Judgment : K.N. BASHA, J. 1. These appeals have been preferred by A1 to A14, namely, Crl. A. No. 1102 of 2001 preferred by A3, A8 and A9, Crl. A. No. 1126 of 2001 preferred by A5, Crl. A. No. 1159 of 2001 preferred by A1, A2, A4, A10, A11 and A12 and Crl. A. No. 20 of 2002 preferred by A6, A7, A13 and A14. The appellants have been convicted and sentenced by the I Additional Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, by the judgment dated 30.10.2001 in S.C. No. 46 of 2000 in the following manner: 2. There are originally 20 accused, namely, A1 to A20. The learned trial Judge acquitted A-15 to A20 convicting the appellants A1 to A14. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that A8 and A10 died pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal No. 1159 of 2001. It is seen that the Village Administrative Officer has given a certificate, dated 1.12.2010. The perusal of the certificates would reveal that A8 died before two years and A10 died on 22.12.2004. Therefore, in view of the same, the Criminal Appeal No. 1159 of 2001 is abated in respect of the appellants A8 and A10. 3. The prosecution version as unfolded during the evidence adduced by the prosecution are hereunder: This is a case of double murder and as such for the sake of convenience, we hereby referred the two deceased, namely, Chokkalingam as D1 and Karuppu as D2. D1, D2 and P.W.4 are brothers. P.W.1 is the wife of D2. P.W.5 is the mother of D1 and D2 and P.W.4. P.W.2 is the daughter-in-law of D1. P.W.3 is the brother-in-law of D2. A1 and A2 are brothers, A3 and A5 are brothers. A9 is the mother of A3 and A8. b) The prosecution party and the accused party are the residents of Madurai. There was a money transaction between A1 and D1, as D1 has given a loan to A1. But A1 has not returned the dues. Three months prior to the occurrence, there was a quarrel between A1 and D1 in respect of the said money transaction. Thereafter D1 and A1 ‘s family members were not in talking terms. Therefore, there were strained feelings between the two families. c) On 24.4.1994, at 9.00 p.m., D1 went for collection of money. Three months prior to the occurrence, there was a quarrel between A1 and D1 in respect of the said money transaction. Thereafter D1 and A1 ‘s family members were not in talking terms. Therefore, there were strained feelings between the two families. c) On 24.4.1994, at 9.00 p.m., D1 went for collection of money. While he was returning back: to his house, A1 to A14 were standing in front of the bunk shop of P.W.8. A1 took out a soda bottle from the shop of P.W.8 and beat D1 on his forehead saying as to why he had abused A1 for not settling the dues. D1 informed P.W.1 and P.W.5. Thereafter P.W.1, P.W.4, P.W.5, D1 and D2 went to question the conduct of A1. While they were nearing the Chinna Anuppanadi new street, Chinthamani in front of the house of one Nandha Konar A1 to A24 along with five or six persons came there. At that time D1, D2, P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 questioned them as to why A1 attacked D1. All the accused have been armed with aruval, knife, patta knife and vel stick. At that time, they have questioned the conduct of D1, D2, P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 as to how dare they can question them. A1 with an aruval cut D2 on his left side shoulder and left knee with aruval. A2 cut D2 with an aruval on his right knee. A7 with an aruval cut D2 on his left side chest. A4 with an aruval cut D2 on his left side face. D2 fell down. All and A6 cut D1 on his head with patta knife. A8 cut D1 with patta knife on his fore head, when P.Ws.4 and 5 intervened, they have also sustained injuries on the head, left knee, right side head and right side back. All of them raised hue and cry, the accused ran away from that place. d) Thereafter D2‘s brother-in-law P.W.3 came there. He has been asked to bring a vehicle for taking the injured D2 to the hospital. He brought one tricycle. D1 and D2 have been taken in the said tricycle by P.Ws.1 and 3. P.Ws.4 and 5 left for the hospital in a cycle. d) Thereafter D2‘s brother-in-law P.W.3 came there. He has been asked to bring a vehicle for taking the injured D2 to the hospital. He brought one tricycle. D1 and D2 have been taken in the said tricycle by P.Ws.1 and 3. P.Ws.4 and 5 left for the hospital in a cycle. While they were reaching Sunnambukala- vasal, all the accused ran towards them and intercepted the tricycle, they have stated that if they leave the injured alive, it is danger to them and A1 instigated others to attack them. A3 stabbed D2 with vel stick on his right side, chest. A1 with an aruval cut D2 on his left thigh. A10 and A14 with knives cut D2 on his buttocks. A12 stab D2 with a knife on his back. A6 cut D2 with a patta knife on his lower abdomen. A13 cut D2 with an aruval on his shoulder. A20 cut D2 on his left and right hand fingers, A20 cut D2 on his left foot. A12 stabbed D1 on his right shoulder with a knife. A14 stabbed D1 with a knife on his buttocks. D1 fell down from the tricycle. A5 stabbed D1 with a velstick on his left chest. While P.W.1 intervened, A9 cut her on her left hand little finger and wrist. A7 cut P.W.3 with an aruval on his left hand finger and on his heed. Again P.W.1 was cut by the accused. Thereafter they ran away from the scene., P.W.1 asked P.W.3 to go to the hospital