JUDGMENT Mr. S. NAGAMUTHU, J. 1. The appellant in Crl.A. No. 310 of 2008 is the first accused and the appellant in Crl.A. No. 311 of 2008 is the second accused in S.C. No. 489 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No. I), Tirunelveli. Altogether, there are five accused. There were as many as five charges framed against the accused. The first charge is under 120(b) I.P.C against the 1 to 5 accused. The second charge is under Section 307 I.P.C against the second accused for having made an attempt of life on P.W.1. The third charge is against accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 under Section 307 read with 109 of I.P.C on the allegation that they instigated the second accused to commit murder of P.W.1. The fourth charge is against the first accused under Section 302 I.P.C on the allegation that he committed murder of the deceased. The fifth charge is against the accused Nos. 2 to 5 under Section 302 read with 34 of I.P.C. 2. By judgment dated 16.4.2008, the trial Court acquitted all the accused from charge No. 1 i.e. under Section 120(b) I.P.C. The trial Court acquitted the second accused from charge No. 2 i.e. 307 I.P.C and the accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 from the third charge for offence under Section 307 read with 109 I.P.C. However, the trial Court convicted the first accused under Section 302 I.P.C under charge No. 4. Similarly, convicted the second accused for the offence under Sections 302 read with 34 of I.P.C under charge No. 5. The trial Court acquitted accused Nos. 2 to 5 from the charge under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C under charge No. 5. 3. So far as the sentence is concerned, for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C, the first accused has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The second accused has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 302 read with 34 of I.P.C. 4. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the accused Nos. 1 & 2 have come up with these two criminal appeals. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused Nos. 1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 302 read with 34 of I.P.C. 4. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the accused Nos. 1 & 2 have come up with these two criminal appeals. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused Nos. 3 to 5, P.W.1-Mr.Laxmi Narayan has come up with this Criminal Revision Case No. 650 of 2008. The accused Nos. 3 to 5 are the respondents in Crl.R.C. No. 650 of 2008. That is how, all these three matters are before this Court for disposal. Since they arise out of the same judgment, we have heard all the three matters together and we dispose of the same by means of this common judgment. 5. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- i) There was a long standing enmity between the second accused and P.W.1 on account of the local body election. The other accused are the close associates of the second accused. The deceased in this case was one Rajalakshmi. She was the sister of P.W.1. ii) According to the prosecution case, on 12.4.2007 at about 6. a.m, all these five accused conspired to commit murder of P.W.1-Laxmi Narayan and thus, they allegedly committed an offence punishable under Section 120(b) I.P.C (vide charge No. I). On 12.4.2007 at about 10. p.m, P.Ws.1 and 3 were standing in front of the noon meal centre in the occurrence village. They were talking to each other under a sodium vapour lamp post. At that time, the accused Nos. 1 & 2 came to the spot. They developed a quarrel with P.Ws.1 and 3. On hearing the said quarrel, the sister of P.W.1 ( P.W.4) and her son (P.W.2) came to the spot. At that time, the second accused was armed with a crow-bar. In the said quarrel, the second accused attacked P.W.1 on his right knee. P.W.1 snatched away the crow bar from the second accused and threw it away. At that time, on hearing the alarm raised, the deceased Jeyalakshmi rushed to the place of occurrence. On seeing the deceased, A-2, A-3 and A-4 shouted at A-1 and instigated him to do away with the deceased. Immediately, the first accused took the very same crow bar and stabbed Jeyalakshmi on her stomach with crow bar. At that time, on hearing the alarm raised, the deceased Jeyalakshmi rushed to the place of occurrence. On seeing the deceased, A-2, A-3 and A-4 shouted at A-1 and instigated him to do away with the deceased. Immediately, the first accused took the very same crow bar and stabbed Jeyalakshmi on her stomach with crow bar. P.W.1 again snatched the crow bar and attacked the first accused, in which the first accused sustained a minor injury. Then, the first accused again took the crow bar brandished the same on the witnesses, threatened them of dire consequences and ran away from the scene of occurrence. Then, all the accused Nos. 3 to 4 took to their heels. iii) P.W.1 and the deceased were taken to the Government Hospital at Kovilpatti. On 12.7.2004 at about 10.20 p.m, the deceased Jeyalakshmi appeared before P.W.11- Dr.Mathanagopal at Government Hospital, Kovilpatti for treatment. She told P.W.11 that she was attacked by five known persons with crow bar and iron rod near her house. P.W.11 noticed the following injuries: “(1) stab like injury left hypochordium 5 x 1 x 2 cm, omentum seen outside. Surrounding swelling present. 