Judgment : A. Selvam, J. 1. The accused, alleged to have involved in a double murder case have challenged the convictions and sentences imposed against them in Sessions Case No.109 of 2005 by the District and Sessions Court, Tiruchirapalli by way of filing these Criminal Appeals. 2. The schema of the case of the prosecution is that on 03.03.2002 at about 08.30 pm the deceased Dharmalingam has demanded brandy on credit from Saravana wine shop which situates in Neithalur colony. The second accused has instigated the first accused to murder the said deceased Dharmalingam. The first accused has attacked on the person of the said deceased by using a knife and thereby caused fatal injuries. Likewise, at the instigation of the second accused, the first accused has also attacked one Thangavel by using the same knife and thereby caused fatal injuries and due to injuries sustained by them, the said Dharmalingam and Thangavel have passed away. During the course of occurrence, the first accused has attacked the persons namely Sakthivel S/o.Muthuveeran and another Sakthivel S/o.Kathan by using the very same knife with an intention to murder them. After occurrence, the defacto complainant by name Sakthivel S/o.Muthuveeran has been admitted in Seahorse hospital, Tiruchirapalli, wherein the Sub Inspector of Police by name Rajasekar (PW20) has recorded a statement from him and the same has been marked as Ex.P1. The statement given by PW1 has been registered in Crime No.87 of 2002. 3. On receipt of Ex.P1, the Inspector of Police (PW21) has done initial investigation and subsequent investigation has been done by PW22 and necessary arrangements have been made for conducting post-mortem on the dead bodies of Dharmalingam and Thangavel. The doctor by name Soundararajan (PW8) has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Thangavel and he found the following external and internal injuries. External injuries: A stab injury in the right side of abdomen placed obliquely 8 cm above the right iliac crest of size 8 x 2 x 12 cm. Internal organs small intestine, large intestine, piece of omentum are coming out of the injury. Internal appearances: Abdomen uniformly distended. Heart pale wt.160 gms. Lungs pale. wt.right 475 gms left 450 gms. Hyoid bone intact. Stomach contains partially digested food wt.400 gms. Liver is punctured in the right lobe in the lower portion. Omentum is punctured in three places. Kidneys pale. wt.100 gms each. Internal appearances: Abdomen uniformly distended. Heart pale wt.160 gms. Lungs pale. wt.right 475 gms left 450 gms. Hyoid bone intact. Stomach contains partially digested food wt.400 gms. Liver is punctured in the right lobe in the lower portion. Omentum is punctured in three places. Kidneys pale. wt.100 gms each. Small intestine is punctured in three places. Ascending colon punctured. Stools are in the abdominal cavity. Head and brain pale. wt.1200 gms. 4. The post-mortem report has been marked as Ex.P7. The doctor by name Karthikeyan (PW13) has conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased Dharmalingam and he found the following internal and external injuries: Wounds: (1) A transverse incised wound 3 cm X 0.5 cm x bone deep on the left side of forehead, 1 cm above the medial third of left eyebrow. (2) An incised wound 4 cm x 1cm x bone deep on the coronal plate on the left side of frontal region of the scalp, 8 cm above the medial third of left eyebrow. (3) An oblique stab wound 5.5 cm x 3cm x deep to cavity on the side aspect of left side of chest, in the 9th intercostal space along the midaxillary line. The edges are clean cut. The upper outer end in curved and the lower front end in acute with a tailing to a length of 4cms, through which the mesentery and coils of intestine are coming out. Detection of fluid blood and clots are present in the peritoneal cavity. A tear on the body of the stomach near the lesser curvature, 3cm x 2cm cavity deep, through which gastric contents are coming out. Edges are irregular. (4) A transverse incised wound 4cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on the back of right side of abdomen, at L3 vertebra level, close to the midline. O/E. The edges are clean out. The left end is curved and the right end is sharp. The blood vessels nerves and muscles are clean cut. The transverse process of L3 vertebra on the right side is partially cut. The blood is found diffused into the around tracks of all the above mentioned wounds. They are all ante-mortem in nature. No other external internal or body wound present. 5. The post-mortem report has been marked as Ex.P12. The blood vessels nerves and muscles are clean cut. The transverse process of L3 vertebra on the right side is partially cut. The blood is found diffused into the around tracks of all the above mentioned wounds. They are all ante-mortem in nature. No other external internal or body wound present. 5. The post-mortem report has been marked as Ex.P12. The Investigating Officer (PW22) has examined all the witnesses and also collected material documents and after completing investigation laid a final report on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, No.II, Kuzhithalai and the same has been taken on file in PRC No.15 of 2003. 6. The Judicial Magistrate Court, No.II, Kuzhithalai after perusing relevant records has come to a conclusion to the effect that the offences alleged to have been committed by both the accused are triable by Sessions Court, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Karur and the same has been taken on file in Sessions Case No.24 of 2004 and subsequently as per order passed in Crl.O.P(MD)No.3118 of 2005 by this Court, Sessions Case No.24 of 2004 has been transferred to the file of the trial Court and taken on file in Sessions Case No.109 of 2005. 