and she went to the Police Station. e) P.W.16, the Sub Inspector of Police recorded the report Exhibit P-1 from P.W.1 on 25.4.1994 at 4.00 a.m. He registered a case in Crime No. 144 of 1994 for offences under Sections 147, 148 , 341, 324, 307 and 302 IPC. Exhibit P-28 is the first information report and he has sent the same to the Magistrate and to the higher police officials. f) Doctor, P.W.12, examined P.W.1 on 24.4.1994 at 7.50 p.m. p.m. He found the following injuries: (1) a slicing injury on the left little finger over Pr. Px level 2x1 cm (2) a cut injury left fore arm 2 cm linear. The doctor of the opinion that the injury is of simple in nature. Exhibit P-14 is the wound certificate of P.W.1. Px level 2x1 cm (2) a cut injury left fore arm 2 cm linear. The doctor of the opinion that the injury is of simple in nature. Exhibit P-14 is the wound certificate of P.W.1. g) Doctor P.W.13 examined P.W.4 on 24.4.1994 at 11.35 p.m. He found the following injuries: (1) Sutured wound right temporal region 4 x 2 cm skin deep (2) incised wound right side of back 5 x 1 cm The Doctor is the of the opinion that the injury is of simple in nature. Exhibit P-15 is the accident register of P.W.4. h) On the same day, he examined P.W.3 at 11.55 p.m. he found the following injuries: (1) incised wound left side of forehead 4 x 1 cm (2) incised wound right forearm 8 x 2 cm (3) incised wound hand of left thumb 5 x 2 cm (ac) The doctor is of the opinion that the injury is of grievous in nature. Exhibit P-16 is the accident register of P.W.3. i) On 24.4.1994, at 11.50 p.m. he examined A7. He found the following injuries: (1) incised wound 8x4 cm skin deep of right elbow. The doctor is of the opinion that the injury is of simple in nature. Exhibit P-18 is the accident register of A7. j) On 25.4.1994, at 12.05 mid night, he examined A8 and found the following injuries: (1) incised wound 5 x 3 cm bone deep lower end of right forearm. (2) incised wound 3 x 1 cm right suprascapular area. The doctor is of the opinion that the injury is of simple in nature. Exhibit P-19 is the accident register of A8. k) On the same day, at 12.40 mid night, he examined A1. He found the following injuries. (1) incised wound right side of back 2x1 cm (2) incised wound left side of back 6x2 cm (3) incised wound left forearm 6x2 cm properly bleed. The doctor is of the opinion that the injury is of simple in nature. Exhibit P-20 the accident register of A1. (1) On the same day, heexamined A3 at 1.25 a.m. He found the following injuries. (1) Incisedwound left aide of upper lip 2x1 cm (2) Incisedwound 5x2 cm lover lip (both wounds have divided two lips (nc) (3) Contusion left forearm 5x4 cm (4) Abrasion left forearm 2x1 cm The doctor of the opinion that the injury grievous dental injury. (1) On the same day, heexamined A3 at 1.25 a.m. He found the following injuries. (1) Incisedwound left aide of upper lip 2x1 cm (2) Incisedwound 5x2 cm lover lip (both wounds have divided two lips (nc) (3) Contusion left forearm 5x4 cm (4) Abrasion left forearm 2x1 cm The doctor of the opinion that the injury grievous dental injury. Exhibit P-21 the accident register of A9. m) P.W.17 received the message on 25.4.1994 at 4.15 a.m. He received the first information report from P.W.16, at 4.40 a.m. He reached the Duraipandi Sunnambukalavasal and prepared the observation mahazar Exhibit P-2 and rough sketch Exhibit P-29 in the presence of witnesses. He went to the other place of occurrence, namely, in front of the house of one Nandhakonar. At 5.40 a.m, he prepared the observation mahazar Exhibit P-3 and rough sketch Exhibit P-30. He held inquest on the body of D2 from 6.20 a.m. to 7.20 a.m. Exhibit P-31 is the inquest report of D2. He also held inquest on the body of D1 from 7.20 a.m. to 8.20 a.m Exhibit P-32 is the inquest report of D1. n) Doctor P.W.14, attached to the Madurai Medical College Hospital conducted postmortem on D2 at 10 a.m. He has found the following injuries: (1) Transversely oblique stab injury right side chest 7x1 cm x entering the thoracic cavity, situated 8 cms below right nipple, cutting the 7th intercostal muscles and piercing the right lung 3 cms x linear x 1.5 cm ends as a point. Both ends pointed, margins regular. (2) Transversely oblique stab injury on the back of abdomen close to midline measuring 4x.5 cms x entering the abdominal cavity cutting the underlying muscles and piercing the right kidney 3 cms x linear x through and through. Retroperitoneal area contains 550 gms of clotted blood. Pelvic cavity contains 700 gms of clotted blood. (3) An incised wound above downwards right aide upper chest 8x1 cms x muscle deep; tailing downwards for 3 cms. On dissection: the wound passes obliquely downwards, inwards along the 9th intercostal space cutting the muscles, entering the thoracic cavity and cutting the right lung 4 cms x linear x 0.5 cms. (4) An incised wound left side cheek 2 cms below outer angle of left eye obliquely downwards and forwards measuring 7 cms x 1 cm x muscle deep; tailing downwards for a distance of 5 cms. (4) An incised wound left side cheek 2 cms below outer angle of left eye obliquely downwards and forwards measuring 7 cms x 1 cm x muscle deep; tailing downwards for a distance of 5 cms. (5) Cut injury obliquely above downwards on the upper 3rd of left leg below knee 8 x 3 x 3.5 cms obliquely cutting