Judgment :- Common Judgment: The appellants who have been arrayed as A1 to A16 have come forward with this appeal challenging their conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.5, Tiruvallur by the Judgment dated 23.05.2003 made in SC.No.152/2000. 2. Judgment :- Common Judgment: The appellants who have been arrayed as A1 to A16 have come forward with this appeal challenging their conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.5, Tiruvallur by the Judgment dated 23.05.2003 made in SC.No.152/2000. 2. The appellants have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Trial Judge as here under:-Accused Conviction u/s. Sentence Awarded Fine imposed Default Sentence awarded A1 to A16 148 IPC Each of the accused to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment Each of the accused to pay a fine of Rs.500/-Each of the accused to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment A7 to A16 147 IPC Each of the accused to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment Each of the accused to pay a fine of Rs.500/-Each of the accused to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment A1 to A7, A10, A12 to A16 451 IPC Each of the accused to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment Each of the accused to pay a fine of Rs.500/-Each of the accused to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment A8, A9, A11, A18 and A19 451 r/w 149 IPC Each of the accused to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment Each of the accused to pay a fine of Rs.500/-Each of the accused to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment A1 to A7, A10, A12 to A16 3(1) of TNPPDL Act Each of the accused to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment Each of the accused to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-Each of the accused to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment A8, A9, A11, A18, A19 3(1) of TNPPDL Act r/w 149 IPC Each of the accused to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment Each of the accused to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- Each of the accused to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment A2 to A6, A7, A11, A15 436 IPC Each of the accused to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment Each of the accused to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-Each of the accused to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment A1, A3, A5, A7 to A16, A18 and A19 436 IPC read with 149 IPC Each of the accused to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment Each of the accused to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-Each of the accused to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment A1 to A4, A6, A8, A9 4(1) of TNPPDL Act Each of the accused to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment Each of the accused to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-Each of the accused to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment A5, A7, A10 to A16 4(1) of TNPPDL Act read with 149 IPC Each of the accused to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment Each of the accused to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-Each of the accused to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment 3. There are totally 19 accused. A17 died before framing the charge by the trial court. A18 and A19 have been acquitted from all the charges by the trial court. The learned Trial Judge also acquitted the appellants for the other charges as here under:- Accused Charges Sentence A10, A11 3(1) of TNPPDL Act Acquitted A1 to A9, A12 to A16, A18, A19 3(1) of TNPPDL Act r/w 149 IPC Acquitted A1, A2, A10, A11 323 IPC Acquitted A1 to A16, A18, A19 323 r/w 149 IPC Acquitted A1 506(ii) IPC Acquitted A2 to A16, A18, A19 506(ii) read with 149 IPC Acquitted A18 and A19 147, 451 r/w 149, 436 r/w 149 IPC, 4(1) r/w 149 IPC Acquitted 4. Background Facts of the case as per the evidence adduced before the trial court are here under:- (a) Both the accused party and the prosecution party are the residents of one and the same village, viz., Kasinathapuram. A1’s house is adjacent to the house of P.W.1’s family. P.W.3 is the daughter-in-law of P.W.1, P.Ws.2 and 5 are the daughters of P.W.1. P.W.4 is the son-in-law of P.W.1. P.W.7 is the mother of P.W.6. There was dispute between 2 families, viz., the family of A1 and P.W.1 in respect of a common pathway. A day prior to the occurrence, i.e., 17.12.1998, A1’s son one Punniyakotti was murdered and in that case, P.W.1’s family members, viz., P.W.1’s husband and her son and others have been implicated as accused. Therefore, there were strained feelings between the accused party and prosecution party. (b) On the fateful day of occurrence, i.e., 18.12.1998 at 12.30 noon, the body of A1’s son was taken for cremation. At that time, all the accused caused damage to the house