JUDGMENT : S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. Since these two Criminal Appeals arise out of a Common Judgment, they were heard together and they are disposed of by means of this Common Judgment. The appellants in Crl.A.(MD). No. 330 of 2011 are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the appellant in Crl.A. (MD). No. 350 of 2011 is the third accused in S.C. No. 177 of 2007 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil. There were two other accused by name Mahesh and Sundari @ Sundari Bai, who were arrayed as accused Nos. 4 & 5 before the trial Court. The final report was filed by the Police as against a total number of six accused. The sixth accused was one Mr. Manoj. Since Mr. Manoj was found to be a juvenile, he was dealt with separately before the Juvenile Justice Board. Thus, the rest of the five accused alone were tried by the trial Court. The trial Court framed as many as four charges under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 r/w 34 IPC respectively against all the five accused. By judgment dated 20.10.2011, the trial Court convicted these three appellants/A1 to A3 alone under Sections 341 and 302 r/w 34 IPC and acquitted them from the rest of the charges. The trial Court acquitted the accused 4 & 5 from all the charges. For the offence under Section 341 IPC, the trial Court has sentenced the appellants to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC, the trial Court sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Challenging the same, the appellants are before this Court with these two appeals. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows; (a) The deceased in this case was one Mr. Subramaniam. P.W. 1 is the brother of the deceased. P.W. 2 is the mother of the deceased. The deceased, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 were residing at Ottuppurai Street, Vadaseri Village. The accused were all residing in the same village at Kannimar Mettu Street and they belonged to the same family, except A2, who is a friend of Al. The father of the first accused was one Mr. P.K. Mani. The deceased, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 were residing at Ottuppurai Street, Vadaseri Village. The accused were all residing in the same village at Kannimar Mettu Street and they belonged to the same family, except A2, who is a friend of Al. The father of the first accused was one Mr. P.K. Mani. Nine years prior to the occurrence, it is alleged that the deceased and his companions had created extensive damage to the house of the first accused and also committed other offences. A criminal case was registered against the deceased and others which ultimately ended in acquittal. Because of the above incident, there was no love-last between the two families. This is stated to be motive for the occurrence. (b) On 27.06.2007 at about 8.00 p.m., the deceased had come to his house. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 were in the house. By about 8.45 p.m., the deceased took his clothing materials in a handbag and told P.Ws. 1 and 2 that he was proceeding to Kannimar Mettu Street. P.Ws. 1 and 2 followed him. The deceased, while proceeding towards Kannimar Mettu Street, near Ottuppurai Street, suddenly, all the six accused including the juvenile accused came to the place of occurrence. All the accused were armed with wooden logs. They surrounded the deceased and mounted attack on him with wooden logs. Each one accused gave one blow each on the deceased. The deceased fell down and died instantaneously. (c) P.Ws. 1 and 2 arranged for an auto and took the deceased to the Government Medical Collage Hospital at Aasaripallam, Kanyakumari District under the belief that he was still alive. At 9.10 p.m. P.W. 11 - Dr. Marymala examined the deceased at Aasaripallam Government Medical College Hospital. She declared him dead. She gave intimation to the Police. Ex. P5 is the death intimation. Ex. P6 is the Accident Register. (d) On receiving the said intimation, P.W. 16, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Vadasery Police Station went to the Hospital and received a written complaint from P.W. 1. On returning to the Police Station at 11.15 p.m., he registered a case in Crime No. 695 of 2007 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323 and 302 IPC. Ex. P. 11 is the FIR. He forwarded the complaint (Ex. P1) and FIR (Ex. P. 11) to the Court and handed over the investigation to P.W. 19. On returning to the Police Station at 11.15 p.m., he registered a case in Crime No. 695 of 2007 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323 and 302 IPC. Ex. P. 11 is the FIR. He forwarded the complaint (Ex. P1) and FIR (Ex. P. 11) to the Court and handed over the investigation to P.W. 19. (e) Taking up the case for investigation, P.W. 19 the then Inspector of Police proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar in the presence of P.W. 7 and another witness. He also prepared a rough sketch showing the place of occurrence. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the body for postmortem. (f) P.W. 12 - Dr. Rajesh conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased at 12.35 p.m. on 28.06.2007. He found the following injuries: "1) 5 x 1 cm scalp thick lacerated wound seen over the left side of head. It is 8 cm above the upper end of left ear. 2) 6 x 2 cm abrasion seen over the left side of forehead just above the left eyebrow. 3) 8 x 3 cm abrasion seen over the left side of cheek. 4) 3 x 2 cm abrasion seen over the outer aspect of left shoulder. 5) 1/2 x 1/2 cm abrasion seen in front of left shoulder. 6) 1/2 x 1/2 cm abrasion over the outer aspect of left lower chest. 7) 5 x 2 cm abrasion contusion seen in front of middle of left thigh. 8) 1/2 x 1/2 cm abrasion seen in front of left knee. 9) 1 x 1 cm abrasion over the inner aspect of left great toe. 1 x 1 cm abrasion over the inner aspect of right great toe. 10) 3 x 1/2 cm abrasion seen just above the right knee. 11) 2 x 1 cm abrasion seen in front of outer aspect of right iliac crust region. 12) 7 x 4 cm abrasion over the right side of lower back. 13) 2 x 1/2 cm abrasion over the outer aspect of right side of lower back. 14) 4 x 4 cm (circumscribed) abrasion over the inner aspect of left scapular region. 15) 2 x 1 cm abrasion over the middle of upper back at the level of lower end of tip of scapula. 13) 2 x 1/2 cm abrasion over the outer aspect of right side of lower back. 14) 4 x 4 cm (circumscribed) abrasion over the inner aspect of left scapular region. 15) 2 x 1 cm abrasion over the middle of upper back at the level of lower end of tip of scapula. 16) 1 x 5 cm abrasion over the right side of lower back. 17) 6 x 4 cm abrasion over the left gluteal region. All the above wounds are reddish colour. Other findings noted: Heart: Normal coronaries patent. Lungs : Normal C/s. Congested and oedematous. Hyoid Bone : Intact Stomach : 200 ml of identifiable cooked rice particle with peculiar odour. Mucosa normal. Liver, Spleen & Kidneys.. normal C/S congested. Small intestine : 30 ml of bile stained fluid Mucosa normal. Bladder: empty. Brain: Diffused sub arachnoid haemorrhage noted. Oedematous." Ex. P8 is the postmortem certificate. He had forwarded the internal organs for chemical examination. Ex. P9 is the chemical analysis report which revealed that there was no poison noticed. Ex. P. 10 is his final opinion, wherein he has stated that the deceased would appear to have died of multiple injuries. (g) During the course of investigation, on 28.06.2007, P.W. 19 arrested the accused 1 and 2 at Pillaiyar kovil near Kanyakumari Railway Station in the presence of P.W. 3 and another witness. On such arrest, they gave joined confession in which they disclosed the place where they had hidden six wooden logs. In pursuance of the same, they took the Police and witnesses to Parvathipuram Bus stop and produced six wooden logs (MOs. 1 to 6). P.W. 19 recovered the same under mahazar. On the same day, he arrested the other accused also. Then, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects to the Court. Then, he handed over the investigation to his successor P.W. 20. (h) P.W. 20 examined few more witnesses, collected medical records and examined the doctors. He had a request to the Court for forwarding the material objects for chemical examination (The report has not been marked in evidence). Finally, he laid charge sheet against the accused. (i) Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment. The accused denied the same. He had a request to the Court for forwarding the material objects for chemical examination (The report has not been marked in evidence). Finally, he laid charge sheet against the accused. (i) Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the charges on the side of the prosecution, as many as 20 witnesses were examined and 16 documents and 10 material objects were marked. (j) Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 3 to P.W. 10 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W. 11 - Dr. Marymala has stated about the fact that he declared the deceased dead. P.W. 12 - Dr. Rajesh has spoken about the autopsy conducted and his final opinion. P.W. 13 has spoken about the FIR registered against the deceased and others nine years prior to the occurrence on the complaint of one Mr. P.K. Mani, the father of the first accused. P.W. 14, who is an official of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, has spoken about the fact that there was sufficient light