the tibia above downwards. (6) An incised wound on the left aide of the abdomen 12 x 2.5 cms x skin deep tailing anteriorly for 3 cms (7) An incisedwound left buttocks 8 cms x 2 cms, skin deep tailing 2 cms outer aide. (8) Defence wound seen on the left hand web space in between the index and middle finger measuring 4cms x 1 cm x 2.5 cms along the muscle plane. The Doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to external stab injuries on the right side chest and abdomen with its corresponding internal injuries (Injuries to the right lung and right kidney) sustained by him 39 to 42 hours prior to postmortem. Exhibit P-22 is the postmortem certificate of D2. o) On the same day, at 11.00 a.m., he has conducted postmortem on D1. He found the following injuries: (1) Transversely oblique stab injury 4 cms x 0.75 cms x entering the thoracic cavity cutting the third intercostal muscles. Margins regular, inner end pointed and outer end curved. The wound passes obliquely inwards and downwards. Inner border of left lung found to be cut off for a distance of 2.5 cms x 1 cm x through and through, passing through the pericardium 12 cms x linear x through and through and piercing the left ventricle 3 cms x linear x entering the lumen. Pericardium contains 20 gms of blood with clots. Heart chambers empty. (2) stab injury right side forehead antero posterior obliquely 4 cms from the right eyebrow, measuring 3 cms x .5 cm x 1 passing along the muscle plane obliquely downwards and inwards. (3) An oblique stab injury inner aspect of middle 3rd of left forearm, measuring 4 x 1 x 2.5 cms passing obliquely inwards below upwards. (4) oblique stab injury 4.5 cms above the previous wound (no. 3) 4 x .75 cm x 3.5 cms. On dissection the wound passes obliquely upwards. Margins regular, inner and curved, outer end pointed. (3) An oblique stab injury inner aspect of middle 3rd of left forearm, measuring 4 x 1 x 2.5 cms passing obliquely inwards below upwards. (4) oblique stab injury 4.5 cms above the previous wound (no. 3) 4 x .75 cm x 3.5 cms. On dissection the wound passes obliquely upwards. Margins regular, inner and curved, outer end pointed. (5) an oblique cut injury (transversely oblique) on the left parietal region 10 cms above the root of left side nose measuring 8x1 cms x bone deep, passing obliquely downwards, adjoining portion contains extravasated blood clots. (6) an oblique cut injury antero-pasteriarly 12 cms x 2 cms x 3.5 cms obliquely cutting the bones of left shoulder joint above downwards. (7) a transversely oblique cut injury left thumb terminal phalanx 3 x .5 cm x bone deep. (8) an oblique, cut injury below upwards in between the index and thumb of right hand 8 x 2 cms x bone deep, cutting the underlying bone below upwards. (9) anoblique cut injury on the palmar aspect of middle of the left foot 8 cms x 2 cms x 3.5 cms cutting the underlying metatarsal bones. (10) Two oblique cut injuries above downwards on the outer aspect of right thigh middle 3rd to the leg 2 cms x bone deep cutting the underlying bone for a distance of 3 cms; joining with lower aspect another cut injury 12 x 1.5 cms upto muscle deep. (11) an incised wound transversely oblique 10 x 25 cm. on the back of inner aspect of left forearm in between the stab injuries tailing outer side for 2.5 cms. (12) an incised wound right shoulder below downwards from the middle of the shoulder to the middle 3rd of upper arm measuring 15 x 1 cms x muscle deep, tailing downwards for 6 cms. The Doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to stab injury to the left lung, heart and injury to the skull sustained by him 38 to 42 hours prior to postmortem. Exhibit P-23 is the postmortem certificate of D1. p) P.W.17 in continuation of his investigation, recovered bloodstained earth, sample earth and bloodstains from the tricycle in the presence of witnesses. At other place of occurrence in front of the house of one Nandhakonar, he recovered the bloodstained earth and sample earth in the presence of witnesses. Exhibit P-23 is the postmortem certificate of D1. p) P.W.17 in continuation of his investigation, recovered bloodstained earth, sample earth and bloodstains from the tricycle in the presence of witnesses. At other place of occurrence in front of the house of one Nandhakonar, he recovered the bloodstained earth and sample earth in the presence of witnesses. He went to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai and examined the injured witnesses, P.Ws.1, 3 to 5. He received the report from A7 and registered a case in Crime No. 148 of 1994 for the offences under Section 147, 48, 341 and 324 IPC and took up the investigation in this case. q) In pursuance of the confession of A7, he recovered the bloodstained aruval. A2 surrendered before, the Magistrate Court. Thereafter he produced the other accused before the Court for remand. At 4.00 a.m, he arrested A1, A8 and A11 in pursuance of the admissible portion of confession of A2. He recovered bloodstained stained aruval M.O.13. He recovered vel stick M.O.14 at the instance of A8. He recovered a knife, patta knife at the instance of A11. He has produced the accused before the Court for remand and sent the material objects to the Court on 9.5.1994. He has arrested A3 and A16 at 10.30 a.m. and produced them before the Court for remand. On 6.5.1994 he received the