2. Stab like injury right lower epigastrium 4 x 1x 1 cm. Fresh bleeding present in both injuries.” Exhibit P-6 is the accident register. On the same day, along with the deceased, P.W.1 also had appeared for treatment. P.W.1 did not tell the doctor as to how he came to sustain the injuries. P.W.11 examined him and found the following injuries. “(1) Abrasion right knee 1 x 1 cm. (2) Abrasion left upper thigh 1 x 1 cm.” Exhibit P-7 is the Accident Register. Then he referred P.W.1 as well as the deceased to the Government Medical College Hospital at Tirunelveli. P.W.11 gave intimation to the Police in respect of the above. Thereafter, P.W.1 and the deceased were taken to the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital. iv) P.W.17 was the then Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to Thiruvenkatam Police Station. On 12.4.2007 at 12.00 p.m, according to him, he received an intimation regarding the above occurrence. Then, he proceeded to the Government Hospital at Kovilpatti. But, he was informed that P.W.1 had been treated as an out patient and the deceased had been referred to the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital for further treatment. Therefore, he proceeded to the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital. Then, he proceeded to the Government Hospital at Kovilpatti. But, he was informed that P.W.1 had been treated as an out patient and the deceased had been referred to the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital for further treatment. Therefore, he proceeded to the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital. He reached the T.V.M.C Hospital at 3.00 a.m, on 13.4.2007. By that time, the deceased had been taken to the operation theatre for surgery. Therefore, he obtained a complaint from P.W.1. Exhibit P-1 is the said complaint. Then he returned to the Police Station and registered a case at 6.30 a.m on 13.4.2007 in Cr. No. 32 of 2007 under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 307 read with 109 I.P.C. Then, he forwarded the First Information Report and the complaint (Exhibits P—1 and P-9) to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil. The said documents were received by the learned Judicial Magistrate at 5.20 p.m, on 13.4.2007, vide endorsement of the learned Judicial Magistrate (Exhibit P-20). Then, P.W.17 proceeded to the place of occurrence, examined the witnesses. He handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. v) P.W.23 was the then Inspector of Police, attached to Thiruvenkatam Police Station. He took up the case for investigation on 13.4.2007 at 7.00 a.m. On reaching the place of occurrence, he prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of witnesses. He also recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence under a mahazar. Then, he examined P.Ws. 2 to 5 and few more witnesses. On 13.4.2007 at 12.00 noon at Appaneri Vilakku, he arrested the accused 1, 2 and 4 in the presence of P.W.9 and Another witness. On such arrest, the first accused gave a voluntary confession, upon which, he produced a green colour shirt and a towel to him. P.W.23 recovered the same under a mahazar (Exhibit P-4). In the said confession, the first accused disclosed the place, where he had hidden the motor cycle bearing Regn. No. TN-67-T-8942 and the crow bar. In pursuance of the said statement, at 2.00 p.m, he took the police and the witnesses and produced the said material objects. P.W.23 recovered the same under a mahazar. On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded the accused to Court for judicial remand. At 6.00 p.m on the same day, he examined P.W.1 and recorded his statement. In pursuance of the said statement, at 2.00 p.m, he took the police and the witnesses and produced the said material objects. P.W.23 recovered the same under a mahazar. On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded the accused to Court for judicial remand. At 6.00 p.m on the same day, he examined P.W.1 and recorded his statement. He also collected the dress materials owned by the deceased at the time of occurrence. vi) While so, the deceased died in the hospital on 13.4.2007 at 8.20 p.m. On receiving the death intimation, P.W.23 altered the case into one under Section 147 , 148 , 324 and 302 of I.P.C. He forwarded the express report to the Court through P.W.15. The same was received by the learned Judicial Magistrate at 7.45 a.m. on 14.4.2007. Then P.W.23 conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 9.