Judgment : Ms. CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J. 1. These appeals are filed by the accused against the judgment dated 23.8.2001 made in S.C. No. 44 of 1998 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. 2. The Court below convicted Accused Nos. 1 to 27, who are the appellants herein, and acquitted Accused Nos. 28 and 29. Insofar A-23 Mahalingam is concerned, since he is reported dead, Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 979 of 2001 stands abated. 3. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.I Christudoss was having his business in Arishtam in Nallur. So too the first accused. On account of prior differences between P.W.1 and A-1, as well as regards the construction of CSI Church in Nallur and the polling in Panchayat election, on 9.10.1996 at 9.30 p.m., when the deceased were returning from the church, the accused, along with one Periasamy, with the intention of attacking the deceased with dangerous weapons, unlawfully joined in front of Nallur Veterinary Hospital and caused the murder of Chellappan, Thangappan and one Amirtham, apart from causing injury to others who accompanied the deceased; thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 147 , 148 Sections 147 , 148 , 323, 324, 307, 302 read with Section 149 , I.P.C. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 35, marked Exhibits P-1 to P-45 and produced M.Os.1 to 22. 5. The Court below, by its judgment, convicted the accused and sentenced them as follows: Convicted A-2 to A-6, A-8, A-9, A-10, A-13 to A-27 for the offence under Section 147 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-each, in default of which, to undergo three months‘ rigorous imprisonment; Convicted A-1, A-7, A-11 and A-12 for the offence under Section 148 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo three years‘ rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. l,000/-each, in default of which, to undergo three months‘ rigorous imprisonment; Convicted A-1, A-11, A-14, A-15 and A-16 (in respect of commission of murder of Chellappan) under Section 302 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. l,000/-each, in default of which, to undergo three months‘ rigorous imprisonment; Convicted A-1, A-11, A-14, A-15 and A-16 (in respect of commission of murder of Chellappan) under Section 302 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of which, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment; Convicted A-2, A-3, A-6, A-7, A-10 and A-12 under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. l,000/-, in default of which, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment; Convicted A-6, A-10, A-12 (in respect of commission of murder of Thangappan) under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. l,000/- in default of which, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment; Convicted A-3, A-7, A-11, A-14 to A-16 under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. l,000/-, in default of which, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment; Convicted A-1 to A-3 (in respect of commission of murder of Amirtham) under Section 302 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. l,000/-, in default of which, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment; Convicted A-6, A-7, A-10, A-11, A-12, A-14, A-15 and A-16, each of them under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of which, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment; Convicted A-4, A-5, A-13, A-18, A-19, A-20, A-21, A-22, A-24, A-26 and A-27 under Section 323 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of which, to undergo three months‘ rigorous imprisonment; Convicted A-7 and A-12 under Section 324 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo three years‘ rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of which, three months‘ rigorous imprisonment; and the sentences were directed to be run concurrently. The Court below convicted the accused on the basis of evidence of eye-witnesses P.Ws.1 to 8, of whom, P.Ws.1 to 5 happened to be injured witnesses. 1,000/-, in default of which, three months‘ rigorous imprisonment; and the sentences were directed to be run concurrently. The Court below convicted the accused on the basis of evidence of eye-witnesses P.Ws.1 to 8, of whom, P.Ws.1 to 5 happened to be injured witnesses. The deceased Chellappan D-1, Thangappan D-2, and Amirtham D-3 are blood brothers. A-1 and A-2 namely, Thangasamy and Rathinasamy, are brothers. A-4, A-12 and A-24 are also brothers. A-10 and A-29 are also brothers. A-23 Mahalingam is father of A-15 and A-26. 6. It is seen from the facts narrated herein that the accused belonged to Hindu Nadar faction and the victims herein belonged to Christian Nadar Community. Admittedly and evidently, there had been frictions between these two communities on account of the construction of a CSI Church in Nallur, and as regards the panchayat election polling. Quite apart from this, A-1 also had his grievance against P.W.1 and others, as they did not have any business transactions in purchasing “Arishtam” from him. 7. On 9.10.1996, there was a Panchayat election held in the village. It was stated that A-1‘s brother Rathinasamy contested the election, apart from others. However, P.W.1 is stated to have workred in support of the opposite parties, one Ganesan and Bhagavathi Pillai, causing the displeasure of A-1 and others who accompanied him. After the election at 8.00 p.m., P.W.1, along with P.W.2 - Chellam P.W.4 - Simpson, P.W.5 Selvidoss and others numbering around 50, went to the church. After offering prayers, since one of their friends by name Rajamani was not doing well, they decided to go and see the said Rajamani. Thus at about 9.15 p.m., while they were coming near Nallur Veterinary Hospital, A-1 Thangasamy, A-2 Rathinasamy, A-3 Subbiah came and attacked the deceased and the injured witnesses as a gang. A-1 - Thangasamy, A-7 - Murugan, A-11 Subramaniam and A-12 Mannarperumal‘s son Murugan, were carrying aruval, while A-2 -Rathinasamy, A-3 Subbiah and others had sticks and stones on their hands. A-1 attacked the deceased Chellappan on the left side of his head. So too, A-11 on Chellappan‘s head