message that Ravi alias Ravichandran/A4 surrendered before the Magistrate Court at Nilakottai on 29.4.1994. A5 surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court on 7.5.1994. A3 surrendered before the Manapparai Magistrate Court on 27.4.1994 and P.W.17, the Inspector of Police, has taken him to the police custody pursuant to the order of the Magistrate. r) In pursuance of the admissible portion of confession of A3, P.W.17 recovered velkambu M.O.16, M.O.17 velstick under Exhibit P-36 and thereafter he has produced the accused before the Court for remand. At the instance of A11, he has recovered patta knife. He has examined P.W.16. He has sent the requisition for the Court for certain material objects for chemical examination. On 22.9.1994, he has received the accident registers in respect of the injured witnesses P.Ws.1, 3, 4, 5 and A7, A1, A8 and A9. He has referred the case registered in Crime No. 148 of 1994 on the basis of the complaint preferred by A7 as “mistake of fact ‘. On 22.9.1994, he has received the accident registers in respect of the injured witnesses P.Ws.1, 3, 4, 5 and A7, A1, A8 and A9. He has referred the case registered in Crime No. 148 of 1994 on the basis of the complaint preferred by A7 as “mistake of fact ‘. One of the accused said to have participated in this case, namely, Inji Pandi died due to murder as per Crime No. 1051 of 1994. He has also received the postmortem certificates in respect of D1 and D2. He has received the chemical examination report, Exhibit P-26 and serology report Exhibit P-27. On completion of investigation, he has laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 148, 341, 323, 326, 302 and 120 (b) IPC. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges against the accused examined P.Ws.1 to 17 filed Exhibits P-1 to P-39 and marked M.Os.1 to 16. 5. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of incriminating materials appearing against each of them, all the accused have come forward with the version of total denial. They have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. They have neither examined any witnesses nor marked any documents on their side. 6. Mr. N. Natarajan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for A5 and A6, would contend that the entire prosecution case suffer from serious infirmities and inconsistencies. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the prosecution placed reliance only on the interested witnesses, namely, P.Ws.1 to 5 and their evidence is contradictory in material particulars. It is submitted that the other eye witnesses P.Ws.7 to 10 have been completely turned hostile. The learned Senior Counsel vehemently contended the A1, A7, A8 and A9 have sustained incised wounds on the vital parts of their body as per the accident registers Exhibits P-18 to P-21, but none of the eye witnesses explained the injuries sustained by A1, A7 to A9. It is pointed out that even the investigating officer P.W.17, in spite of receiving the report from A7 and registered the case in Crime No. 148 of 1994 has not investigated the said complaint properly and in the manner known to law. It is pointed out that even the investigating officer P.W.17, in spite of receiving the report from A7 and registered the case in Crime No. 148 of 1994 has not investigated the said complaint properly and in the manner known to law. It is contended that P.W.17 has admitted that none of the eye witnesses have given any explanations about the injury sustained by the accused during the investigation. The learned senior counsel would proceed to submit that in view of the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by four, accused, it is very clear that the prosecution has not come forward with a true version and the genesis and origin of the occurrence has been suppressed by the prosecution. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel would place reliance on the following decisions of the Hon‘ble Apex Court: (1) Lakshmi Singh and Others v. State of Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2263 : 1976 SCC (Cr) 671 : LNIND 1976 SC 324 (2) Babu Ram and Others v. State of Punjab, AIR 2008 SC 1260 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cr) 727 : LNIND 2008 SC 361 : (2008) 1 MLJ (Crl) 1369 7. Mr. S. Shanmugevelayutham, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for A3, A8 and A9 meticulously taken us through the evidence of the eye witnesses P.Ws.1 to 5 and contended that their evidence is unbelievable and unreliable as the same is suffering from serious infirmities. It is contended that P.Ws.1 to 5 have come forward with a parrot like version of the sequence of events taken place during the course of occurrence by giving minute, dramatic and photographic details of each and every overt acts attributed against each one of 14 accused. It is contended that it is inherently improbable for P.Ws.1 to 5 to give such a detailed version of occurrence and as such their version is unbelievable and unreliable. It is pointed out that all the said eye witnesses stated that they are not aware about as to how A1, A7, A8 and A9 have been sustained injuries. But P.W.1 admitted that the said accused have been admitted in the hospital on 24.5.1994. It is further pointed out that the other eye witnesses, namely, P.Ws.2 to 5 have bluntly denied to the effect that they are not aware about the injuries sustained by any one of the accused. 