Judgment P.N. Prakash, J. 1. The two accused, who were tried and convicted in S.C.No.4 of 2011 on 23.04.2012 by the Additional District Sessions Court/Fast Track Court No.III, Coimbatore, are the appellants before us. They were charged and convicted as follows: Rank of Accused Section of law Conviction and sentence A1 U/s 302 IPC Life imprisonment A2 U/s 302 IPC r/w 304 IPC Life imprisonment 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 14.07.2010 around 8.20 in the morning, the deceased Palanisamy was fatally attacked by the appellants herein on account of previous enmity, which was witnessed by Subramani [P.W.1], Mahendran [P.W.2] and Rangasamy [P.W.3]. After the attack, Subramani [P.W.1] carried the deceased to Government Hospital, Mettupalayam and it has been noted by Dr.Veerannan [P.W.17] in the Accident Register, a copy of which has been marked as Ex.P9, that the deceased was 'brought dead' at 8.35 a.m. Dr.Veerannan [P.W.17], has specifically noted about six injuries and has also mentioned other multiple cut and stab injuries over the back, in the Accident Register [Ex.P9]. Immediately thereafter, Subramani [P.W.1], lodged a written complaint, which was received by Sivasami [P.W.22], the Head Constable of police, who registered a case in Mettupalayam Police Station Cr.No.1758/2010 u/s 341 and 302 IPC at 9.30 a.m. and prepared the printed FIR [Ex.P16]. The original complaint [Ex.P1] and the printed FIR [Ex.P16] reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at 10.45 a.m. on the same day, as could be seen from the endorsement thereon. [a] Investigation in this case was taken over by Mani [P.W.25], the Inspector of Police, who went to the mortuary where the body of deceased Palanisamy was kept, and in the presence of panchayatdars examined some witnesses and conducted inquest proceedings from 10.15 a.m. to 12.00 noon and the Inquest Report was marked as Ex.P18. Since Subramani [P.W.1] stated that he had carried the deceased to the hospital, the police recovered pant [M.O.2] and Shirt [M.O.3] that were worn by him, as it had stains of blood. He also recovered the blood stained clothes that were worn by Mahendran [P.W.2], who had helped Subramani [P.W.1], to carry the deceased to the hospital and they were marked as M.Os.6 and 7. [b] The Investigating Officer despatched the body for post-mortem, where Dr. Jeysingh [P.W.20], performed autopsy over the body of the deceased. Dr. He also recovered the blood stained clothes that were worn by Mahendran [P.W.2], who had helped Subramani [P.W.1], to carry the deceased to the hospital and they were marked as M.Os.6 and 7. [b] The Investigating Officer despatched the body for post-mortem, where Dr. Jeysingh [P.W.20], performed autopsy over the body of the deceased. Dr. Jeysingh [P.W.20] in his evidence as well in the Post-mortem Certificate [Ex.P15] has stated as follows: "The following ante mortem injuries noted on the body: 1) Vertically oblique stab wound 3.8 x 1.8 cm noted on back of right side chest. The upper medial sharp end is 2cm right to mid line and lower lateral sharp end is 3 cm medial to inner border of scapula. The wound passes inwards upwards along the muscle plane up to 4 cm in depth. 2) Vertically oblique stab wound 3.8 x 1 cm noted on back of left side chest. The lower sharp end is 3cm left to mid line, upper sharp end is 6cm downwards and medial to inner border of mid scapula. The wound passes inwards upwards along the muscle plane up to 3.5 cm in depth. 3) Vertically oblique stab wound 3 x 1 cm noted on back of left side lower chest at the level of 8th inter costal space. The upper lateral end is 3 cm left to midline, lower medial sharp end is 1.5 cm left to midline. The wound passes inwards upward is along the muscle plane up to 3.2 cm in depth. 4) Vertically oblique stab wound 5.5 x 1 .5 x cavity deep noted on right supra clavicular region. The lower sharp end is 1.5 cm right to eternal notch, lateral upper end is 5cm right to mid line. The wound passes downwards backwards medially, entering into the right pleural cavity and pierces into the superior vena cava, right pleural cavity contains about 1500 ml of fluid blood. 5) Transverse stab wound 2.5 x 1 x 2 cm muscle deep noted on right side front of chest on its 8th inter costal space. The Medial end is 4cm right to middle, Lower end is 7 cm downward and medial to right nipple. 5) Transverse stab wound 2.5 x 1 x 2 cm muscle deep noted on right side front of chest on its 8th inter costal space. The Medial end is 4cm right to middle, Lower end is 7 cm downward and medial to right nipple. 