at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence. P.W. 15 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W. 16 has spoken about the complaint given by P.W. 1 and the registration of the case by him. P.W. 17 is the photographer, who took photographs at the place of occurrence. He has spoken about the same. P.W. 18 is the Scientific Assistant, who examined the viscera organ of the deceased and gave opinion that there was no poison detected. P.W. 19 and P.W. 20 are the investigating officers, who have spoken about the investigation done by them. (k) When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false. On their side, no oral evidence let in but two documents were marked as Exs. D. 1 and D. 2. Ex. D. 1 is the deposition of P.W. 1 in C.C. No. 110 of 2007 before the Juvenile Justice Board, Tirunelveli and Ex. D. 2 is the copy of deposition of P.W. 16 before the Juvenile Justice Board, Tirunelveli. On their side, no oral evidence let in but two documents were marked as Exs. D. 1 and D. 2. Ex. D. 1 is the deposition of P.W. 1 in C.C. No. 110 of 2007 before the Juvenile Justice Board, Tirunelveli and Ex. D. 2 is the copy of deposition of P.W. 16 before the Juvenile Justice Board, Tirunelveli. (l) Having considered all the above materials, the trial Court convicted and sentenced these appellants/A 1 to A3 as detailed above. That is how they are before this Court with these two appeals. 2. We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. We have also perused the records carefully. 3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that there was enormous delay in preferring the complaint and in despatching the FIR to the Court. He would point out that the said delay has not been explained away by the prosecution, which creates doubt in the case of the prosecution. He would next submit that the presence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 at the time of occurrence is highly doubtful. He would also submit that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 are highly artificial and the occurrence would not have taken place as projected by P.Ws. 1 and 2. He would further submit that there was no other evidence available to support the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. He would further point out that the trial Court itself has disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 as against the accused 4 and 5, though P.Ws. 1 and 2 have vividly spoken about their presence and participation in the occurrence. Thus, according to the learned senior counsel, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 are only partly believable and since there is no other corroboration, it is not safe to sustain the conviction of the accused. The learned senior counsel, thus, prayed for acquittal of the accused. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, oppose this appeal. According to him, there was no delay either in preferring the complaint or in forwarding the FIR to the Court. The so called delay projected by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has been explained away by the prosecution. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, oppose this appeal. According to him, there was no delay either in preferring the complaint or in forwarding the FIR to the Court. The so called delay projected by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has been explained away by the prosecution. Thus, there can be no doubt regarding the origin of FIR, he contended. Regarding the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, he would submit that their presence is quite natural. According to them, they followed the deceased to the place of occurrence. He would further submit that they have vividly spoken about the occurrence and there is no reason to reject their evidences. He would add that the medical evidence also duly corroborates their eyewitnesses account. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that though their evidences were rejected by the trial Court as against the accused 4 and 5, on that score, their evidences would not be outright rejected. Thus, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has proved the case beyond reason doubts against these accused and therefore, they are to be punished. 5. We have considered the submissions. 6. Admittedly, P.W. 1 is the brother and P.W. 2 is the mother of the deceased. There was enmity between the parties. It is also evident from the fact that on an earlier occasion, the house of the accused was attacked by the deceased and his henchmen, regarding which there was a case pending against him. Thus, they were all in inimical terms. It also needs to be noted that the deceased had unclean history of antecedents. The investigating officer has admitted during cross examination that the deceased was a history sheeted rowdy involved in a number of cases. Thus, he had lot of enemies. With the above admitted facts, let us now scrutinize the evidences of P.Ws. 1 and 2. 