7. Before transferring Sessions Case No.24 of 2004 from the file of the District and Sessions Court, Karur, the District and Sessions Court, Karur has framed first charge against the first accused under Section 302 (2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code, second charge against the second accused under Sections 302 r/w 109 (2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code, third charge against the first accused under Section 307 (2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code and fourth charge against the second accused under Section 307 r/w 109 (2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code and the same have been read over and explained to them. Both the accused have denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 8. On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 22 have been examined and Exs.P1 to P33 and M.Os.1 to 9 have been marked. 9. When the accused have been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as respects the incriminating materials available in evidence against them, they denied their complicity in the crime. On the side of the accused, DW1 has been examined and Exs.D1 to D3 have been marked. 10. 9. When the accused have been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as respects the incriminating materials available in evidence against them, they denied their complicity in the crime. On the side of the accused, DW1 has been examined and Exs.D1 to D3 have been marked. 10. The trial Court after evaluating the available evidence on record has found the first accused guilty under section 302 (2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also imposed a fine of Rs.1000/-for each count. The first accused has also been found guilty under Section 307 (2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each count. The trial Court has found the second accused guilty under sections 302 r/w 109 (2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-for each count. He has also been found guilty under Sections 307 r/w 109 (2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-for each count. Against the convictions and sentences passed by the trial Court, the first accused has preferred Criminal Appeal No.240 of 2014, whereas the second accused has preferred Criminal Appeal No.238 of 2014. 11. The consistent case put forth on the side of the prosecution is that on 03.03.2002 at about 08.30 pm, the deceased by name Dharmalingam has demanded brandy on credit from Saravana wine shop and at the instigation of the second accused, the first accused has indiscriminately attacked the deceased Dharmalingam and Thangavel by using a knife and due to his overtacts, both of them have passed away. The further case of the prosecution is that in the place of occurrence at the instigation of the second accused, the first accused has attacked the injured witnesses by name Sakthivel S/o.Muthuveeran and another Sakthivel S/o.Kathan with an intention to murder them and thereby caused injuries on their persons. 12. In the instant case, two injured witnesses namely Sakthivel S/o.Muthuveeran and another Sakthivel S/o.Kathan have been examined as PWs.1 and 2. The independent eye witness by name Senthilkumar has been examined as PW3. 12. In the instant case, two injured witnesses namely Sakthivel S/o.Muthuveeran and another Sakthivel S/o.Kathan have been examined as PWs.1 and 2. The independent eye witness by name Senthilkumar has been examined as PW3. The doctors who conducted autopsy on the dead bodies of Thangavel and Dharmalingam have been examined as PWs.8 and 13. The doctor who admitted PW1 in Seahorse hospital, Tiruchirapalli has been examined as PW17. The doctor who has given treatment to the first accused by name Periyasamy has been examined as PW4. 13. The trial Court after perpending the available evidence on record (both oral and documentary) has found both the accused guilty as mentioned in the charges and passed sentences as stated supra. 14. Before contemplating the submissions made on the side of the first accused, it would be condign to discuss the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second accused/appellant in Criminal Appeal No.238 of 2014. 15. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second accused has contended with great vehemence to the effect that in Exs.P1, P6 and P11, no mention has been made with regard to alleged role of the second accused and further PW22 does not speak about arrest of the second accused and in Ex.P1 no mention has been made about surgical treatment undergone by the defacto complainant (PW1) and since the second accused is an Advocate, he questioned illegal action taken by the Investigating Officer against others. Under the said circumstances, the second accused has been falsely roped in in the present case and the trial Court without considering non mentioning of the alleged role of the second accused in the documents referred to above, has erroneously invited convictions and sentences against him under Sections 302 r/w 109 (2 counts) and also under Sections 307 r/w 109 (2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code and therefore the convictions and sentences passed against the second accused are liable to be set aside. 16. 16. In order to dispel the contentions put forth on the side of the second accused/appellant in Criminal Appeal No.238 of 2014, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also equally contended that immediately after occurrence, the defacto complainant viz., M.Sakthivel has been admitted in Seahorse hospital, Tiruchirapalli, where, the Sub Inspector of Police viz., PW20 has recorded a statement from him and the same has been marked as Ex.P1 and in Ex.P1, the alleged role of the second accused has not been mentioned and further investigation reveals that only at the instigation of the second accused, the first accused has murdered the deceased and also attacked the injured eye witnesses namely PWs.1 and 2 and the trial Court after considering the legal position that Ex.P1, complaint is not an encyclopaedia, has rightly found the second accused guilty under Sections 302 r/w 109 (2 counts) and 307 r/w 109 (2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, the contentions urged on the side of the second accused/appellant in Criminal Appeal No.238 of 2014 cannot be accepted. 17. It is an admitted fact that in Ex.P1, complaint no mention has been made about the alleged role played by the second accused. In Ex.P6, requisition for conducting post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased Thangavel, no mention has been made. Likewise, in Ex.P11 requisition for conducting post-mortem on the body of the deceased Dharmalingam, name of the second accused has not been mentioned. Since in Exs.P1, P6 and P11, name of the second accused and also his alleged role in the place of occurrence have not been mentioned, the Court has to analyse as to whether the second accused has been falsely roped in on the basis of the reason attributed on his side. 18. In (2014) 9 SCC 392 [Ramesh Vs. State through Inspector of Police] the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with similar position and ultimately found that if name of an accused has not been initially mentioned in First Information Report, the same would not affect the case of the prosecution. 19. This Court has relied upon the following decisions: (a) In (2012) 6 SCC 204 [Jitender Kumar Vs. State of Karyana], the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that ?merely because an accused has not been named in the FIR would not necessarily result in his acquittal. 19. This Court has relied upon the following decisions: (a) In (2012) 6 SCC 204 [Jitender Kumar Vs. State of Karyana], the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that ?merely because an accused has not been named in the FIR would not necessarily result in his acquittal. An accused who has not been named in the FIR, but to whom a definite role has been attributed in the commission of the crime and when such role is established by cogent and reliable evidence and the prosecution is also able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, such an accused can be punished in accordance with law, if found guilty. Every omission in the FIR may not be so material so as to unexceptionally be fatal to the case of the prosecution. Various factors are required to be examined by the Court, including the physical and mental condition of the informant, the normal behaviour of a man of reasonable prudence and possibility of an attempt on the part of the informant to falsely implicate an accused. The Court has to examine these aspects with caution. Further, the Court is required to examine such challenges in light of the settled principles while keeping in mind as to whether the name of the accused was brought to light as an afterthought or on the very first possible opportunity. (b) In (2011) 4 SCC 336 [Ranjit Singh and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh] it is held that ? name of accused is not found in FIR and if his name is mentioned in statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at earliest opportunity, such omission cannot tilt balance in favour of the accused. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that ?evidence adduced by injured witness has to be treated as a superior quality/higher degree than a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (c) In 2007 AIR SCW 44 [Rotash V. State of Rajasthan], it is held that “absence of name of co-accused in First Information Report is not fatal.” (d) In AIR 2012 Supreme Court 2621 [Bable alias Gurdeep Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that “First Information Report is not a substantive piece of evidence, but it is a relevant circumstance of the evidence produced by the Investigating Agency.” 20. State of Chhattisgarh], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that “First Information Report is not a substantive piece of evidence, but it is a relevant circumstance of the evidence produced by the Investigating Agency.” 20. From conjoint reading of the decisions mentioned supra, it is discernible that mere non mentioning of an accused who involved in an occurrence is not at all fatal and that itself would not be a sole cause to relieve him from charges framed against him. 21. As stated earlier, in Exs.P1, P6 and P11 no mention has been made with regard to role alleged to have been played by the second accused in the place of occurrence. The main argument put forth on the side of the second accused is that his name has not been mentioned in the documents mentioned supra. By relying upon the decisions referred to above, it is needless to say that the prime argument advanced on the side of the second accused is totally erroneous. 