and on the left ear and A-7 on Chellappan‘s right side of head, A-14, A-15 and A-16 attacked the deceased Chellappan on his right shoulder, left leg and the deceased Amirtham was attacked by A-3 with a stick and A-1 with aruval on Amirtham‘s head. So too, A-11 on Chellappan‘s head and on the left ear and A-7 on Chellappan‘s right side of head, A-14, A-15 and A-16 attacked the deceased Chellappan on his right shoulder, left leg and the deceased Amirtham was attacked by A-3 with a stick and A-1 with aruval on Amirtham‘s head. A-2 and A-3 hit at the eyes of Amirtham. Thangappan was attacked by A-12 on his forehead and A-6 on Thangappan‘s left eye, A-10 on Thangappan‘s thigh, A-6, A-10, A-12 and A-13 attacked an his body, apart from causing injuries to P.W.1 - Christudoss, P.W.2 Chellam, P.W.4 - Simpson, P.W.3 - Samraj, P.W.5 - Selvadoss and Thangavelu Nadar. The occurrence happened under the street light as well as near the Veterinary Hospital Board, where there was electric bulb glowing. It is stated that on seeing the police who had come to take the ballot box, the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence along with their stick and aruval. Chellappan died on the spot, while others suffered grievous injuries. The deceased Chellappan was taken in a jeep and deceased Amirtham, along with the other injured persons, were taken in a lorry, to the Government Hospital. Chellappan died enroute to the hospital. Amirtham and Thangappan, while they were under treatment, died in the hospital. 8. Thiraviyam - P.W.32, working as Sub Inspector in Anjugramam Police Station, was on election duty therein. On receipt of the wireless message at about 22.45 hours on 9.10.1996, he went to the occurrence spot along with Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police and other policemen. He took the deceased Chellappan, injured Amirtham and Thangappan and other injured persons in their mobile lorry to admit them in Kottar Government Hospital. He came to Kottar Government Hospital and registered a statement of one Nallur Christopher, who was admitted as an in-patient. He came to the Police Station at about 23.45 hours and registered a case in Crime No. 483 of 1996 under Sections 147 , 148 Sections 147 , 148 , 307 and 302, I.P.C. Exhibit P-29 is the printed First Information Report. He forwarded the complaint and the First Information Report to the Nagercoil Magistrate Court as well as the copies of the said First Information Report and complaint to the higher authorities through P.W.33. 9. He forwarded the complaint and the First Information Report to the Nagercoil Magistrate Court as well as the copies of the said First Information Report and complaint to the higher authorities through P.W.33. 9. P.W.34 - Muthuswamy, working as Circle Inspector in Susindram Police Station, on receipt of the First Information Report, took up the investigation. He visited the scene of occurrence at Nallur on 10.10.1996 at about 1 O‘ Clock early in the morning. He prepared the Observation mahazar Exhibit P-2 and Rough Sketch Exhibit P-3 in the presence of the witnesses. On 10.10.1996, he came to the Nagercoil Kottar Government Hospital at about 6.30 a.m., and conducted inquest on the body of Chellappan in the presence of panchayatdars and forwarded the body for conducting autopsy. At about 9.15 a.m, he conducted inquest on the dead body of Thangappan and at about 11.30 a.m., he conducted inquest on the body of Amirtham in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses. Exhibits P-32, P-33 and P-34 are the inquest reports of Chellappan, Thangappan and Amirtham respectively. He conducted enquiry and recorded statements from the eye-witnesses. He enquired the other witnesses and recorded their statements. He came to the occurrence spot at 13.30 hours and recovered M.O.5 (Series) -blood stained 3 feet wooden reaper, M.O.3 - black checked red towel, M.O.4 -blood stained black and white lined light blue colour towel, M.O.1 -blood stained sample earth, M.O.2 - sample earth on 10.10.1996 at about 4.00 p.m., under Mahasar Exhibit P-3. On 10.10.1996 at about 4.00 p.m., near Potheri Bus Stand, he arrested A-1 Thangasamy in the presence of witnesses and recorded confessional statement made voluntarily by the accused. The admissible portion of A-1 was marked as Exhibit P-4. Based on the confession thus made, A-1 took and produced M.O.6 (Series) - 3 aruvals from a small hut in a coconut thope opposite to Chengatti bridge under seizure mahazar Exhibit P-5. Thereafter, along with the accused, P.W.34 went near a hillock near Potheri and arrested accused Rathinasamy - A-2, Subbiah A-3, Gnanasundaram A-4, Nagarajan A-17, Krishnamurthy A-18, Palmani A-19, Chelladurai A-22 and Mahalingam A-23 at about 18.30 hours and remanded them to judicial custody. He examined further witnesses and recorded their statements. He sent the material objects for chemical examination. Thereafter, he handed over the case to the other Inspector - P.W.35 for further enquiry. 10. He examined further witnesses and recorded their statements. He sent the material objects for chemical examination. Thereafter, he handed over the case to the other Inspector - P.W.35 for further enquiry. 10. P.W.35 took up further investigation in this matter and recorded the statement of the witnesses. On 25.10.1996, at 2 O‘ Clock in the afternoon, in front of Susindram Selvam Theatre, he arrested Subramanian A-29 and remanded him to judicial custody. He examined witnesses and recorded their statements. On 24.10.1996, he made a petition before Tiruchendur Magistrate Court to take Ravi - A-10 Balakrishnan - A-15 and Chandran -A-6 under police custody. In the presence of witnesses, Ravi A-10 made a confession statement voluntarily. The admissible portion of the same is marked as Exhibit P-6.At about 21.00 hours, Chandran A-6 made a voluntary confession statement. The accused took and produced M.O.7 series - wooden log from near a bush near the fertilizer shop in the road going towards Marunga. The same was recovered under Exhibit P-7. On 29.10.1996, he recorded the confession statement of Subramanian. On 3.11.1996, he arrested Sathish Pandian A-21 and recorded the confession statement Exhibit P-10. He took and produced the