8. Mr. But P.W.1 admitted that the said accused have been admitted in the hospital on 24.5.1994. It is further pointed out that the other eye witnesses, namely, P.Ws.2 to 5 have bluntly denied to the effect that they are not aware about the injuries sustained by any one of the accused. 8. Mr. P. Chellapandian, learned senior counsel, appearing for A1, A2, A4 and A11 would submit that there are material contradictions between the evidence of P.W.1 and Exhibit P-1 as well as between the evidence of P.W.1 and other eye witnesses. It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that P.W.1 has stated in his evidence that A1 cut D2 with an aruval on his left shoulder, but the said overt act was not mentioned in Exhibit P-1. It is further contended that P.W.1 stated in his evidence that A2 cut D2 on his right knee. But there is absolutely no corresponding injury found as per the medical evidence from the perusal of accident register. The learned Senior Counsel would proceed to contend further that P.W.2 in his evidence stated that A1 cut D1 on his left shoulder and on his left knee whereas, P.W.1 stated that A1 cut D2 on those parts of the body and as such P.Ws.1 and 2 have not come forward with a clear and consistent version and their evidence is unreliable. 9. Mr. A. Padmanaban, learned counsel, appearing for A13 would contend that P.W.1 stated in his evidence that A13 cut D2 on his shoulder, but the said overt act is not mentioned in her report Exhibit P-1. It is pointed out that in the report Exhibit P-1, it is mentioned that A13 cut D1 and as such P.W.1 has not come forward with a clear and true version. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the name of P.W.2 is not mentioned in Exhibit P-1. The learned counsel would also point out that P.W.2 has categorically admitted in his cross examination that A1, A2, A4, A6, A10 and A12 attacked D1 and D2 and all the other accused armed with weapons were standing five feet away and they have not attacked. 10. Mr. The learned counsel would also point out that P.W.2 has categorically admitted in his cross examination that A1, A2, A4, A6, A10 and A12 attacked D1 and D2 and all the other accused armed with weapons were standing five feet away and they have not attacked. 10. Mr. V.M.R. Rajendran, learned counsel, appearing for the A7 and A14 would contend that P.Ws.1 to 5 have stated that A7 cut D2 on the left side of chest, but the medical evidence through the Doctor, P.W.14, would disclose that there is no corresponding injury found on the left side chest of D2 and as such the eye witnesses have not come forward with a true version. It is further contended that the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of P.Ws.1 and 2 reached two days after the occurrence to the Magistrate Court, but the said statement of the other eye witnesses reached only on 20.1.1995. 11. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that this is a case of double murder and the prosecution case is substantiated by five eye witnesses. Though the other eye witnesses P.Ws.7 to 10 turned hostile, it is contended that many of the eye witnesses, P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and 5 have also sustained injuries at the hands of the accused. The learned Additional Public Prosecute would submit that the evidence of eye witnesses is also corroborated by the medical evidence as the Doctor P.Ws.12 and 13 found corresponding injuries as per the overt act alleged against each of the accused. It is contended that the accused sustained only simple injuries and as such the non-explanation of the injuries was not vital to the prosecution case, The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that though certain discrepancies pointed out in the prosecution case, the same has not affected the main case of the prosecution. 12. We have given our careful and anxious considerations to the rival contentions put forward by either side and also thoroughly scrutinized the entire evidence available on record and perused the impugned judgment of conviction. 13. The prosecution heavily placed reliance on the evidence of eye witnesses P.Ws.1 to 5 and 7 to 10. The fact remains that P.Ws.7 to 10 have given a total go by to their earlier version and they have turned hostile. 13. The prosecution heavily placed reliance on the evidence of eye witnesses P.Ws.1 to 5 and 7 to 10. The fact remains that P.Ws.7 to 10 have given a total go by to their earlier version and they have turned hostile. Therefore, the prosecution case is left with the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5. It is seen that P.Ws.1 to 5 are closely related to the two deceased. P.W.1 is the wife of D2. P.W.2 is the daughter-in-law of D1. P.W.3 is the brother-in-law of D2. P.W.4 is the brother of D1 and D2 and P.W.5 is the mother of D1, D2 and P.W.4 and as such we have to scrutinize their evidence with great care and caution. 