to P.W.1 and also caused damage to the tractor and trailer. P.Ws.1 to 7 claimed that they were hiding at the nearby sugarcane field and witnessed the occurrence. (c) P.W.1 stated that she has given 6 report to the police. But, no action was taken and the police demanded a bribe amount for registering the case. Thereafter, she has taken photographs and send a compliant to Chief Minister Cell. (d) P.W.23 received the report of P.W.1 dated 19.01.1999 through the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvallur District on 23.02.1999 at 10.00 a.m. Ex.P.1 is the report. He registered the case in Cr.No.169/1999 for the offence u/s.147, 148, 436, 379 and 506 IPC. Thereafter, she has taken photographs and send a compliant to Chief Minister Cell. (d) P.W.23 received the report of P.W.1 dated 19.01.1999 through the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvallur District on 23.02.1999 at 10.00 a.m. Ex.P.1 is the report. He registered the case in Cr.No.169/1999 for the offence u/s.147, 148, 436, 379 and 506 IPC. Ex.P.12 is the FIR. (e) P.W.23 took up investigation and went to the scene of occurrence. He prepared the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.4 and Rough Sketch, Ex.P.13. He examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and others. He requested the Motor Vehicle Inspector, P.W.12 to assess the damage caused to the Tractor and Trailer. He examined the Tahsildar and others. He received Ex.P.10, report from the Tahsildar. (f) The investigation was subsequently transferred to CBCID police as per the order of this court. P.W.24, the Inspector of Police, CBCID, took up further investigation. He went to the scene of occurrence on 18.08.1999 at 10.00 a.m. He prepared Observation Mahazar, Ex.P.7 and Rough Sketch, Ex.P.14. He examined P.W.1 again. On 19.08.1999, he arrested A1 and other accused and produced them before the court for judicial remand. On 20.08.1999, he went to the scene and recovered damaged articles M.Os.1 to 71 as per Mahazars, Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9. He has taken photographs of the damaged Tractor bearing No.TN-21-P-7023 and Trailer bearing No.TN-21-P-7024. He examined other remaining witnesses on 23.08.1999, 24.08.1999 and 04.12.1999. Some of the accused have been arrested P.W.24 on 31.08.1999. After completion of investigation, he laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offences u/s.147, 148, 323, 427, 435, 436, 451 and 506(ii) IPC read with 3(1) and 4(1) of TNPPDL Act read with 149 IPC. (g) The prosecution in order to substantiate its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 24, filed Exs.P.1 to 14 and marked M.Os. 1 to 71. 5. When the accused were questioned u/s.313 Cr.P.C, as to the incriminating materials available in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, they have come forward with the version of total denial. They have not chosen to examine any witness on their side. 6. Mr. 1 to 71. 5. When the accused were questioned u/s.313 Cr.P.C, as to the incriminating materials available in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, they have come forward with the version of total denial. They have not chosen to examine any witness on their side. 6. Mr. N.R. Elango, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case by adducing clear and consistent evidence and put forward the following contentions:- (a) There is an inordinate delay in giving report to the police as the occurrence said to have taken place on 18.12.1998 whereas the complaint preferred by P.W.1 only on 19.01.1999 and registered on 23.02.1999. Though P.W.1 claimed that she has given a report earlier, she has not even stated to the effect as to whom she has given the report or to which police. (b) There are contradictions in material particulars between the report, Ex.P.1 and the evidence of P.W.1. (c) P.W.3 stated that her co-sister one Devi gave report to the Tirutani Police Station. But the said police refused to receive the report. But P.W.23, the investigating officer categorically stated that he has examined the said Devi and she has not stated also in giving any report earlier to the police. (d) The independent witnesses P.Ws.8 to 11, 14 have turned hostile and the entire prosecution case rests on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 who are closely related to P.W.1’s family and their family members have already been implicated in the murder case of A1’s son and as such, they are the interested and partisan witnesses and no reliance can be placed on their evidence. (e) There are contradictions even in respect of the date of occurrence between the eyewitnesses P.Ws.1 to 7 as one set of witnesses stated that the occurrence took place on 18.12.1998 and the other set of witnesses stated that the occurrence took place 4 days thereafter, i.e., 21.12.1998. (f) The evidence of P.W.1 is self contradictory even as per her chief examination as she has stated initially that the occurrence took place at the time of body of A1’s son was taken for cremation, i.e., 18.12.1998. Again she has stated that the occurrence took place four days thereafter, i.e., 21.12.1998 and as such, the evidence of P.W.1 is unreliable. Again she has stated that the occurrence took place four days thereafter, i.e., 21.12.1998 and as such, the evidence of P.W.1 is unreliable. (g) P.Ws.1 to 7 have given minute details about each and every specific overt acts attributed to all the accused numbering 16 and such dramatic narration of the occurrence is improbable and unbelievable.” 