wooden log - M.O.9 concealed on the eastern side of the stream, which was recovered under Exhibit P-11.He produced the accused before the Magistrate Court for judicial custody and sent the recovered Material Objects to the Court. On 4.11.1996, he recorded statements of further witnesses. He took Subramanian A-29, Sudalaimuthu A-28 and Ramesh A-24 under police custody and examined them on 8.12.1996. A-29 gave a confession statement, the admissible portion of which is marked as Exhibit P-12. At 18.30 hours, from the bush near a neem tree, the accused produced wooden logs M.O.10 and M.O.12. The same were recovered in the presence of witnesses under Exhibit P-13. On 11.11.1996, A-20 Dharmalingam was taken into police custody. He gave a confession statement Exhibit P-8. He produced M.O.8 wooden log concealed in a bush near Chengatti bridge. The same was recovered under Exhibit P-9. He examined Dr. Ratheesh P.W.24 and recorded his statement. On 14.12.1996, he recorded the statements from P.W.25 -Dr. Praveen and others. He made requisition to the Court under Exhibit P-37 for conducting chemical examination. Exhibit P-41 to 43 are the chemical examination reports and Exhibits P-44 and P-45 are the Serologist‘s reports. After completing the investigation, he lodged the final report. 11. Ratheesh P.W.24 and recorded his statement. On 14.12.1996, he recorded the statements from P.W.25 -Dr. Praveen and others. He made requisition to the Court under Exhibit P-37 for conducting chemical examination. Exhibit P-41 to 43 are the chemical examination reports and Exhibits P-44 and P-45 are the Serologist‘s reports. After completing the investigation, he lodged the final report. 11. P.W.24Doctor P.K. Ratheesh conducted autopsy over the body of Chellappan D1, Thangappan D2 and Amirthan D3. The Post-Mortem reports of D1 to D3 were marked as Exhibits P-15, P-17 and P-19 respectively. 12. The relevant portion of Exhibit P-15 Post Mortem report of deceased Chellappan read3 as follows: “1) An incised wound 5 cm x 3 cm x bone depth left parietal region in the sagittal direction with underlying fracture of parietal bone perpendicular to the wound. “... Post-Mortem commenced at 12.10 p.m., on 10.10.1996. Appearances found at the post-mortem a well nourished male body, cold, symmetrical, rigor mortis present in all 4 limbs with the following external injuries. 2) Incised wound in the pinna of left ear 3 cm x 1 cm cutting the underlying cartilage. 3) Incised wound on the right fronto parietal region 2 cm from the mid line semicircular 8 cm x 3 cm x bone depth with fracture of the underlying bone. 4) Abrasion over right supraclavicular region 3 cm x 0.5 cm. 5) Abrasion over anterior aspect of middle of right leg 2 cm x 1 cm. 6) Abrasion near anterior aspect of middle left leg 2 cm x 1 cm. x 1 cm … … … On opening the head Fracture of left parietal bone perpendicular to wound No. 1, 4cm long. Fracture of right fronto parietal region corresponding to injury 2. Subdural and Extradural hematoma present. 50 cc of blood found in the subdural and Extradural spaces. No evidence of Intracerebral hemorrhage. Brain 1400 gm.s C/s pale Opinion as to cause of death: The deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage following head injury.” The relevant portion of Exhibit P-17 Post Mortem report of deceased Thangappan reads as follows: “... Post-mortem commenced at 1.15 p.m., on 10.10.1996. Appearances found at the post-mortem - a well nourished male body, black:, cold having the following injuries: (1) Sutured wound over the left fronto parietal region vertical 2 cm from mid line 6 cm long. Post-mortem commenced at 1.15 p.m., on 10.10.1996. Appearances found at the post-mortem - a well nourished male body, black:, cold having the following injuries: (1) Sutured wound over the left fronto parietal region vertical 2 cm from mid line 6 cm long. (2) Sutured wound over , the lateral end of left eyebrow 3 cm long. (3) Incised wound at the left angle of mouth 2 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm. (4) Contusion of both eyes. (5) Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm x bone depth over the anterior aspect of middle left leg vertical (6) Abrasion anterior aspect of right leg 3 cm x 1 cm (7) Sutured wound left side of lower lip 2 cm long. Heart 300 gms. Chambers empty. Lungs right 450 gms. Left 425 g C/s pale. Hyoid bone intact. Stomach 200 gms. 50M1 blood in the stomach Liver 1450 gms. C/s pale. Spleen 100 g C/s pale. Kidneys each 125 g C/s pale. Bladder empty. On opening the skull fracture parietal bone on the left side. Corresponding to injury (1) cut extends 3 cm still posteriorly. There is fracture of frontal bone in the left supra orbital region corresponding to injury No. 2. Extradural blood clot of about 25 cc close to fronto parietal are on opening the dura hematoma. Haematoma present and left tempero parietal region. No intracerebral haemorrhage Brain wt.1400 gms. C/s pale. Patient would have died due to shock and haemorrhage of head injury. Opinion as to cause of death: The deceased would appear to have died of shock-haemorrhage and head injury.” The relevant portion of Exhibit P-19Post Mortem report of deceased Amirtham reads as follows: “…Post-Mortem commenced at 2.20 p.m., on 10.10.1996. Appearances found at the post-mortem a male, well nourished body, black, symmetrical with the following injuries: (1) Sutured wound vertical in the fronto parietal region in the mid line 4 cm long. (2) Sutured wound over the right side of occipital region 3 cm long. (3) Contusion of both eyes. (4) Abrasion over the loin 4 x 3 cm with. (5) Sutured wound over middle of anterior aspect of right leg 4 cm with underlying fracture of both bones leg. Rigor mortis present in all over limbs. Heart 250 g. Chambers empty Right lung 400g. Left lung 350 gm. C/s.pale, Stomach 200 gms. Contains 50 ml. Digested food Liver 1350 gms. C/s pale. (5) Sutured wound over middle of anterior aspect of right leg 4 cm with underlying fracture of both bones leg. Rigor mortis present in all over limbs. Heart 250 g. Chambers empty Right lung 400g. Left lung 350 gm. C/s.pale, Stomach 200 gms. Contains 50 ml. Digested food Liver 1350 gms. C/s pale. Spleen 100 g. C/s. Pale Kidneys (torn) gms. Each C/s pale. Bladder empty. On opening the skull (torn) of fronto parietal regional corresponding to injury No. 1 fracture of occipito temporal region on the right side corresponding to injury No. 2 Extra and Subdural haemorrhages present over the above areas‘. No (n.c) cerebral haemorrhage. Opinion as to cause of death: The deceased would appear to have died of shock-haemorrhage and head injury.” 