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. on 14.4.2007. During the same, he examined P.Ws. 1 to 5 and few more witnesses. Then, he forwarded the dead body for post mortem. P.W.22, Dr. Sridharan was a tutor in the forensic medicine department in the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital. On 14.4.2007, he conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased at 1.15 p.m and found the following injuries: “(1) 26 cm long interrupted suture wound (surgical intervention) Seen on the Paramedian plane of the Abdomen, in its Lt.Side, which extends from, 10 cm below the Xiphisternum. On removal, 11 cm, long surgical intervention noted on the greater curvature of the stomach and 5 cm long surgical intervention noted on the lesser curvature of the distal to the Pyloric End of the stomach. (2) 6 x 2 cm x Peritoneal Cavity (Visceral) Deep lacerated wound, obliquely placed, noted on the outer aspect of Lt.Side of abdomen, 15 cm, above the Lt.anterior superior iliac spine, 11 cm from the umbilicus. (3) 3 x 2 cm x Peritoneal cavity (visceral) deep lacerated wound, obliquely placed, noted on the outer aspect right side of abdomen, 15 cm above the Rt. Anterior superior iliac spine, 6 cm from the umbilicus. (4) 2 x 1 cm x peritoneal cavity (visceral) deep surgical intervention noted on the outer aspect of RT. side of abdomen, 6 cm above the Rt. Anterior superior iliac spine. (5) 2 x 1 cm x peritoneal cavity (visceral) deep surgical intervention noted on the outer aspect of RT. Anterior superior iliac spine, 6 cm from the umbilicus. (4) 2 x 1 cm x peritoneal cavity (visceral) deep surgical intervention noted on the outer aspect of RT. side of abdomen, 6 cm above the Rt. Anterior superior iliac spine. (5) 2 x 1 cm x peritoneal cavity (visceral) deep surgical intervention noted on the outer aspect of RT. side of abdomen, 12 cm above the Rt. Anterior superior iliac spine. (6) 2 x 1 cm x peritoneal cavity (visceral) deep surgical intervention noted on the outer aspect of left side of abdomen, 7 cm above the Lt. Anterior superior iliac spine.” Exhibit P-15 is the post mortem certificate. He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of cumulative effect of injuries on the abdomen. vii) P.W.23 continued the investigation. He made a request to the learned Judicial Magistrate to forward the material objects for chemical examination. Exhibit P-12 is the analyst report and Exhibit P-11 is the serology report. Human blood was detected on the crow bar. But the grouping examination remained inconclusive. Thereafter, investigation was taken up by P.W.24. P.W.24, on completing the investigation, laid charge-sheet against the accused. 6. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed appropriate charges. The accused pleaded innocence and therefore, they were put on trial. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of prosecution as many as 24 witnesses were examined and 21 documents were exhibited and 18 material objects were marked. On the side of the accused, two documents were marked as Exhibits D-1 & D-2. 7. Out of the above witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 4 are eye witnesses. P.W.2 is the sister’s son of P.W.1. P.W.3 is the brother of P.W.1. Whereas, P.W.4 is the sister of deceased. All these four witnesses have vividly spoken about the participation of the accused Nos. 1 to 4 in the occurrence. According to them, the second accused initially attacked P.W.1 at the instigation made by the accused 1, 3 and 4 and subsequently, the first accused stabbed the deceased with a crow bar on the inducement made by the accused Nos. 2 to 4. 8. When the above incriminating evidences were put to the accused, they denied the same as false. However, they have not chosen to examine any witness on their side. On their side, two documents were exhibited as Exhibits D-1 & D-2. 9. 2 to 4. 8. When the above incriminating evidences were put to the accused, they denied the same as false. However, they have not chosen to examine any witness on their side. On their side, two documents were exhibited as Exhibits D-1 & D-2. 9. Considering all these evidences and all the above incriminating circumstances, the trial Court convicted the accused 1 & 2 alone as detailed in the First paragraph of this judgment. The trial Court has acquitted the rest of the accused. That is how, the accused Nos. 1 & 2 are before this Court with these criminal appeals and P.W.1 is before this Court with this criminal revision case. 10. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the records carefully. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that P.Ws.1 to 4 are the family members of the deceased and their presence in the place of occurrence is highly doubtful. He would further submit they are inimical towards the accused party. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, their evidences require close scrutiny. He would further submit that since their presence is highly unbelievable, their evidences are to be rejected. He would further submit that the First Information Report in this case is obviously a fabricated document, since there is inordinate delay in the First Information Report reaching the learned Judicial Magistrate Court. This creates a further doubt in the case of the prosecution. He would further submit that at the earliest opportunity, when the deceased was taken to the hospital, she told the doctor that she was attacked with a crow-bar and a iron rod by five known persons. This dying declaration is not in consonance with the case of the prosecution, he contended. The learned counsel for the appellants would further contend that as per the earliest information given by the deceased by way of a statement to the doctor as well as P.W.1 to the doctor, the occurrence had taken place near the house of the deceased. But according to the present case of the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place just in front of the Noon meal centre. This according to the learned counsel is a major contradiction, which goes to the very root of the case of the prosecution. But according to the present case of the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place just in front of the Noon meal centre. This according to the learned counsel is a major contradiction, which goes to the very root of the case of the prosecution. He would submit that though the deceased was conscious, the Investigating Officer did not make any attempt to get any statement from the deceased. This according to the learned counsel is a serious flaw in the investigation. He would further submit that the trial Court disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 as against the rest of the accused and also the rest of the charges against A-1 and A-2. Thus, these witnesses have proved themselves only to be partly believable. The learned counsel for the appellants would further submit that in view of the above improbabilities and contradictions, more particularly the doubt regarding the First Information Report, the evidences of these witnesses should have been in toto rejected. The learned counsel would conclude his argument by submitting that the appellants are entitled for acquittal. 12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would however oppose these appeals. According to him, of course, there is delay in forwarding the First Information Report to the Court and that by itself cannot be a ground to reject the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. He would further submit that P.W.1 is an injured eye witness. Therefore, his presence cannot be doubted at all. According to him, the presence of the rest of the eye witnesses also cannot be doubted at all. The evidences of P.Ws.1 to 4 are very cogent manner which require to be accepted by this Court. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that so far as the contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants in respect of the place of occurrence, the noon meal centre and the house of the deceased are situated somewhere nearer to each other and so, this cannot be considered as a very major contradiction. In respect of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants regarding the First Information Report, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not in a position to make any submission. In respect of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants regarding the First Information Report, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not in a position to make any submission. In respect of the last submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that no statement was obtained by the Police from the deceased, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that since the deceased had already been taken to the operation theatre, no statement could be obtained. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that the Court below has separated the grain from the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 4 and has rightly convicted the accused 1 & 2, which does not require any interference at the hands of the Court. 13. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the acquittal of the accused Nos. 3 to 5 is not at all sustainable. According to him, all the eye witnesses have spoken about the presence and participation of accused 3 to 5. Sofaras the fifth accused is concerned, motive has been established clearly. According to him, the trial Court ought to have convicted the accused Nos. 3 to 5 on the basis of all the charges framed against them. 14. We have considered the above submissions. 15. It is the positive case of the prosecution that the occurrence had taken place at 10.00 p.m on 12.4.2007. After the occurrence, P.W.1 and the deceased had gone to Kovilpatti Government Hospital. P.W.11 examined the deceased at 10.20 p.m on 12.4.2007. Therefore, after the occurrence, this was the earliest occasion for the deceased to make a statement about the occurrence. At that time, she told P.W.11 that she was attacked by five known persons with a crow bar and pipe rod, near her residence at 10.00 p.m on 12.4.2007. Indisputably, it is not only the earliest statement made by the deceased, but it also falls within the ambit of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act as a dying declaration. Hence, this statement has to be given weightage. 