7. Per contra, Mr. J.C. Durairaj, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would contend that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt by adducing clear and cogent evidence through P.Ws.1 to 7. It is contended that though other witnesses, viz., P.Ws.8 to 11 and 14 turned hostile, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 cannot be discarded. It is further contended that there are certain inconsistencies and contradictions between the evidence of the eyewitnesses, those contradictions not affected the main case of the prosecution as their versions have been corroborated by the recovery of the damaged articles and the photographs taken after the occurrence. He would further contend that the versions of P.Ws.1 to 7 also corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses, P.W.17-photographer and Mahazar witnesses, P.Ws.15 and 16. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) further contended that P.W.1 has given explanation for delay in giving report Ex.P.1 to the effect that the earlier report given to the police station was not taken on file and no action taken and only on the basis of the complaint preferred to the Chief Minister Cell, case was registered on 23.02.1998. It is submitted that there is no other infirmities in the prosecution case warranting interference of this court in the impugned judgment of conviction. 8. I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward on either side and also thoroughly scanned through the entire evidence available on record including the impugned judgment of conviction. 9. The entire prosecution case rests on the testimony of the eyewitnesses, viz., P.Ws.1 to 7 who are closely related to each other as the other independent witnesses, viz., P.Ws.8 to 11 and 14 have turned hostile completely as they have been given a total goby to their earlier version. It is pertinent to note that the family members of P.Ws.1 to 7 have already been implicated in the murder case of A1’s son as per the categorical admission of P.W.1 during the course of examination. It is pertinent to note that the family members of P.Ws.1 to 7 have already been implicated in the murder case of A1’s son as per the categorical admission of P.W.1 during the course of examination. Therefore, P.Ws.1 to 7 are not only interested witnesses, but they are partisan eyewitnesses. Such being the position, their evidence have to be scrutinized with great care and caution. 10. At the outset, it is to be stated that this is a classic case wherein the prosecution has not even come forward with the definite version regarding the exact date of occurrence. The versions of eyewitnesses P.Ws.1 to 7 have been varied in respect of the exact date of occurrence. It is seen that among P.Ws.1 to 7, one set of witnesses, i.e., P.Ws.2 and 5 stated that the occurrence took place on 18.12.1998 and whereas P.Ws.1, 3 and 6 stated that the occurrence took place on 21.12.1998. It is also pertinent to note that the evidence of P.W.1 is self contradictory as she has stated in the chief examination initially that the occurrence took place on 18.12.1998, i.e., on the date of A1’s son’s body was taken for cremation and again in the very same chief examination, she has changed her version and stated that four days thereafter, the occurrence took place, i.e., 21.12.1998. It is further seen that though P.W.2 has stated in her chief examination that the occurrence took place on 18.12.1998, she has changed her version in the cross examination to the effect that only on the date of the cremation of A1’s son’s body, the occurrence took place, i.e., 17.12.1998. P.W.4 on the other hand had stated that the occurrence took place on 14.12.1998. Therefore, there are serious infirmities and inconsistencies in respect of the date of occurrence in this case. 11. Added to such infirmity, it is pertinent to note that except P.W.1, all the witnesses have claimed to have been hiding in a nearby sugarcane field and such being the position, it is highly improbable for them to witness and to give minute details in respect of overt acts alleged against each of the accused. If really they are the witnesses, nothing prevented them and anyone of them to go to the police station and gave a report immediately. If really they are the witnesses, nothing prevented them and anyone of them to go to the police station and gave a report immediately. But the fact remains only P.W.1 claimed that she has given a report to the police station and no action was taken on such report. P.W.3 stated that her co-sister one Devi went to Tirutani police station and gave report and the same was not received. But, P.W.23, the investigating officer categorically admitted in his cross examination that he has examined the said Devi and she has not whispered a word about giving report to the police. 