22. At this juncture, the Court has to look into the evidence given by PWs.1 to 3. 23. As pointed out earlier, PWs.1 and 2 are injured eye witnesses and both of them have consistently stated in their evidence that in the place of occurrence at the instigation of the second accused, the first accused has attacked the deceased Dharmalingam and Thangavel and also attacked on their persons by using a knife. Since PWs.1 and 2 are injured eye witnesses, their testimonies has to be treated as of superior quality/higher degree. On the basis of their evidence, the Court can unflinchingly come to a conclusion that the prosecution has clearly established the alleged role of second accused. Apart from PWs.1 and 2 (injured witnesses) an independent witness by name Senthilkumar has been examined as PW3. In fact, his evidence has vouchsafed the evidence given by PWs.1 and 2. This Court has further analysed and found that all the statements recorded under Section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 from PWs.1 to 3 have reached the concerned Magistrate Court on 04.03.2002, wherein the role of second accused is mentioned. It is an admitted fact that Ex.P1 has come into existence on the same day. This Court has further analysed and found that all the statements recorded under Section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 from PWs.1 to 3 have reached the concerned Magistrate Court on 04.03.2002, wherein the role of second accused is mentioned. It is an admitted fact that Ex.P1 has come into existence on the same day. Therefore, it is quite clear that even though name of the second accused does not find place in the documents mentioned supra, the prosecution has clearly established his alleged involvement in the commission of crime. 24. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second accused has also made a fatuous exercise by way of contending that no evidence is available with regard to arrest of the second accused. The Investigating Officer viz., PW22 has clearly stated that on 05.03.2002 at about 12.00 noon, the second accused has been arrested at bus stop, Pettavaithalai. Therefore, the contention put forth on the side of the second accused is totally erroneous. 25. Now the Court has to look into the arguments advanced on the side of the first accused/appellant in Criminal Appeal No.240 of 2014. 26. The learned counsel appearing for the first accused has raised the following points so as to supplant the convictions and sentences passed by the trial Court against the first accused. (a) The specific case of the prosecution is that after occurrence, the defacto complainant viz., M.Sakthivel has been admitted in Seahorse hospital, Tiruchirapalli, where he has undergone surgical treatment and the concerned doctor has been examined as PW17 and he does not speak about such surgical treatment given to PW1 and the occurrence has taken place on 03.03.2002 at about 08.30 pm, in Neithalur colony and Ex.P1 has come into existence on 04.03.2002 and therefore, Ex.P1 is nothing but a concocted document and the role of the alleged injured witnesses namely M.Sakthivel and K.Sakthivel has been falsely procured so as to implicate the first accused in the present case. (b) On the side of the first accused, certain documents have been filed, wherein it is stated to the effect that he sustained some injuries and the prosecution has failed to explain the same. (c) With regard to manner of occurrence, wine shop owner has not been examined. 27. The specific case of the prosecution is that the occurrence has taken place on 03.03.2002 at about 08.30 pm. (c) With regard to manner of occurrence, wine shop owner has not been examined. 27. The specific case of the prosecution is that the occurrence has taken place on 03.03.2002 at about 08.30 pm. The prosecution has adduced plenitude of evidence to the effect that after occurrence the defacto complainant viz., PW1 has been admitted in Seahorse hospital, Tiruchirapalli and PW17, Dr.Radhakrishnan has admitted him and his specific evidence is that PW1 has reported him that he has been attacked by one Periyasamy (first accused) and subsequently necessary arrangements have been made for giving treatment and the wound certificate issued by PW17 has been marked as Ex.P19. Considering the fact that during the course of occurrence, the first accused at the instigation of second accused has attacked the two deceased namely Dharmalingam and Thangavel and also attacked PWs.1 and 2 by using a knife and also considering that PW1 has been admitted in hospital only on 04.03.2002, Ex.P1 has come into existence on the same day. Further Ex.P1 has reached the Court on the same day. Since PW1, defacto complainant has himself stated to PW17 that he has been attacked by the first accused in the place of occurrence, since Ex.P1 has reached the Court without delay, it is quite clear that Ex.P1 is a genuine document. 28. It has already been held that PWs.1 and 2 are injured eye witnesses and their testimonies should be treated as of superior quality/higher degree. Apart from their evidence, the independent witness viz., PW3 has clearly corroborated the evidence given by PWs.1 and 2. Therefore, it is needless to say that the first contention put forth on the side of the first accused is sans merit. 29. It is seen from Exs.D1 to D3 coupled with the evidence of DW1 that the first accused has sustained some injuries. Further PW4, Dr.Victor Joseph has also treated the first accused in Medical College hospital, Tanjore. 