16. As has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, this dying declaration is in conflict with the present case of the prosecution. According to the present case of the prosecution, only four persons participated in the occurrence and only one person attacked her. Hence, this statement has to be given weightage. 16. As has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, this dying declaration is in conflict with the present case of the prosecution. According to the present case of the prosecution, only four persons participated in the occurrence and only one person attacked her. Apart from that, she was not at all attacked by any one of the assailants by pipe rod. But on the contrary, according to the case of the prosecution, the first accused stabbed her with a crow bar. Hence, the present case of the prosecution is not supported by the earliest dying declaration made by the deceased. It is not explained to the Court as to who are the rest of the assailants and as to who was the assailant who used the pipe rod. If that be so, it is too difficult to believe that both the injuries found on the deceased were made by the first accused. He was examined by the doctor on 12.4.2007 at 10.35 p.m on the same day. Exhibit P-7 is the Accident Register. This was the earliest occasion for him to make a statement about the injuries sustained by him. But he did not tell the doctor as to how and where, by known or unknown persons and with what weapon, he was attacked. Had it been true that he knew the assailants, definitely, he would have mentioned the same to the doctor in which case, the same would have been mentioned in Exhibit P-7. In the Government Hospital, P.W.1 was treated only as an out patient. As we have already pointed out, at 10.35 p.m, the doctor examined him. He was not an illiterate person. He is a graduate. But he had not chosen to go to the police station from the hospital to make a complaint. The deceased went to the Government Medical College Hospital at Tirunelveli. It might be the case that when P.W.1 had to accompany the deceased to the hospital, and so, he did not go to the Police Station. Assuming that it so happened, still there is a doubt about the First Information Report. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even a cursory look to Exhibit P-1 would go to show that it is a fabricated document. Assuming that it so happened, still there is a doubt about the First Information Report. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even a cursory look to Exhibit P-1 would go to show that it is a fabricated document. We went through the original First Information Report (complaint), which runs to two pages. Upto page No. 1 and ½ of the page No. 2, writing is in order maintaining natural space between the lines and words. After the ½ of the second page, the space is abnormally more between the words and the lines. It seems like that the 2nd half page was written only to fill up the gap in the paper. The signature of P.W.1 and Another witness are found at the bottom of the second page of Exhibit P-1. This clearly gives an impression that the signatures of P.W.1 and Another witness would have been obtained in the blank paper at the bottom and attempted to be filled up on both the pages. It is because of that attempt, the second half page of the Exhibit P-1 contains the words with unnatural space between the words and the lines. 18. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, this creates a doubt about the veracity of Exhibit P-1 also. This is not only the reason, upon which we doubt Exhibit P-1. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, P.W.17, on receipt of intimation from the Government Hospital, Kovilpatti, went to the Government Hospital, Kovilpatti. Since the deceased had already been sent to the Government Medical College Hospital, Tirunelveli, he proceeded there. Since the deceased had already been taken to the operation theatre, he obtained a statement from P.W.1. After returning to the Police Station, he registered a case at 6.30 a.m on 13.4.2007. The First Information Report and the complaint had reached the Magistrate Court at 10.30 a.m on 14.4.2007. It is informed that the distance between the Police Station and that of the Court of the Magistrate is hardly 15 to 20 kms. It is highly unimaginable that it would have taken more than 10 hours for the First Information Report to be carried from the Police Station to the Court. This delay has not at all been explained by the prosecution. This delay coupled with the other infirmities narrated above make Exhibit P-1 as a doubtful document. 