6) Vertically oblique cut wound 7 x 2.5 cm x bone deep noted on inner aspect of right mid forearm, on dissection the wound cutting the underlying muscle, nerves, vessels and partially cutting the bone (ulna) 7) Vertically oblique cut wound 5 x 1 cm x muscle deep noted on inner aspect of right wrist. 8) Vertical cut wound 8 x 1 cm x bone deep noted on medial border of right thumb, on dissection the wound cutting muscle, nerves, vessels and partially cutting the underlying bone. Lateral end is started from wrist joint, upper end is at the level of base of right thumb. 9) Transversely oblique cut wound 3 x 1 x 2 cm noted on palmer aspect of right upper thumb, the wound is muscle deep. 10) Vertically oblique cut injury 10 x 2 cm x tender deep noted on lateral aspect of left palm wound stating from wrist joint and ends at the level of left thumb. 11) Vertically oblique cut injury noted on palmer aspect of left hand, 1 cm above and parallel to the previous injury. 12) Cut injury 2 x 1 cm x bone deep on palmer aspect of right middle finger in its upper joint. 13) Cut injury 2 x 1 cm x bone deep noted on palmer aspect of right middle finger 0.5 cm below and parallel to wound No.12. 14) Vertically oblique cut injury 2.5 x 1 cm x muscle deep noted on inner aspect of left forearm 3 cm above tow rist joint. 15) Vertically oblique cut wound 3 x 1 x 2 cm muscle deep noted on left side inner aspect of upper forearm, 9 cm below to elbow joint. 16) Transverse cut wound 1.5 x 0.5 x bone deep noted on right frontal region, inner end is 6 cm right to mid line, outer end is 5 cm above to lateral aspect of right eyebrow, on dissection the underlying bones found partially cut. 16) Transverse cut wound 1.5 x 0.5 x bone deep noted on right frontal region, inner end is 6 cm right to mid line, outer end is 5 cm above to lateral aspect of right eyebrow, on dissection the underlying bones found partially cut. 17) Cut wound 6 x 3 cm x bone deep noted on front and inner aspect of right lower leg, on dissection and underlying vessels nerves, muscle tendons and bone (tibia) found cut. 18) Multiple abrasion of varying sizes and shapes noted on right lower arm and knee. OTHER FINDINGS: Peritoneal and Left Pleural cavity - empty. Heart : all chambers contains above few cc of blood. Coronaries patent. Hyoid bone – intact Stomach contains about 50 ml of mucous fluid, no specific smell, and mucosa pale. Small intestine contains 10 ml of bile stained fluid, no specific smell, mucosa pale. Liver, Spleen, Lungs, Brain and Kidneys : Cut section pale Urinary bladder empty Blood preserved and sent for grouping OPINION : The deceased would appear to have died of SHOCK AND HAEMORRHAGE due to MULTIPLE INJURIES." [c] The Investigating Officer went to the place of occurrence around 12.15 noon on the same day and in the presence of witnesses Venkatraman [P.W.6] and Saravanakumar [P.W.7] prepared the Observation Mahazar [Ex.P2] and the Rough Sketch [Ex.P19]. From the place of occurrence, he recovered earth with and without blood stains [M.Os.8 and 9] under the cover of Mahazar [Ex.P3]. He received the clothes stained with blood that were worn by the deceased and which were handed over by the Police surgeon after Post-mortem and they were marked as, Shirt [M.O.4] and Jeans Pant [M.O.5]. He examined other witnesses and sent the seized articles in Form 95 to the Court. On 15.07.2010, he arrested Thajudeen [A1] and Senthil [A2] around 9.00 a.m. and from their possession he seized Yamaha motorcycle [M.O.10] under the cover of Mahazar [Ex.P5]. He recorded the confession statement of Thajudeen [A1] and based on the admissible portion of confession statement which was marked as Ex.P4, he recovered knife [M.O.1], sandal colour T-shirt [M.O.11] and lungi [M.O.12] under the cover of Mahazar [Ex.P6] in the presence of witnesses Mahendran [P.W.8] and Mohan [not examined]. From the disclosure made by Senthil [A2], the police recovered the clothes that were allegedly worn by him at the time of the incident. From the disclosure made by Senthil [A2], the police recovered the clothes that were allegedly worn by him at the time of the incident. The clothes were marked as, Dhothi [M.O.13], T.Shirt [M.O.14] and Trousers [M.O.15]. The accused were produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate for being sent to judicial custody. The articles that were seized were sent to the Court under Form 95 by