7. The occurrence had not taken place near the house of the deceased, instead the same had happened in a different street. According to P.Ws. 1 and 2, the deceased at 8.45 p.m. took his clothing materials in a handbag and proceeded to that place. If that is so, as to why P.Ws. 1 and 2 also followed him is a mystery and there is no explanation for the same. Thus, the very presence of P.Ws. According to P.Ws. 1 and 2, the deceased at 8.45 p.m. took his clothing materials in a handbag and proceeded to that place. If that is so, as to why P.Ws. 1 and 2 also followed him is a mystery and there is no explanation for the same. Thus, the very presence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful. After the occurrence, it is stated that the complaint was preferred at 11.15 p.m. But, from the records, it is seen that the FIR reached the hands of the learned Magistrate at 6.30 a.m. on the next day. Admittedly, the distance between the Police Station and the house of the learned Magistrate was hardly four kilometres. Absolutely, there is no explanation for this delay. This also creates doubt in the case of the prosecution. 8. Next comes the main argument of the learned senior counsel for the appellants. According to him, the evidences of P.Ws. 1 and 2 are highly artificial and the occurrence would not have taken place in the manner as it is projected by them. We have gone through the evidences of P.Ws. 1 and 2. In our considered view, we have no hesitation to say that their evidences are highly artificial and parrot like. Had it been true all the six accused had gone to the place of occurrence along with wooden logs with the intention to kill the deceased, after they had surrounded the deceased, going by the natural human conduct, they would have mounted attack simultaneously on the deceased. But, in this case, according to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, each one accused caused one blow each on the deceased. There was no repetition of any blow. It is highly unnatural that each accused would have caused only one blow each on the deceased. Apart from that, A1 and A3 are brothers. A2 is the friend of A1, A4 and A5 are close relatives of A1 and juvenile accused is the sister's son of Al. Thus, the entire family, including juvenile, has been roped in the case. This also creates doubt in the case of the prosecution. 9. These doubts have not been cleared off by the prosecution at all. These are all reasonable doubts against the prosecution case. Thus, the entire family, including juvenile, has been roped in the case. This also creates doubt in the case of the prosecution. 9. These doubts have not been cleared off by the prosecution at all. These are all reasonable doubts against the prosecution case. Going by the bad antecedents of the deceased, it is also possible that someone of the enemies would have attacked him when the occurrence was not noticed by anybody. There are reasons to believe that P.Ws. 1 and 2 have been planted as eyewitnesses. Going by the improbabilities in the case and the doubts which we have pointed out hereinabove, we are of the view that it would be highly unsafe to sustain the conviction of these accused. 10. Further, the trial Court itself has disbelieved the evidences of P.Ws. 1 and 2 as against the accused 4 and 5. Though P.Ws. 1 and 2 have categorically stated about the presence and participation of the accused 4 and 5, even according to the lower Court, P.Ws. 1 and 2 are only partly believable. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vadivel Thevar v. State of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 : LNIND 1957 SC 41 : (1957) 2 MLJ 69 : (1957) 1 MLJ (Crl) 775 if a witness is partly believable and partly unbelievable, prudence requires corroboration from independent source and in the absence of any such corroboration, it is not safe to rely on such uncorroborated testimony to convict the accused. Here, in this case, there is no such corroboration coming forward from any independent source to corroborate the evidences of P.Ws. 1 and 2. For these reasons, we find it difficult to sustain the conviction of the appellants/A 1 to A3 and we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against these appellants beyond reasonable doubts. In the result, these Criminal Appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/accused 1 to 3 in S.C. No. 177 of 2007 is set aside and they are acquitted. The bail bond, if any, executed by them shall stand terminated. The fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded to the appellants.