13. Mr. S. Shanmughavelayutham, learned senior counsel appearing for appellants/A-1, A-2, A-3, A6, A-12, A-14, A-15, A-16, A-22, A-23 A-22, A-24, A-25 and A-26 as well as Mr. V. Kathirvelu learned senior counsel appearing for appellants/A-4, A-5, A-8, A-13, A-19, A-21 and A-24 and Mr. K. Jeganathan, learned counsel appearing for appellant/A-4 challenged the prosecution case on the contradictions that are seen in the evidence of the injured witnesses. 14. Mr. Shanmugavelayutham, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants in Criminal Appeal 913 of 2001, pointed out that P.W.1 and P.W.2, in their evidence, stated about the presence of 20 unnamed persons other than the named accused persons and that they were armed with deadly weapons, however, none of these persons were added as accused or named in Exhibit P-1 or their overt act spoken to by the witnesses. That apart, even going by the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that the police had come. to the scene of occurrence even before the complaint under Exhibit P-1 was given by P.W.1. This clearly proves that the prosecution had suppressed the first complaint, which is the origin of the case and the second complaint alone was taken by the police and registered to make it as the basis of the First Information Report. The improbability in specifying all the accused‘s names and other details, apart from the overt acts in Exhibit P-1, clearly establishes that the First Information Report could not be treated as a genuine one to implicate the accused. Thus Exhibit P-1 is not the original First Information Report in this case. The improbability in specifying all the accused‘s names and other details, apart from the overt acts in Exhibit P-1, clearly establishes that the First Information Report could not be treated as a genuine one to implicate the accused. Thus Exhibit P-1 is not the original First Information Report in this case. The said submission is reiterated by the other counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in the respective appeals. 15. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in the respective appeals further pointed out that Exhibit P-1 has named 29 accused herein who are stated to be the members of an unlawful assembly, apart from 20 unnamed persons. Yet, the evidence of the witnesses discloses the overt acts as regards 20 persons only. As per Exhibit P-1, the 29 named accused and the unnamed 20 persons were all members of an unlawful assembly. However, the evidence projected overt act of 20 named persons alone. The inconsistencies between the case projected through the witnesses and as stated in Exhibit P-1 which was recorded in the hospital, thus, raises a serious doubt on the genuineness of the First Information Report. The evidence let in, positively point out to the improvement, attempted on by the prosecution. Hence, no credence could be given to the evidence of the eye-witness. 16. Referring to the evidence of P.W.25 -Dr.Praveen who attended on the injured persons on 9.10.1996 at 10.30 pm, learned senior counsel pointed out that the Inspector enquired him about the injuries on the deceased and P.W.25 narrated the same from the accident register. Based on that alone, the First Information Report was prepared by the prosecution. 17. Mr. Shanmugavelayutham, learned senior counsel, pointed out to the contradictions in the evidence of P.W.1 and that of P.W.32, P.W.34 and P.W.35 as regards the presence of 20 unnamed persons accompanying the accused and their carrying weapons. While P.W.1 pointed out that the unnamed persons carried no weapon, P.W.32, however, gave a different version that P.W.1 never said anything about the 20 unnamed persons carrying weapons. P.W.34 pointed out that as the eyewitnesses did not speak about the unnamed persons, investigation was not done to identify the unnamed persons. He further pointed out to the cross-examination that P.W.1 did not state in the enquiry that apart from the accused, 20 other persons came unarmed and they remained as it is. P.W.34 pointed out that as the eyewitnesses did not speak about the unnamed persons, investigation was not done to identify the unnamed persons. He further pointed out to the cross-examination that P.W.1 did not state in the enquiry that apart from the accused, 20 other persons came unarmed and they remained as it is. P.W.1 stated in the enquiry that apart from the 29 named persons, 20 other persons came with aruval, stick and knife and attacked the victims. P.W.35, who continued the investigation, pointed out that P.W.1 was enquired by him and he stated the names of 29 persons and 20 other persons, all of them attacking with aruval, knife and stick. Even though P.W.1 stated so, further investigation did not show the involvement of 20 other persons. 18. Referring to the presence of the tube-light sufficient enough for seeing the occurrence and noting the accused, learned senior counsel referred to the evidence of P.W.17 - the Veterinary Doctor working in Nallur during the occurrence period, stating that there was no light over the Veterinary Hospital Board and there was only light in the verandah. He referred to the evidence of P.W.23 who was working in the Nallur Veterinary Hospital as an Assistant entrusted with the job of closing the hospital, that one can see the office board clearly under the street light and there was no light over the name board. There was only a tube-light in the street. Our attention was also drawn to the evidence of P.W.26 who was working in the panchayat and who used to switch on the light, stating that he had no knowledge as to whether the light was glowing that day. 19. Learned senior counsel emphasized that there was no evidence as to whether the street light was on, to have sufficient light to witness the occurrence. Hence, the prosecution case that there was light in the Veterinary Hospital on the date of occurrence stood disproved. On the other hand, there was no light at all for the witnessed to have witnessed the occurrence. The observation mahazar prepared on 10.10.1996 and the rough sketch thereon cannot be relied on, on the aspect of the light available to see the occurrence. 