the Investigating Officer. [d] The Investigating Officer examined several witnesses including the Casualty Doctor and the Post-mortem Doctor and collected the Serologist Report from the Tamil Nadu Forensic Sciences Laboratory. He completed the investigation and filed a Final Report before the Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam on 11.08.2010 and the same was taken on file as PRC No.47/2010 and on the appearance of the appellants, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The Principal District and Sessions Judge made over the case to the Additional Sessions Judge [FTC-3], Coimbatore, where a charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against Thajudeen [A1] and a charge under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC was framed against Senthil [A2]. [e] When the appellants were questioned, they pleaded ‘not guilty’. The prosecution examined 25 witnesses, marked 19 Exhibits and 15 Material Objects. When the appellants were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating circumstances against them. On behalf of the appellants, one wintess, namely Sivakumar, the Inspector of Police [D.W.1] was examined and a copy of the Accident Register was marked as Ex.D1. The trial Court after analysing the evidence adduced, convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid and hence, the appeal. 3. In this case, there are three eye witnesses, namely Subramani [P.W.1], Mahendran [P.W.2] and Rangasamy [P.W.3]. Subramani [P.W.1] in his evidence stated that, he knew the deceased Palanisamy and that on 14.07.2010, they both came to the Mettupalayam Bus stand, in order to go to Coimbatore for attending a criminal case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, in which both of them are accused. At that time, the appellants came there and Senthil [A2] held Palanisamy tightly and Thajudeen [A1] stabbed Palanisamy in the back. Palanisamy wriggled from Senthil's [A2] hold and started running. Both accused chased him in the Mettupalayam Bus stand and Thajudeen [A1] indiscriminately cut him and stabbed him. 4. At that time, the appellants came there and Senthil [A2] held Palanisamy tightly and Thajudeen [A1] stabbed Palanisamy in the back. Palanisamy wriggled from Senthil's [A2] hold and started running. Both accused chased him in the Mettupalayam Bus stand and Thajudeen [A1] indiscriminately cut him and stabbed him. 4. Subramani [P.W.1] identified both Thajudeen [A1] and Senthil [A2] and said that he knew both of them before. After stabbing, they got into a motor cycle and went away. Thereafter, Subramani [P.W.1] and Mahendran [P.W.2] carried Palanisamy to Mettupalayam Government Hospital, where the Doctor who examined him declared him 'brought dead'. After that, Subramani [P.W.1] stated that he went to Mettupalayam Police Station and lodged a complaint and identified the complaint as Ex.P1. He also said that the police came to the hospital and collected the shirt and pant that were worn by him and identified the same as M.O.2 and M.O.3. He also deposed that since 2008, Thajudeen [A1] and the deceased Palanisa,y were in enimical terms, because Palanisamy had attacked Thajudeen [A1] in 2008 and later Palanisamy’s relative Periyathambi was attacked by Thajudeen [A1] in retaliation. Palanisamy had warned Senthil [A2] not to mingle with Thajudeen [A1] and on account of this, the incident had happened. Subramani [P.W.1] also identified the clothes that were worn by Palanisamy at the time of the incident, namely Shirt [M.O.4] and Jeanspant [M.O.5]. [a] Similarly, Mahendran [P.W.2] in his evidence before the Court stated that, on 14.07.2010 he was with the deceased Palanisamy and Subramani [P.W.1] in Mettupalayam bus stand en route to catch a bus for going to Coimbatore for attending a criminal case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate there, in which he was also one of the accused. He further deposed that in the year 2008, there was a quarrel between Palanisamy and Thajudeen [A1], in which Thajudeen [A1] was attacked by Palanisamy and in retaliation of which in the year 2009, Thajudeen [A1] attacked one Periyathambi, relative of Palanisamy. While the three were standing in the bus stop, Senthil [A2] came there and held Palanisamy’s hands and at that time Thajudeen [A1] came from behind and stabbed Palanisamy. Mahendran [P.W.2] clearly deposed that they were all standing together and facing Senthil [A2], when Thajudeen [A1] came from behind and stabbed