30. The contention put forth on the side of the first accused is that even though he sustained some injuries, the same have not been explained on the side of the prosecution and that itself would be sufficient to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. 31. In (2002) 7 SCC 91 [Amar Malla and others Vs. 30. The contention put forth on the side of the first accused is that even though he sustained some injuries, the same have not been explained on the side of the prosecution and that itself would be sufficient to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. 31. In (2002) 7 SCC 91 [Amar Malla and others Vs. State of Tripura], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is well settled that merely because the prosecution has failed to explain injuries on the accused persons, ipso facto, the same cannot be taken to be a ground for throwing out the prosecution case, especially when the same has been supported by eye witnesses including injured ones as well, and their evidence is corroborated by medical evidence as well as objective finding of the Investigating Officer. 32. In several places, it is pointed out that PWs.1 and 2 are injured eye witnesses and both of them have consistently stated in their evidence to the effect that in the place of occurrence, the first accused has attacked the deceased namely Dharmalingam and Thangavel and also attacked on their persons. Since PWs.1 and 2 are injured witnesses, their testimonies cannot be discarded mainly on the ground and also as per decision mentioned supra that the injuries sustained by the first accused have not been explained by the prosecution. Therefore, the second limb of argument put forth on the side of the first accused is of no use. 33. It is an admitted fact that the entire occurrence has taken place in front of Saravana Wine shop which situates in Neithalur colony. But the prosecution has not chosen to examine owner of the said shop. In fact, this Court has groped the available evidence on record. No where it is stated that at the time of occurrence, the owner of the said shop is present. Under the said circumstances, non examination of owner of the said shop is not at all fatal to the case of the prosecution. 34. The consistent stand taken on the side of the prosecution is that in the place of occurrence the first accused at the instigation of second accused has attacked the deceased viz., Dharmalingam and Thangavel by using a knife (MO1). 34. The consistent stand taken on the side of the prosecution is that in the place of occurrence the first accused at the instigation of second accused has attacked the deceased viz., Dharmalingam and Thangavel by using a knife (MO1). In order to sustain the case of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 3 have given picturesque evidence and their evidence cannot be discarded nor eschewed on any of the grounds urged on the side of the accused. The doctors who conducted autopsy on the bodies of the deceased have been examined as PWs.8 and 13 and both of them are of consistent view that the injuries sustained by the deceased would be possible by using MO1, knife. 35. The doctors who treated PWs.1 and 2 have been examined as PWs.16 and 17 and they issued wound certificates namely Exs.P17 and 19. In both Exs.17 and 19 it has been clearly stated that the injuries sustained by PWs.1 and 2 are grievous in nature. 36. The specific evidence given by PWs.1 and 2 is that in the place of occurrence the second accused has instigated the first accused to murder the deceased viz., Dharmalingam and Thangavel and accordingly the first accused has attacked them by using MO1, knife. During the course of occurrence, the first accused at the instigation of second accused has also attacked them by using the very same knife with an intention to murder them. Therefore, it is quite clear that at the instigation of second accused, the first accused has murdered the deceased viz., Dharmalingam and Thangavel and also tried to murder PWs.1 and 2 by using M.O.1. 37. It is not an exaggeration to say that in the instant case the prosecution has adduced plenitude of evidence so as to prove the charges framed against both the accused. In view of the discussion made earlier this Court has not found any force in the contentions urged on the side of the accused. 38. The trial Court after considering the overwhelming evidence available on record has rightly found the first accused guilty under Sections 302(2 counts) and 307 (2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the discussion made earlier this Court has not found any force in the contentions urged on the side of the accused. 38. The trial Court after considering the overwhelming evidence available on record has rightly found the first accused guilty under Sections 302(2 counts) and 307 (2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code. Likewise, the trial Court has also rightly found the second accused guilty under Sections 302 r/w 109 (2 counts) and also under Sections 307 r/w 109 (2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code and this Court has not found any flaw nor illegality in the convictions and sentences passed by the trial Court against the appellants/accused and therefore, these Criminal appeals are liable to be dismissed. 39. In fine, these Criminal Appeals are dismissed. The convictions and sentences passed in Sessions Case No.109 of 2005 by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Tiruchirapalli against the appellants/accused 1 and 2 are confirmed.