12. As far as P.W.1 is concerned her evidence is self contradictory even as per her Chief examination. It is seen that she has stated initially that the occurrence took place on 18.12.1998, i.e., on the next day of the murder of A1’s son and during the time when the body of cremation was taken for cremation. Again, in the very same chief examination, she has changed her version and stated that four days thereafter only the occurrence took place wherein all the accused said to have caused damaged to the house and to the Tractor and Trailer by pouring petrol and setting fire. Apart from her self-contradictory version in the evidence, there is also contradictions in the material particulars between the evidence of P.W.1 and the earlier report, Ex.P.1. In the report, Ex.P.1, she has stated that 3 police constables were present at the scene and they remained as silent spectators. But, she has not whispered a word about the presence of police in her evidence before the court. In Ex.P1 she has also stated that accused had taken away one Bullet motor bike and one TVS-50. But, she has not whispered about the same in her evidence. It is also pertinent to note that though she has claimed that she has given report earlier to the report and also mentioned in the belated report Ex.P.1 dated 19.01.1999 to the effect that she has given a report to the police earlier. She has not mentioned as to whom she has given the report. All these factors throws considerable doubt about the veracity of her version. It is also relevant to note that P.W.1 has not produced a copy of the report before the court given by her to the police. She has not mentioned as to whom she has given the report. All these factors throws considerable doubt about the veracity of her version. It is also relevant to note that P.W.1 has not produced a copy of the report before the court given by her to the police. Therefore, this court is of the considered view that the evidence of P.W.1 is untrustworthy and unreliable. 13. The yet another disturbing feature in the prosecution case is that the alleged eyewitnesses, P.Ws.1 to 7 have given a dramatic narration of the sequence of events and specific overt acts alleged against each of the accused. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a similar situation in Devi and Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another reported in 1981 SCC (Crl.) 679 has held as here under:- “3….. Another feature of the case which makes us doubt the credibility of the witnesses is the photographic and somewhat dramatic account which they gave of the incident with minute details of the attack on each of the victims. According to the account of the witnesses, it was as if each of the victims of the attack came upon the stage one after the other to be attacked by difference accused in succession, each victim and his assailant being followed by the next victim and the next assailant. Surely the account of the witnesses is too dramatic and sounds obviously invented to allow each witness to give evidence of the entire attack…..” In view of the above said principle of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision cited supra, this court is of the considered view that it is not safe to place reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7. 14. P.W.6 also stated that all the accused are unknown to her and it is highly improbable to identify those accused. Therefore, this court has to conclude that P.W.6 is identified all the accused only for the first time before the court and no value could be attached to such identification. 15. In view of the aforesaid infirmities and inherent improbabilities, this court has come to the irresistible conclusion that the impugned Judgment of conviction is unsustainable. Accordingly, the criminal appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.5, Tiruvallur in SC.No.152/2000 dated 23.05.2003 are set aside. 16. 15. In view of the aforesaid infirmities and inherent improbabilities, this court has come to the irresistible conclusion that the impugned Judgment of conviction is unsustainable. Accordingly, the criminal appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.5, Tiruvallur in SC.No.152/2000 dated 23.05.2003 are set aside. 16. It is reported that the appellants are on bail. The bail bonds executed by them shall stand terminated. The fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to them.