20. On the other hand, there was no light at all for the witnessed to have witnessed the occurrence. The observation mahazar prepared on 10.10.1996 and the rough sketch thereon cannot be relied on, on the aspect of the light available to see the occurrence. 20. He further pointed out to the contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 7 as regards the injuries suffered, to submit that the overt act of the accused causing injuries itself is of doubtful nature. There are no materials to substantiate the overt acts alleged by the eyewitnesses as against the accused in this case. 21. Learned senior counsel referred to the evidence of P.W.24 as well as P.W.25 to submit the contradictions vis-a-vis the evidencs of P.Ws.1 to 5 that in the absence of definite evidence pointing to the charges levelled against the accused, the Court below ought to have given the benefit of doubt and acquitted them. 22. In support of his submission, learned senior counsel placed reliance on the following decisions, only to submit that the evidence of all the witnesses are parrot like; hence, no credibility can be placed on any of these witnesses as regards the involvement of the accused in the commission of offence: (i) Adalat Pandit and Another v. State of Bihar (2010) 6 SCC 469 : (2010) 3 MLJ (Crl) 678: LNIND 2010 SC 511 (ii) Eknath Ganpat Aher and Others v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2010 SC 2657 : (2010) 6 SCC 519 : LNIND 2010 SC 466 (iii) Selvi v. State of Tamil Nadu 1981 Crl.L.J. 736 23. Mr. K. Jeganathan, learned counsel appearing for A-7 pointed out, particularly, as regards the confusion in the identity of A-7 - Murugan, son of Neelaperumal and A-12 - Murugan son of Mannan Perumal. He pointed out that Exhibit P-1 stated that A-12 Murugan, son of Mannan Perumal, along with A-14, A-15 and A-16, attacked deceased Chellappan with aruval and stick and A-7 Murugan, son of Neela Perumal, along with A-6. A-16, attacked Thangappan - D2. A-12, along with A-13 attacked P.W.1 with aruval and stick. Referring to the evidence of P.W.17, he pointed out that A-12 Mannaperumal‘s son Murugan attacked deceased Thangappan and P.W.1. A-16, attacked Thangappan - D2. A-12, along with A-13 attacked P.W.1 with aruval and stick. Referring to the evidence of P.W.17, he pointed out that A-12 Mannaperumal‘s son Murugan attacked deceased Thangappan and P.W.1. In the cross examination by A-2, A-4 and A-12, he pointed out that Mannan Perumal‘s son Murugan A-12 attacked deceased Thangappan on his forehead and that he had stated so in his statement. He further stated that he had not given any statement that A-7 Murugan, son of Neelaperumal, attacked Thangappan. P.W.32, the first Investigating officer, stated that P.W.1 never stated that A-12 attacked Thangappan and in the evidence of P.W.34, it was stated that the eye-witnesses merely referred the name of Murugan and there was no identification of the person by mentioning the father‘s name. Thus, the evidence, as pointed out, revealed the material discrepancies and contradictions as regards the overt acts and as regards the weapons carried by the accused, and raises considerable doubt on the prosecution case. 24. Mr. V. Kathirvelu, learned senior counsel, appearing for A-4, A-5, A-8, A-13, A-17, A-18, A-19, A20, A-21 and A-24, pointed out to the evidence of P.W.1 as well as the First Information Report only to emphasise the fact that the evidence does not connect the accused to the commission of the offence as against any of the witnesses or the deceased persons. 25. Thus the case, of the appellants rests on four aspects. They are -(i) suppression of earlier First Information Report prepared in the scene of occurrence, (ii) the unreliability of Exhibit P-1; (iii) the First Information report marked as Exhibit P-29 referring to 20 unnamed persons and the total absence of light therein for the witnesses to see the occurrence and to make a reference on the overt act relating to each of the accused and the weapons used and (iv) finally the injuries suffered by the witnesses, as spoken to by them in evidence in contrast to what was stated in Exhibit P-1. Thus these aspects clearly show that the prosecution has not proved their case beyond any doubt and that the charges rest on mere surmises and not supported by any materials and evidence. Consequently, the appellants pray for setting aside the conviction and sentence as ordered by the Court below. 26. Thus these aspects clearly show that the prosecution has not proved their case beyond any doubt and that the charges rest on mere surmises and not supported by any materials and evidence. Consequently, the appellants pray for setting aside the conviction and sentence as ordered by the Court below. 26. Replying to the stand of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out to the occurrence at 21.30 p.m. on 9.10.1996, that on receipt of the information, the police arrived at the scene of occurrence. Immediately, they took the injured persons including D.1 who was already dead, D.2 and D.3, who were injured severely, apart from eight others to the hospital. Considering the circumstances prevailing therein, there was no elaborate enquiry for recording any statement. 