Palanisamy. Immediately Palanisamy tried to escape, but he was chased by the accused and brutally attacked. Mahendran [P.W.2] clearly deposed that they were all standing together and facing Senthil [A2], when Thajudeen [A1] came from behind and stabbed Palanisamy. Immediately Palanisamy tried to escape, but he was chased by the accused and brutally attacked. Mahendran [P.W.2] identified the knife [M.O.1] that was used by the appellants to attack the accused. After seriously attacking Palanisamy, both the appellants sped away in a motor cycle along with Subramani [P.W.1]. He carried Palanisamy to the hospital', where the Doctors declared him 'brought dead'. He also stated in his evidence that the police collected the blood stained clothes, namely T-shirt [M.O.6] and pant [M.O.7] that were worn by him at the time of the incident. [b] Rangasamy [P.W.3] in his evidence stated that, he knew the deceased Palanisamy and Subramani [P.W.1]. That on 14.07.2010, while he was in the Mettupalayam bus stand, on his way to work, he saw Senthil [A2] talking to Palanisamy and at that time, Thajudeen [A1] came and stabbed Palanisamy in the back. Thereafter, Palanisamy tried to flee, but he was chased by the appellants and was attacked by Thajudeen [A1] indiscriminately. He also said that after the attack, Palanisamy was taken to hospital by Subramani [P.W.1] and Mahendran [P.W.2]. [c] All these three witnesses were cross examined by the defence extensively, but the substratum of their evidence remains unshaken. To the questions put to these witnesses, all the three unequivocally admitted that they all have several criminal cases to their credit along with Palanisamy. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that, this Court should not attach much importance to their evidence and it should be rejected. We are unable to countenance this argument, because these witnesses did not hide the fact relating to previous criminal cases against them. In fact, Subramani [P.W.1] and Mahendran [P.W.2] in chief-examination have deposed that, on the fateful day they were going along with the deceased to attend a criminal case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Coimbatore in which they were all arrayed as accused. The incident occurred in Mettupalayam bus stand around 8.20 in the morning and the evidence of these witnesses that they had come to the bus stop to take the bus to Coimbatore sounds acceptable. The testimony of a person does not become suspect, just because he himself is a notorious individual with a criminal track record. The incident occurred in Mettupalayam bus stand around 8.20 in the morning and the evidence of these witnesses that they had come to the bus stop to take the bus to Coimbatore sounds acceptable. The testimony of a person does not become suspect, just because he himself is a notorious individual with a criminal track record. These three witnesses clearly stated that the deceased Palanisamy had attacked Thajudeen [A1] in 2008 and again in 2009 there was a retaliatory attack on the relative of the deceased and further, the deceased exhorted and warned Senthil [A2] not to go around with Thajudeen [A1]. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Subramani [P.W.1] would not have carried the deceased to the hospital, because in the Accident Register copy [Ex.P9] it is stated that, "brought by Subramani-brother" and since Subramani [P.W.1] is not the brother of the deceased, his evidence stood impeached. It may be relevant to emphasise here that the name of P.W.1 is Subramani and the name ''Subramani' figures in the Accident Register [Ex.P9] but is suffixed by the word ‘brother’. Just because the Doctor had entered the word ‘brother’ in Ex.P9, we cannot completely disbelieve Subramani [P.W.1], because such an entry in the Accident Register has very little significance as held by the Supreme Court in: 1. P. Babu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [1994 SCC Crl.424] 2. P. Badrayya vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [1995 SCC crl.370] 3. Venkayya vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [1986 MLJ Cl 23 SC] 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Mahendran [P.W.2] in the cross examination has stated that, he saw the knife [M.O.1] around 8.30 in the night in the Police Station and at that time, the appellants were also there in the Police Station. Based on this piece of evidence, the learned counsel submitted that the prosecution case that the accused were arrested only the next day and recovery of knife was done thereafter becomes clearly doubtful. 