14. The sheet anchor of the contentions of the defence is to the effect that A1, A7, A8 and A9 have also sustained injuries. But their injuries have not been explained by the prosecution. We are able to see much force in the said contention put forward by the learned Senior Counsel. The fact remains that A1, A7, A8 and A9 have sustained incised wounds as per the perusal of the accident registers Exhibit P-18 to Exhibit P-21. The injuries were also found on the vital parts of their body. It is pertinent to note that A9 admittedly sustained a grievous injury as per the perusal of the accident register Exhibit P-21. Merely because, it is opined by the Doctor that the other accused sustained simple injuries, we cannot brush aside the same so lightly. At the risk of repetition, it is to be reiterated that all the other accused have also sustained incised wounds and considering the size and nature of the injury, it is very clear that those injuries could have been caused with full force with a sharp-edged weapon. 15. A perusal of Exhibits P-18 to P-21, the accident registers issued for A1, A7, A8 and A9 would reveal that all of them have stated before the Doctor that they have been cut by the assailant with an aruval. It is seen that the perusal of Exhibit P-18 issued in respect of A7 reveals that he has sustained incised wound 18x4 cm skin deep back of right elbow. As far as A8 is concerned, it is seen from the perusal of, Exhibit P-19 that A8 suffered an incised wound 5x3 cms. It is seen that the perusal of Exhibit P-18 issued in respect of A7 reveals that he has sustained incised wound 18x4 cm skin deep back of right elbow. As far as A8 is concerned, it is seen from the perusal of, Exhibit P-19 that A8 suffered an incised wound 5x3 cms. bone deep at the lower end of right forearm. It is seen that she has also sustained another wound on his back of shoulder. As far as A1 is concerned, the perusal of Exhibit P-20, would reveal that he has received two incised wounds on the right and leftside of his back apart from another incised wound sustained by him on the left forearm and one of the two injury namely, injuries 1 and 2 is of the size of 6 x 2 cm. Injury Nos. 2 and 3 are the incised wounds on the left and right aide of his back. 16. It is pertinent to note that the Doctor P.W.13 examined A7 on 24.4.1994 itself at 11.50 p.m. i.e on the date of occurrence, A1, A8, A9 during the midnight, namely, A8 examined on 25.4.1994 at 12.05 p.m. A1 examined on 12.40 mid night on 25.4.1994 and A9 examined on 25.4.1994 at 1.25 a.m. The fact remains that all the four accused sustained injuries at the hands of the assailants by using sharp edged weapons. Doctor, P.W.13 also opined that the said accused could have sustained injuries by using the weapon, namely, aruval, patta knife and vel stick. It is also relevant to note that the Doctor has sent the intimation to the police immediately about the injuries sustained by the accused. In spite of these overwhelming materials available on record to make it clear that A1, A7, A8 and A9 sustained injuries at the very same occurrence, the eye witnesses P.Ws.1 to 5 have not come forward with any explanation as to how the accused sustained injuries. The version of P.W.1 as per the cross examination discloses that though she has evaded to give any answer for the injury sustained, she has admitted that A1, A7 to A8 have been admitted in the hospital on 25.4.1994. She has categorically further admitted in her cross examination that A3 and A9 were found in the hospital. The version of P.W.1 as per the cross examination discloses that though she has evaded to give any answer for the injury sustained, she has admitted that A1, A7 to A8 have been admitted in the hospital on 25.4.1994. She has categorically further admitted in her cross examination that A3 and A9 were found in the hospital. But all the other eye witnesses namely, P.W.2 to P.W.5 have simply, come forward with a vague version to the effect that they are not aware about the injuries sustained by the accused. 17. The investigating officer P.W.17 stated in his chief examination that he has received a report from A7 and registered a case in Crime No. 148 of 1994. It is further stated by P.W.17 that the final report was filed in respect of the said first information report registered on the basis, of the complaint preferred by A7 has been referred as “Mistake of Fact ” as per Exhibit P-39. It is seen that in the said final report D1 and D2 and P.Ws.1, 3, 4 and 5 have been shown as accused in the said crime number. It is curiously stated by P.W.17 in his cross examination that he has examined, the witnesses in respect of the injuries sustained by the accused. But he has not given any details in respect of registering the case, as stated above and the eye witnesses P.Ws.2 to 5 have simply stated that they are totally unaware about the injuries sustained by A1, A7, A8 and A9. If really P.W.17 conducted any Investigation on the basis of the first information report registered on the basis of the complaint preferred by A7, he could have very well enquired P.Ws.1, 3 to 5, who have been implicated as accused in the said case. P.W.17 also stated that he is not aware about the admission. of the accused in the hospital and he came to know about the admission of the accused in the hospital only on 28.4.1994, in spite of the fact that the Doctor P.W.13 categorically stated that he has sent the intimation immediately to the police. It is also unfortunate to note that P.W.17 admitted in his cross examination that he has not seen the statements recorded on the basis of the report given by A7 to the Court. 18. It is also unfortunate to note that P.W.17 admitted in his cross examination that he has not seen the statements recorded on the basis of the report given by A7 to the Court. 18. Added to these infirmities, it is admitted by P.W.17 that none of the witnesses have given any explanation as to how the accused sustained injuries during the course of his investigation. As we have already pointed out A1, A7, A8 and A9 have sustained the incised wounds and P.W.1 admitted about the admission of the said accused in the hospital and whereas the other witnesses P.Ws.2 to 5 have simply stated that they are not aware about the injuries sustained by the accused and as such, it is crystal clear that the prosecution has not explained the injuries sustained by the accused. 19. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer the decision of a landmark decision of the Apex Court in Lakshmi Singh and Others v. State of Bihar (supra) held as hereunder: “11. …in a murder case, the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused at about the time of the occurrence or in the course of altercation is a very important circumstance from which the Court can draw the following inferences: 1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented that true version; 2) that the witnesses who have denied the presence of the injuries on the person of the accused are lying on a most material point and therefore their evidence is unreliable; 3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the injuries on the person of the accused it is rendered probable so as to throw doubt on the prosecution case. The omission on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the accused assumes much greater importance where the evidence consists of interested or inimical witnesses… ” 20. By following the decision, the principle was again reiterated by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in yet another latest decision in Baburam v. State of Punjab(supra). 21. The principles laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in the decisions cited supra are squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as in the case on hand also, the prosecution has not explained the injuries sustained by A1, A7, A8 and A9. 21. The principles laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in the decisions cited supra are squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as in the case on hand also, the prosecution has not explained the injuries sustained by A1, A7, A8 and A9. The eye witness, namely, P.Ws.1 to 5 are not only the interested witnesses, but they are also on inimical terms and as such we have no hesitation to hold that, the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and origin of the occurrence and on this ground, the entire prosecution case would collapse. 22. The yet another important factor to be borne in mind to the effect that in spite of the fact that the case registered on the basis of the complaint preferred by A7 is a case in counter, the Investigating officer, P.W.17, has not followed the procedure contemplated in conducting the investigation in respect of a case in counter. 23. At this juncture, it relevant to refer the Division Bench decision of this Court in Ravichandran and Others v. Inspector of Police, Thittakudi 2007-2-L.W. (Crl.) 827 : (2006) 2 MLJ (Crl) 1048 wherein, it was :held as hereunder at p. 1058 of MLJ (Crl): “14. This Court has been repeatedly holding that when there is a case and counter the investigating officer has to investigate both the complaints in a manner known to law and file the final report in one case and exhibit the materials collected by him during investigation in the connected complaint before the Court, leaving the entire issue namely which is true or false to be decided by the Court, this is not done in this case, namely, the complaint given by A1 is not marked; the statement of witnesses recorded during investigation on that complaint is not marked and on top of it the final report is also not marked. .... The police officer is only an investigating officer and he is not the adjudicator. On the other hand it is for the Court to decide which complaint is true and who are the aggressors.....all the eyewitnesses and the deceased are thickly related. There is a long standing enmity between the prosecution party and the accused. On these facts, non-examination of Saraswathi and Alamelu, in, the context of the disclosures made by them during investigation assumes importance. There is a long standing enmity between the prosecution party and the accused. On these facts, non-examination of Saraswathi and Alamelu, in, the context of the disclosures made by them during investigation assumes importance. In this context the stand of the first accused taken by him in his written statement filed at the end of questioning appears to be more probable than the prosecution case. The Supreme Court as early as in the year 1976 in the case in Lakshmi Singh v. State Of Bihar Lakshmi Singh v. State Of Bihar (1976) 4 SCC 394 held that when the origin of the prosecution case is suppressed, then the prosecution case must fail. In this case for more than one reason, we find that the prosecution is definitely guilty of suppressing the origin of the case. ” The principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the decision cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand as in this case also, as we have already held that the Investigating officer, P.W.17, has not followed the procedure contemplated in conducting the investigation in respect of a case in counter. 