27. In the above circumstances, the allegation of suppression of the First Information Report as though recorded in the scene of occurrence, does not arise. The complaint was received from P.W.1 in the hospital, a case was registered after retuning to the Police Station and the First Information Report reached the Court at 5.30 a.m. As such, there is no delay in sending the First Information Report and. Exhibit P-1 specifically naming 27 accused herein attacking D1 to D3 and the other injured persons. He pointed out to the atmosphere prevailing at the time when the attack on the victims had occurred that the deceased, along with others, were returning home after conducting prayer in the Church. All too suddenly, the accused came with deadly weapons and attacked the victims. After the occurrence, which lasted for 30 minutes, P.W.1 on his admission in the hospital, made the statement under Exhibit P-1 referring to the names of 27 accused and other persons attacking the deceased and the injured witnesses. By not referring to the presence of 20 others too, the case of the prosecution, as to the presence of the named persons attacking the deceased levelled, does not get falsified. He further pointed out that if the prosecution wanted to rope in 20 unnamed persons, P.W.1 could have given the names just as a matter of course. Failure to name 20 others in the charge, per se, does not make the case of the prosecution a created and false one. 28. He further pointed out that if the prosecution wanted to rope in 20 unnamed persons, P.W.1 could have given the names just as a matter of course. Failure to name 20 others in the charge, per se, does not make the case of the prosecution a created and false one. 28. As regards the absence of light therein, he referred to the evidence of P.W.3 who sustained injury and was admitted in the hospital and P.W.2 as well as the Observation mahazar pointing out to the light therein in the street lamp. As regards the specific objection of the appellant that the prosecution had not examined the injured witness Thangavelu, who, according to the charge sheet, was attacked by A-18 and A-19, learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out that during the pendency of the trial itself, the said injured person expired. The occurrence was in the year 1996 and evidence was given in the year 2001. There are at least three eye-witnesses, apart from the injured witnesses. For the occurrence in a case of mob attack, the overt-acts spoken to by all the witnesses by and large, matched with the injuries as noted in the Accident Register. He pointed out that the facts‘ narrated in Exhibit P-1 set the law in motion as regards the offence punishable under Section 147 I.P.C. as well as the intention of those members to attack the deceased as well as the other injured witnesses with lethal weapons. He pointed out that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 8, 10, 11 and 12, who are the injured witnesses, clearly pointed out to the attack on D.1 to D.3 causing grievous injuries. Thus, a reading of the post-mortem reports of all these three persons would reveal the attack and injuries sustained, which clearly tallied with the overt acts, as spoken to by the witnesses. As regards the attack by A.7 and A.12 on D.1, he pointed out that the accused were identified in the Court too. 29. As regards the discrepancies alleged in the evidence of P.W.1, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that it cannot be magnified so as to reject the case of the prosecution. As regards the attack by A.7 and A.12 on D.1, he pointed out that the accused were identified in the Court too. 29. As regards the discrepancies alleged in the evidence of P.W.1, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that it cannot be magnified so as to reject the case of the prosecution. As regards the confusion as to the overt act of A-7 Murugan, son of Neelaperumal and A-12 - Murugan, son of Mannan Perumal, as is seen in the evidence of P.W.1, learned Additional Public Prosecutor pointed out that both the accused were present in the Court and there was no confusion in identifying them with reference to the narration in Exhibit P-1 - complaint. In the light of the facts projected and proved beyond doubt, the Court below came‘ to the conclusion to convict the accused and sentence them to undergo the respective punishments. 30. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. 31. It is an admitted fact herein that differences persisted between the accused belonging to Hindu Nadar community and the Christian Nadar community, to which the deceased and other injured witnesses belonged. Two years prior to the date of the occurrence, disputes arose as to the construction of a church in Nallur and A-1 objected to the same. Apart from the construction being objected to by A-1, he had also the grievance as against P.W.1 not buying Arishtam from A-1. On the eve of panchayat election, differences between the two groups took a serious turn. Deceased – D1 and D2 contested the election opposing A-28. As the witnesses P.W.1 and his community people worked against A-1, the opposite community people had harboured animosity. Soon after the election on 9.10.1996, D1 to D3, P.Ws.1 to 5, the deceased Thangavel Nadar and Others, numbering about 50, returned to the church at about 8.00 p.m. After the prayers at about 9.15 p.m., as one of the church community members, by name Rajamani, had fallen sick, along with D1 to D3 who were involved in the administration of the Church, P.W.1 and others decided to go and meet him. While they were nearing the Veterinary Hospital, near the junction of the Veterinary Hospital and Shenbaga Road, the named accused numbering 29 and 20 unnamed persons, carrying Aruval, Kathi, Vettukathi and stick in their hands, led by A.1, who was the leader in Hindu Munnani, came in huge numbers and attacked the deceased as well as other parties who were with the deceased. A1 shouted at his companions to attack and finish off Chellappan - Dl and his brothers. Thereupon, A-l attacked D-3 Amirtham with aruval on his head. A-2 and A-3 attacked D-3 with sticks. A-7 Murugan, son of Neelaperumal, A-6 and A-10, attacked D2-Thangappan with aruval and stick. A-11 and A-12 Murugan son of Mannan Perumal, A-14, A-15 and A-16, attacked Thangappan, D-2. A-12 and A-13 attacked P.W.1 with aruval and stick. All the other accused attacked P.Ws.2 to 4 and 6 to 8 repeatedly. The occurrence was seen under the street light and the light from the name board of the. veterinary hospital. 