JUDGMENT : 1. The appellants are the accused 1 to 4 in S.C.No.116 of 2005 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Karur. There were as many as 8 charges framed against the appellants/accused as detailed below. Charge Nos. Against Offence U/s. Charge Nos. Against Offence U/s. 1 A1 302 IPC 2 A2 to A4 302 r/w 34 IPC 3 A3 307 IPC 4 A1, A2 & A4 307 r/w 34 IPC 5 A2 307 IPC 6 A1, A3 & A4 307 r/w 34 IPC 7 A4 324 IPC 8 A2 324 IPC By judgment dated 13.02.2007, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants/accused as follows; Accused Conviction U/s. Sentence A1 304(ii) IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. A2 to A4 304(ii) r/w 34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each. A2 324 IPC (2 counts) Rigorous imprisonment for one year for each count A2 324 r/w 34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year A1 324 r/w 34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year A3 324 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year A4 324 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year A4 324 r/w 34 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows; (a) The deceased in this case was one Mr. Veeramalai. PW1 is his son; PW2 is his daughter; PW3 is his grandson; PW4 is his another daughter; PW5 is his wife; PW7 is his daughter-in-law; PW8 is his another son; PW9 is his grandson and PW10 is his neighbour. They were all residing at Yelunoorrumangalam Village. PW2 – Mrs. Rasammal was residing on the west of the house of A3 - Mr. Durai. Mrs. Rasammal used to leave garbage just near the house of the 3rd accused. This was objected to by A3. He even initiated proceedings for nuisance before the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer had held enquiry some time before the occurrence. The house of PW1 was set on fire. There was a case against some of the accused pending before the Court in connection the same. Because of these incidents, there developed enmity between the two families. PW6 - Mr. Ponnar (turned hostile) is the uncle of A3. The Revenue Divisional Officer had held enquiry some time before the occurrence. The house of PW1 was set on fire. There was a case against some of the accused pending before the Court in connection the same. Because of these incidents, there developed enmity between the two families. PW6 - Mr. Ponnar (turned hostile) is the uncle of A3. PW6 was closely moving with the family of the prosecution party. This was objected to by A1 & A2, who are the sons of A3 and his wife is A4. (b) On 30.12.2004 at about 7.30 a.m., according to the prosecution case, PW1, along with PW6, after taking tea in a nearby tea stall, were returning to their house. This was noticed by these accused. They came to the road and questioned PW6 as to why he had close proximity with PW1. PW1 questioned the same. This developed into a quarrel. The accused then took out wooden logs in their hands. The deceased Veeramalai viz., the father of PW1, came to the spot and questioned the accused. Immediately the accused 2, 3 & 4 caught hold the deceased and the first accused attacked him on his head. On receiving a single blow on the head, he fell down. Then, PW3 came to the spot. Immediately, the accused 1, 2 & 4 caught him hold and the 3rd accused attacked him on his head with wooden log. There was no more blow caused on him. Then, PW5 - Mrs. Maruthambal came to the spot. The second accused attacked him with wooden log on her hip, when the others caught her hold. With that single blow, she fell down. Then, PWs.4, 6 and 2 rushed to the place of occurrence. They attacked them also with wooden logs. Then, the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. PW1 took the injured to the hospital, but the Doctor declared the deceased dead. (c) On 30.12.2004 at 9.00 a.m. when PW15, the then Sub Inspector of Police was on duty, PW1 appeared before him and presented a written complaint (Ex.P1). Based on the same, he registered a case under Section 341, 307 and 302 IPC. Ex.P5 is the FIR. Then, he forwarded Ex.P1 and Ex.P5 to the Court and handed over the case for investigation to PW18. Based on the same, he registered a case under Section 341, 307 and 302 IPC. Ex.P5 is the FIR. Then, he forwarded Ex.P1 and Ex.P5 to the Court and handed over the case for investigation to PW18. (d) PW18, the then Inspector of Police took up the case for investigation on 30.12.2004, proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch. In the presence of panchayathars he held inquest on the body of the deceased. Then, he forwarded the body for postmortem. He also forwarded the injured witnesses to the Hospital for treatment. (e) PW16 - Dr. Pon Maruthamuthu, was a senior civil sergeant for Kulithalai Government Hospital and on 30.12.2004, he examined PW5 and found a contusion on her hip. The X-ray revealed that there was corresponding fracture. Ex.P6 is the accident