19. It is highly unimaginable that it would have taken more than 10 hours for the First Information Report to be carried from the Police Station to the Court. This delay has not at all been explained by the prosecution. This delay coupled with the other infirmities narrated above make Exhibit P-1 as a doubtful document. 19. According to the case of the prosecution, the place of occurrence is in front of the noon-meal centre. But in Exhibit P-6, the deceased had told the doctor that she sustained injury near her house. This contradiction has also not been explained by the prosecution. Similarly in the earliest dying declaration (Exhibit P-7), the weapons used to cause injury on the deceased were mentioned as crow-bar and pipe rod. But it is not at all the case of the prosecution that the pipe rod was used by the assailants to attack. Now, turning to the presence of P.Ws.1 to 4, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, their presence is very much doubtful. Admittedly, their houses are not situated anywhere near the place of occurrence. Their presence at the place of occurrence was by some chance. It is the law that when a witness claims to have been present at the time of occurrence, by chance, it is necessary for him to explain to the Court as to the occasion which made him to be present at the place of occurrence. In this case, there is no such plausible explanation at all to explain their presence. Apart from that, as we have already pointed out, these witnesses are the family members of the deceased and they are also inimical towards the accused. Therefore, their evidences require very much close scrutiny. The trial Court has disbelieved the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 3 in respect of the other charges against the accused 1 & 2 and the rest of the accused. Thus, these witnesses have proved themselves to be only partly believable. In their evidence, they have spoken to about the presence and participation of accused Nos. 1 to 4 in the occurrence. But the Lower Court has found that the presence and participation of accused 3 to 5 has not been proved. When a witness is fully believable, it is the law that even in the absence of any other corroboration, conviction could be based on the same. 1 to 4 in the occurrence. But the Lower Court has found that the presence and participation of accused 3 to 5 has not been proved. When a witness is fully believable, it is the law that even in the absence of any other corroboration, conviction could be based on the same. Similarly if a witness is fully unbelievable, then there may not be any difficulty to reject his evidence. Difficulty arises only where a witness is partly believable and partly unbelievable. In respect of the said witnesses, it is absolutely necessary for the Court to took for corroboration from independent sources. In this case, as we have already pointed out, these so-called eye witnesses have proved that they are only partly believable. It is the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the trial Court has separated the grain from their evidences. But, we find it difficult to hold these witnesses as trustworthy. As we have already pointed out, there are lot of doubts in the case of the prosecution. The earliest statement made by the deceased is in complete conflict with the evidences of these witnesses. Thus, we are of the view that there are no sufficient evidence to convict these two accused alone. 20. Now, turning to the revision petition filed by P.W.1, absolutely there is no evidence to prove the charge of conspiracy. The charge is that conspiracy was hatched on 12.4.2007 between all the five accused. There is no evidence at all either directly or indirectly to prove the charge of conspiracy. Therefore, the acquittal of the accused under this charge cannot be interfered with. So far as the accused 3 and 4 are concerned, according to the case of the prosecution, they initially instigated the second accused to attack P.W.1. The trial Court has disbelieved the evidence of these eye witnesses in respect of the alleged attack made by A-2 on P.W.1. As already pointed out, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 are not trustworthy and therefore, the acquittal of the accused 3 to 5 cannot be interfered with. 21. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt and therefore, the appellants/appellants 1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal and the acquittal of the accused 3 to 5 is liable to be confirmed. 22. 21. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt and therefore, the appellants/appellants 1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal and the acquittal of the accused 3 to 5 is liable to be confirmed. 22. In the result, both the Crl.As are allowed and the appellants/accused Nos. 1 & 2 are acquitted of all charges. The conviction and sentence imposed on them in S.C. No. 489 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No. I), Tirunelveli are set aside. Criminal Revision Case (md). No. 650 of 2008, filed by P.W.1 is dismissed and the acquittal of the accused 3 to 5 is hereby confirmed. Appeal allowed.