8. We carefully read the entire cross examination of Mahendran [P.W.2] and found that he has not stated that he saw the appellants and the knife [M.O.1] in the police station on 14.07.2010 around 8.30 p.m. In fact, he has stated that he does not remember when the police called him to the Police Station. 8. We carefully read the entire cross examination of Mahendran [P.W.2] and found that he has not stated that he saw the appellants and the knife [M.O.1] in the police station on 14.07.2010 around 8.30 p.m. In fact, he has stated that he does not remember when the police called him to the Police Station. That apart, we are not able to disbelieve the evidence of Subramani [P.W.1] and Mahendran [P.W.2], because the Report of the Serologist which was marked as Ex.P13 clearly shows that, the clothes that were worn by Subramani [P.W.1], Mahendran [P.W.2] and the deceased were stained with human blood and it belonged to ‘O’ group. All the three witnesses even identified the knife [M.O.1] that was used by Thajudeen [A1] to attack the deceased and that also had blood stains, which was found to be of human blood ‘O’ group. This piece of evidence to a very larger extent corroborates their version and lends assurance to their testimony. The incident had taken place around 8.20 a.m. and by 8.35 a.m., the deceased was carried to the Government Hospital, where he was declared brought dead as per the Accident Register [Ex.P9] and the complaint was lodged at 9.30 by Subramani [P.W.1], based on which, the FIR [Ex.P16] was prepared and despatched to the jurisdictional Magistrate, who received the same at 10.45 a.m. on the very same day. The Post-mortem Doctor has found 18 injuries on the body of the deceased, which corroborates the ocular version of P.W.1 to P.W.3 that the first appellant initially attacked him at the back, as could be seen from injury -1 and as the deceased started running he was chased and indiscriminately attacked. This corroborates the evidence of the eye witnesses that, as Senthil [A2] was holding the hand of the deceased, Thajudeen [A1] came from behind and stabbed him and when the deceased wriggled himself out and tried to flee, he was chased in the bus stand and indiscriminately cut, resulting in his death. 9. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that, Subramani [P.W.1] and Mahendran [P.W.2] being persons with criminal track record, they would have attacked the appellants in order to save their friend Palanisamy and therefore, their conduct in being mute spectators makes their evidence doubtful. 9. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that, Subramani [P.W.1] and Mahendran [P.W.2] being persons with criminal track record, they would have attacked the appellants in order to save their friend Palanisamy and therefore, their conduct in being mute spectators makes their evidence doubtful. We are unable to agree with this contention, because in a given situation, not everyone will react in a particular manner that is expected of them by the others. Just because they did not intercede when Palanisamy was attacked by the appellants, we cannot say that their testimony should be disbelieved. The fact that not all people will react in a uniform manner has been noticed by the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka vs. K. Yarappa Reddy [ AIR 2000 SC 185 ]. 10. The defence examined one Sivakumar, the Inspector of Police of Mettupalayam Police Station as D.W.1 and had summoned the First Information Report Book and the Accident Register Intimation Book. The intimation sent by the Government Hospital to the Police Station in this case was marked as Ex.D1. Since the time of intimation of death was not noted in Ex.D1, it was contended that the timings of the occurrence were doctored. We are not able to come to such an inference, because both in the Accident Register [Ex.P9] and in the Intimation Notice [Ex.D1] it is stated that the deceased was brought dead to the hospital at 8.35 a.m. on 14.07.2010. This clearly shows that Palanisamy's body had reached the hospital at 8.35 a.m. and just because the Constable who received the intimation did not record the time of intimation, we cannot infer that the timings have been doctored. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the learned Additional District Sessions Court/Fast Track Court No.III, Coimbatore in S.C.No.4 of 2011 on 23.04.2012 is confirmed.