32. P.W.23, who was working in the Veterinary Hospital in front of which the occurrence had happened, pointed out that in front of their office, there was a street light glowing. P.W.6, who happened to be a Panchayat Pump Operator and in-charge of switching off and on the street lights, pointed out to the effect that he had not switched off the light. In fact, if there had been no light on that date, the lineman would have reported of the same. The Observation mahazar, which was marked as Exhibit P-2, refers to the glowing of street light therein. Thus the evidence of the above witnesses and Exhibit P-2 -observation mahazar disproves the stand of the appellants herein that there was no light on the fateful day for the witnesses to see the occurrence and the accused, to identify the accused attacking the deceased and the rest. 33. It is a matter of evidence herein that D.1 to D.3 suffered injuries caused by the accused using lethal weapons. P.W.25 Dr. Praveen‘s evidence clearly shows that D-1 - Chellappan was brought dead to the hospital. D-3 Amirtham is stated to have made a statement to the doctor that she was attacked by a group of persons with stick and knife. She also spoke about the other injured witnesses informing him about the attack by a group of persons with stick and aruval. D-3 Amirtham is stated to have made a statement to the doctor that she was attacked by a group of persons with stick and knife. She also spoke about the other injured witnesses informing him about the attack by a group of persons with stick and aruval. P.W.25 also referred to the injuries on the bodies of D-1, D-2, D-3 and other injured witnesses. Exhibit P-15 relating to Post-Mortem Report of D-1-Chellappan, pointed out to the incised wound on the left parietal region and right fronto parietal region with fracture of underlying bone, apart from abrasions on the right supraclavicular region. Post-Mortem report of Thangappan D-2 - Exhibit P-17 pointed out to sutured wound over the left fronto parietal region, sutured wound over the lateral end of left eye-brow and incised wound at the left angle of mouth and sutured wound over the left side of lower lip. Exhibit P-19 the post-mortem report of D-3 pointed out to the injuries inflicted on the deceased Amirtham. Barring Exhibit P-15, other two Post-Mortem Reports evidently show the injuries caused by weapons other than the sharp edged weapon like a knife. The evidence of Dr. Rathish P.W.24, on this aspect, needs to be seen. P.W.24 pointed out to the injuries on D-1 Chellappan that injuries-1 to 3 could have been caused by an attack with aruval and injuries-4 to 6 through attack by stick, that the said deceased would have died of head injuries. As far as the injuries on D-2 - Thangappan was concerned, he opined that the sutured wounds and injury No. 3 would have been caused when attacked by a sharp edged weapon and injury No. 6 on attack by a stick and injury No. 5 when attacked by iron rod, that the said deceased would have died of injuries. As for D-3 Amirtham, he opined that the deceased would have died of excessive bleeding and shock and that injury Nos. 1 and 2 would have been caused by a sharp edged weapon and injury No. 3 would have been caused when attacked by a stick and injury No. 5 would have been caused when attacked by a sharp edged weapon. 34. 1 and 2 would have been caused by a sharp edged weapon and injury No. 3 would have been caused when attacked by a stick and injury No. 5 would have been caused when attacked by a sharp edged weapon. 34. A reading of the above evidence with the respective post-mortem reports of each of the deceased, thus makes it clear that even though attributing the use of weapon by each of the accused vis-a-vis injuries on the victims may not be there by way of absolute proof, yet, going by the fact that the victims were unarmed, they were returning home after the prayer and further more, the presence of all the accused in the scene of occurrence with weapons not denied by the accused, we have no hesitation in accepting the case of the prosecution as to the presence of the accused in the scene of occurrence with weapons and the attack by the accused on the deceased with weapons with the common object of attacking the victims. It is no doubt true, as fairly admitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, that there are some contradictions as regards the weapons vis-a-vis the injuries as against the particular victim therein; yet, one cannot magnify these facts as justifying the plea of the appellants as one for acquittal, particularly when in a case of mob attack, which is preplanned one, and the victims were unarmed, there is nothing to doubt the evidence of P.W.1, as had been referred to in Exhibit P-1, speaking on A-1‘s calling on all his associates at the time of the occurrence to cause grievous injuries on D-1 and Others. The other witnesses had also spoken about this in their evidence. The fact remains that all the 29 accused are guilty of one offence or the other. The fact that P.W.32 was at the scene of occurrence immediately on receipt of wireless information about the occurrence therein and made enquiry thereon on coming to know about the attack, does not, per se, make this information as one of first F.I.R. to accept the case of the appellants herein that the prosecution had suppressed the first F.I.R. and that the benefit of this aspect has to be given to the appellants herein. 35. 35. As already pointed out, considering the fact that P.Ws.1 to 5 are the injured witnesses and apart from them, P.Ws.6 to 8 had also witnessed the occurrence, and in the context of the Post-Mortem reports speaking on the nature of injuries found on the bodies of deceaaed-1 to 3 and the credibility of the evidence of these injured and eye-witnesses, in the context of the First Information Report and Exhibit P-1, we have no hesitation in accepting the plea of the prosecution that the charges levelled against the accused herein stands proved. 36. It is no doubt true that in the decision in Eknath Ganpat Aher and Others v. State of Maharashtra (supra), relied on by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants herein, the. Apex Court pointed out that in case of group rivalry, there is a tendency to rope in as many persons as possible and the Courts should be very cautious and sift the evidence with care. As far as the present case is concerned, going by the fact that the prosecution had not roped in all the persons referred to in the earliest of the documents namely, Exhibit P-1, which set in motion further legal proceedings, and that the narration therein, along with the evidence of the other injured witnesses and the eyewitnesses which inspire the confidence of this Court to accept the same, we have no doubt in holding that the charges against the accused stood proved beyond doubt and we do not find any justification in giving the benefit of doubt to the accused herein. 37. The Court below convicted and sentenced the accused under different Sections by segregating the accused persons in two categories. A perusal of paragraph 80 of the judgment of the trial Court thus makes a scientific approach to this in excluding A-4, A-5, A-8, A-9, A-13 and A-17 to A-27, stating that there was no evidence of the accused having the intention of causing murder on D1 to D3 and that the prosecution had not proved beyond doubt the charges levelled against them. Further, the Court below pointed out that there is no evidence that they were part of this unlawful assembly with a common object of causing murder of D-1 to D-3. Further, the Court below pointed out that there is no evidence that they were part of this unlawful assembly with a common object of causing murder of D-1 to D-3. Thus, even going by the decision in Eknath Ganpat Aher and Others v. State of Maharashtra (supra), we have no hesitation in confirming the judgment passed by the Court below in accepting the case of the prosecution as to the attack by the accused on the deceased and the other victims. 38. As regards the admissibility of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 and others as parrot like, the fact is, there is nothing to deny the presence of the witnesses in the scene of occurrence. P.Ws.1 to 5 are the injured witnesses. They have clearly spoken about the attack by A.1 to A.27. Thus, in the light of the above, we have no hesitation in rejecting the plea of the appellants, herein. 39. Having held so, the question of conviction and sentence under Section 302 I.P.C. now arises herein for this Court to consider. Going through the evidence in this case, we do not agree with the submission of learned senior counsel that the evidence does not satisfactorily explain as to which of the accused attacked the victims using a particular weapon and more so, in a case of mob attack like the one here, one can only draw a totality of the facts projected before this Court. As already pointed out, A.1 to A.7 had a common intention and a pre-meditated plan of attacking the deceased and Others while they were returning from their prayer. A-1 to A-27 attacked the victims using lethal weapons like Aruval, Knife and stick, which evidently show the intention to cause grievous injuries on the victims. However, there is nothing to establish that the accused had come there to attack the victims to cause the murder of the victims. It is true that the injuries inflicted are grievous in nature, and in some cases, particularly in the case of D-1 to D-3, were fatal in nature. Yet, P.W.1 did not allege what he had been spoken to in the Accident Register marked in Exhibit P-21 as well as in the Post-Mortem report of D1 to D3. It is true that the injuries inflicted are grievous in nature, and in some cases, particularly in the case of D-1 to D-3, were fatal in nature. Yet, P.W.1 did not allege what he had been spoken to in the Accident Register marked in Exhibit P-21 as well as in the Post-Mortem report of D1 to D3. The fact that the three of the victims died of injuries, by itself, does not establish the case of the prosecution under Section 302 , I.P.C, as had been done by the Court below. The evidence of the P.W.24 and P.W.25, the doctors who spoke about the injuries on the deceased and the other injured witnesses, show the nature of injuries on the victims. But beyond this, we do not find any evidence in the eyewitnesses‘ account or in the injured witnesses‘ evidence that the accused came there with the intention of causing the murder of D-1 to D-3. Thus as against the conviction and sentence imposed on accused 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16 who are charged with the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C, we are constrained to hold that they are punishable for the offence under Section 304 part (II), I.P.C. and accordingly they are convicted under Section 304 Part (II), I.P.C. We are persuaded to hold that accused viz., A-1, A-2, A-3, A-6, A7, A-10, A-11, A-12, A-14, A-15 and A16, who are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C. or Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. and imposed life sentence, apart from fine, deserve to be punished under Section 304 Part (II) IPC with imprisonment for a period of seven years rigorous imprisonment. Thus, the conviction and sentence imposed on A-1, A-2, A-3, A6, A-7, A-10, A-11, A-12, A-14, A-15, A-16 insofar as the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C., is set aside and instead, they are convicted under Section 304 (Part II) I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo seven years‘ rigorous imprisonment. The fine already imposed by the Court below stands confirmed by this Court. Insofar as conviction of all the accused under Sections 147, 146 Sections 147, 146 as well as Section 324 I.P.C, while confirming the same, the sentence part alone is set aside and the sentence is modified to one year rigorous imprisonment. The fine already imposed by the Court below stands confirmed by this Court. Insofar as conviction of all the accused under Sections 147, 146 Sections 147, 146 as well as Section 324 I.P.C, while confirming the same, the sentence part alone is set aside and the sentence is modified to one year rigorous imprisonment. The fine already imposed by the Court below stands confirmed by this Court. The conviction and sentence imposed under Section 323 I.P.C. stand confirmed. The period of sentence already underwent, if any, is ordered to be given set off. Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 979 of 2001 stands abated insofar as A-23 is concerned. 40. The trial Court is directed to take steps to secure, the presence of the accused/appellants and commit them to prison to undergo the remaining period of imprisonment. In the result, criminal appeals are partly allowed.