. 29. As could be seen from the available materials, the prosecution had to its benefit the evidence of P.W.1, who has immediately reported the matter, and then the case came to be registered, and investigation has been done, and they were actually brought before the Court. Now marshaling the evidence available, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the earliest document though it is mentioned as four unknown persons, P.W.1 has clearly stated the names of two persons as identified by the third tall man, and they were actually A-1 and A-2 before the trial Court. Now marshaling the evidence available, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the earliest document though it is mentioned as four unknown persons, P.W.1 has clearly stated the names of two persons as identified by the third tall man, and they were actually A-1 and A-2 before the trial Court. As far as the third man is concerned, no other physical features are mentioned except calling him as a tall man. Apart from that, the names of A-3 and A-4 are not found. In such circumstances, identification parade should have been conducted, but not done so. As pointed out above, the identification parade was of no avail to the prosecution case. 30. Added circumstance is the evidence of P.W.8. According to P.W.8, A-1 and A-2 came to her house and informed that it was her brother Dillibabu who murdered their brother Veera already, and under the circumstances, they would murder him. She has also deposed that A-1 and A-2 came to her house and threatened her. Following the same, the occurrence has taken place. The names of A-1 and A-2 are actually found in the FIR, and the way in which P.W.1 narrated the occurrence would clearly indicate that A-1 and A-2 have role in the commission of the offence. 31. Yet other circumstance is that it was A-1 and A-2 who have actually cut the deceased Dillibabu on the direction of the tall man who was by the side. As far as A-4 is concerned, the name of A-4 does not find place in the FIR, and in respect of the recovery, witness has not been examined before the trial Court. As far as the tall man and the other are concerned, it cannot be made certain that they were A-3 and A-4 who were present at the place of occurrence. 32. As regards A-1 and A-2, this Court is of the considered opinion that their role is actually proved before the trial Court, and the evidence available would indicate that A-1 and A-2 have participated in and committed the crime. Under the circumstances, A-1 and A-2 have got to be found guilty as one done by the trial Court, and the judgment of the trial Court in their regard has got to be sustained. Under the circumstances, A-1 and A-2 have got to be found guilty as one done by the trial Court, and the judgment of the trial Court in their regard has got to be sustained. As regards A-3 and A-4, the judgment of the trial Court has got to be set aside, and they are entitled for acquittal. 33. In the result, C.A.Nos.194 and 813 of 2008 are allowed, setting aside the judgment of the trial Court in respect of A-3 and A-4. A-3 and A-4 are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They are directed to be released forthwith unless their presence is required in connection with any other case. The fine amounts if any paid by them will be refunded to them. 34. In the result, C.A.No.197 of 2008 is dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial Court in respect of A-1 and A-2.