24. Apart from the above such serious infirmity in the prosecution case, the learned counsels for the appellants also pointed out several infirmities, inconsistencies and improbabilities. The first and foremost aspect to test the credibility of the version of eye witnesses P.Ws.1 to 5 is the nature of their version by giving minute details about how the occurrence took place on the fateful day. The perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 reveals that the said witnesses have come forward with a parrot like version of minute, dramatic and photographic details by mentioning each and every specific overt acts alleged as against each one of 14 accused. It is inherently improbable for them to watch the sequence of events of occurrence and to give minute details regarding each and every overt acts against 14 accused. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the said version of the eyewitnesses is unbelievable and unreliable. 25. It is inherently improbable for them to watch the sequence of events of occurrence and to give minute details regarding each and every overt acts against 14 accused. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the said version of the eyewitnesses is unbelievable and unreliable. 25. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer a decision of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in Sevi v. State of T.N. AIR 1981 SC 1230 : 1981 SCC (Cri.) 679 : LNIND 1981 SC 128 : (1981) 1 MLJ (Crl) 613, in which, it has held as follows at p. 615 of MLJ (Crl): “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 different 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. But the witnesses themselves admit in cross-examination that they were all attacked simultaneously. If so, it was impossible for each of them to have noticed the attack on everyone else..... ” The principle laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in the decision cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as in this case also, we have already pointed out that P.Ws.1 to 5, eye witnesses have came forward with a parrot like version of minute, dramatic and photographic details about the occurrence. 26. Yet another disturbing feature in the prosecution case is that the evidence of eye witnesses P.Ws.1 to 5 is contradictory is material particulars. The fact remains that they have not come forward with a clear and consistent version. It is seen that, P.W.1 has stated in his chief examination that A2 cut D2 with an aruval on his left side shoulder. But in his report under Exhibit P-1 such overt act was hot attributed against A1 and there is no corresponding injury found on the left shoulder of D2. It is seen that, P.W.1 has stated in his chief examination that A2 cut D2 with an aruval on his left side shoulder. But in his report under Exhibit P-1 such overt act was hot attributed against A1 and there is no corresponding injury found on the left shoulder of D2. It is also seen that P.W.I has stated in his evidence that A2 cut D2 on his right knee. But there is no corresponding injury as per the perusal of the postmortem certificate (D2) Exhibit P-22. The yet another contradiction found in the evidence of P.W.1 is to the effect that she has stated that A13 cut D2 with an aruval on his shoulder, but the said overt act was not at all mentioned in her report Exhibit P-1. But, on the other hand, it is stated that A13 cut D1 on his shoulder. 27. Now coming to the evidence of P.W.2. He has stated in his chief examination that A1 cut D1 on his left shoulder and left knee and whereas P.W.1 has stated in her evidence by attributing the said overt act again on D2. It is also seen that P.W.2 has categorically admitted in her cross examination that A1, A2, A6, A10 and A14 attacked D1 and D2 and the other accused not attacked Dl and D2. It is pertinent to note that the presence of P.W.2 is not mentioned in the earliest report Exhibit P-1. As far as P.W.3 is concerned, he has not at all implicated A13. 28. P.W.4 has stated that A2 cut D2 with an aruval on his hands and on the left knee, but the said overt act was attributed to A1 to P.W.1 in his evidence. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the evidence of the eye witnesses even in respect of overt act alleged against some of the accused is contradictory to each other. In view of all these factors, we are of the view that the entire prosecution case suffers from serious infirmities and inherent improbabilities. 29. For the aforesaid reasons, we have come to the irresistible conclusion that the impugned judgment of conviction is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, in S.C. No. 46 of 2000, dated 30.10.2001 is set aside. 29. For the aforesaid reasons, we have come to the irresistible conclusion that the impugned judgment of conviction is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the learned 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, in S.C. No. 46 of 2000, dated 30.10.2001 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted on all charges. Fine amount paid, if any, is directed to be refunded to the appellants. Bail bond executed shall stand terminated.