register issued by him. According to him, the said injury is grievous in nature. At the same time, he examined PW3 and found the following two injuries; (1) a lacerated injury measuring 3 cm x 1 cm on the right cheek; and (2) an abrasion below the right eye. He complained of chest pain. Ex.P7 is the accident register. According to him, the injuries are simple in nature. Then, he examined PW2 and found an abrasion measuring 2 x 2 cm on the left side of the hip. She complained of abdominal pain. Ex.P8 is the accident register. According to the Doctor, the injuries are simple in nature. Thereafter, He examined PW4 and found a lacerated injury measuring 4 x 2 x 1 cm on the right forearm. Ex.P9 is the accident register. The said injury is simple in nature. On the same day, at 2.00 p.m. he conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased Veeramalai and found the following injuries: “External injury - a contusion on the occipital area. Internal injury - a blood clot seen on the occipital region of the skull above the brain measuring about 300 grams.” According to him, the death was due to the head injury. Ex.P11 is the postmortem certificate. (f) Continuing the investigation, PW18 arrested all the four accused on 31.12.2004 at about 06.00 a.m. On such arrest, the first accused gave a voluntary confession. In pursuance of the same, MOs.1 to 4 sticks were recovered in the presence of witnesses. All the accused were sent for judicial remand. Ex.P11 is the postmortem certificate. (f) Continuing the investigation, PW18 arrested all the four accused on 31.12.2004 at about 06.00 a.m. On such arrest, the first accused gave a voluntary confession. In pursuance of the same, MOs.1 to 4 sticks were recovered in the presence of witnesses. All the accused were sent for judicial remand. The material objects were also sent to the Court. Finally, on completing the investigation, he laid the charge sheet against all the four accused. (g) Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges against the accused as detailed in the first paragraph of the judgment. The accused had denied the same. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses and marked 14 documents. Out of the said witnesses, PWs.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 & 10, have spoken about the occurrence. PW12 has spoken about the observation mahazar and the rough sketch. PW13 has spoken about the arrest of the accused, the confession made by the first accused and the consequential recovery of MOs.1 to 4 in his presence. PW16 has spoken about the injuries found on the injured witnesses as well as on the deceased and his opinion thereon. PW18 has spoken about the investigation. (h) When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused, they denied the same as false. On their side, they examined one Mr. Pichai. He has stated that due to leaving of garbage by PW2, in front of the house of A3, a dispute arose between the A2 and A3, and the prosecution party. The prosecution party came to attack the accused and as there was mud earth near the drainage, which is running between the house of the parties, the deceased Veeramalai and PW5 fell down, in which the deceased Veeramalai sustained injury on his backside of the head and PW5 sustained injury on her hip. Thereafter, due to scuffle between the parties, PWs.2 & 3 fell down and sustained injuries. At the time of occurrence, A1, A4 and PW1 were not there. The accused did not mark any documents on their side. (i) Having considered the above, the trial Court convicted them as detailed in the first paragraph of the judgment and that is how they are before this Court with this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence. 3. At the time of occurrence, A1, A4 and PW1 were not there. The accused did not mark any documents on their side. (i) Having considered the above, the trial Court convicted them as detailed in the first paragraph of the judgment and that is how they are before this Court with this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence. 3. It is seen from the record that the first appellant/A1 is no more and the appeal against him was dismissed as abated by this Court on 02.12.2014. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. I have also perused the records carefully. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the prosecution has come forward with two version of the occurrence. It is his contention that though the alleged occurrence was in a public place, no independent witness has been examined and all the witnesses examined to speak about the occurrence either belong to the same family or closely related to the deceased. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, their evidences are liable to be rejected as partisan in character. The learned counsel would further submit that all the witnesses have given evidences in parrot like manner, which is highly unnatural and therefore unbelievable. The learned counsel would submit that the occurrence has been narrated as though each one accused attacked one victim only once and thereafter they did not repeat. The learned counsel would, therefore, submit that the occurrence would not have happened in the manner alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the medical evidence also does not corroborate the evidence of the injured witnesses. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would oppose this argument. According to him, there are no reasons for rejecting the evidences of the injured eyewitnesses. He would further submit that there are also witnesses, who have spoken about the occurrence. Though they are not injured, their evidences, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, are very cogent and convincing. He would further submit that the medical evidences also corroborates on the eyewitnesses account. He would also submit that there was no delay in registering the FIR. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt the case of the prosecution. Though they are not injured, their evidences, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, are very cogent and convincing. He would further submit that the medical evidences also corroborates on the eyewitnesses account. He would also submit that there was no delay in registering the FIR. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt the case of the prosecution. At any rate, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. 7. I have considered the above submissions. 8. Admittedly all the witnesses, who have spoken about the occurrence either belong to the family of the deceased or closely related to his family. No independent witnesses has been examined. It is not the law that the evidences of these witnesses are to be rejected simply because they are partisan character and highly interested in the case. All that the law requires is that their evidences require very close scrutiny. 9. Now, turning to the evidences of these witnesses, I have no hesitation to say that they are parrot like. According to their cases, all these accused came there, armed with weapons. But, had there been any truth in that, quite naturally they would have made attack simultaneously on the deceased party. But, according to the case of the prosecution, it did not happen so. It is their case that the deceased was first caught hold by the accused 2, 3 & 4 and he was given a single blow on his head by the first accused. It is as though there was no other attack aimed by the first accused. Then, it is the case that the accused, 2, 3 & 4 left the deceased. Then, comes to the turn of PW3. According to the case, he was caught hold by the accused 1, 2 & 4 and the third accused gave him a single blow with wooden log. Thereafter, there was no more blow caused by the third accused. The accused 1, 2 & 4 left him. Then, it is the case that PW5, Maruthambal was caught hold by the accused 1, 3 & 4 and the 2nd accused gave him single blow with wooden log on her head. He did not cause any more injury. Then, the accused 1, 3 & 4 left her. Then, comes to the turn of PW4 & PW6. Then, it is the case that PW5, Maruthambal was caught hold by the accused 1, 3 & 4 and the 2nd accused gave him single blow with wooden log on her head. He did not cause any more injury. Then, the accused 1, 3 & 4 left her. Then, comes to the turn of PW4 & PW6. They were also attacked only once being helped by the others. In my considered view, the occurrence would not have happened in this manner. This dramatic narration would only create suspicion in the case of the prosecution. This suspicion could be removed provided there are independent witnesses to speak about the occurrence, from whom the truth could have been elicited. But, unfortunately, no independent witness has been examined. As I have already pointed out, had it been true that all these accused came there armed with weapons with an object of killing the deceased and to attack the others, they would have mounted attack simultaneously. 10. Above all, it appears that going by the number of injuries, number of the accused have been arrayed, thereby distributing one injury to each accused. This shows that the narration of the event by the prosecution is highly artificial. Apart from that, the medical evidence also does not corroborate. When the evidences of these witnesses are partisan character and when the narration of occurrence by these witnesses is highly improbable, in my considered view, it would be highly unsafe to place reliance on these evidences and to sustain the conviction. 11. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/accused inS.C.No.116 of 2005 is set aside and they are acquitted. The bail bond, if any, shall stand terminated. The fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded.