JUDGMENT : S. NAGAMUTHU, J. The appellants are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in S.C.No.2 of 2011, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, [Fast Track Court], Ramanathapuram. The Trial Court framed as many as two charges, as detailed below. Charge Accused Penal Provisions 1 1 302 IPC 2 2 and 3 302 r/w 114 IPC 2. By Judgment dated 13.10.2011, the Trial Court convicted the accused Nos.1 to 3, as detailed below:- Accused No. Convicted under Sections Sentence imposed Fine amount 1 302 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life. Rs.2000/-in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2 and 3 302 r/w 114 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life. Rs.500/-in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. As against the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have come up with this Criminal Appeal. 3. During the pendency of this Criminal Appeal, the first accused -Mr.K.Mariappan died on 11.11.2013. In connection with his death, a case of murder has been registered and the same is pending. A copy of the postmortem certificate pertaining to the dead body of the first accused has been produced to prove his death. The legal heirs of the first accused have not come on record in the place of the first accused to prosecute the Criminal Appeal. Thus, this Criminal Appeal stands abated as against the first accused. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed as abated, insofar as the first accused is concerned. Now, therefore, we are concerned only with the accused Nos.2 and 3. 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The deceased, in this case, was one Mr.Raja. He was a resident of Eanathikottai Village. All the three accused also hailed from the same village and they were all the neighbours of the deceased. Sometime before the occurrence, while taking water from a public tap, there was a quarrel between the sister of the first accused, by name, Mrs.Latha and the mother-in-law of PW-1. The deceased and his brother, by name, Mr.Pandian intervened in the same. This developed into a big quarrel and the same ultimately, culminated as a strong enmity between these two families. The deceased was driving an auto under one Dr.Jeyalpaul at Manamadurai. On one occasion, he was training his wife to drive the auto. When she drew the auto, while under training, the same dashed against the house of one Mr.Chellpandi. This developed into a big quarrel and the same ultimately, culminated as a strong enmity between these two families. The deceased was driving an auto under one Dr.Jeyalpaul at Manamadurai. On one occasion, he was training his wife to drive the auto. When she drew the auto, while under training, the same dashed against the house of one Mr.Chellpandi. The said Mr.Chellapandi questioned the deceased about the same, which also resulted in a quarrel. The first accused -Mr.K.Mariappan joined hands with Mr.Chellapandi and quarreled with the deceased. In the said quarrel, the deceased stabbed the first accused with a knife. In respect of the said occurrence, on the complaint of the first accused, a case was registered against the deceased, PW-1 and the others. They were all arrested and later, they came out on bail. This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence. 4.1. On 13.05.2009, at 09.00 PM, it is stated that the deceased was sitting near the Village Common Well, situated near the village community centre. The accused were also there near the community centre. The deceased went up to the accused, spoke to them and requested them that they could compromise all the issues between them and the criminal case against him should be withdrawn. The accused did not agree for the same. Instead, it is stated that the accused Nos.2 and 3 held the deceased and the first accused took out a knife and stabbed on the left side of the chest of the deceased. It is further alleged that the sister of the first accused -Mrs.Latha rushed to the place of occurrence. It is further alleged that PW-1 attacked her with a stick on her head, in which she sustained a bleeding injury. Then, all the three accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. 4.2. It is further alleged that PW-1 took the deceased in a TATA Van to the Government Hospital at Paramakudi. PW-16, Dr. R.Ravikumar examined the deceased and declared him dead. Due intimation was given to the police regarding the same. 4.3. On receiving intimation from the hospital, at 10.00 PM, on 13.05.2009, PW-17, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Parthibanoor Police Station, went to the Government Hospital and obtained a statement from PW-1, the father of the deceased. PW-16, Dr. R.Ravikumar examined the deceased and declared him dead. Due intimation was given to the police regarding the same. 4.3. On receiving intimation from the hospital, at 10.00 PM, on 13.05.2009, PW-17, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Parthibanoor Police Station, went to the Government Hospital and obtained a statement from PW-1, the father of the deceased. On returning to the Police Station, at 11.00 PM, he registered a case in Crime No.76 of 2009, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. EX-P1 is the complaint and EX-P11 is the First Information Report. Then, he forwarded both the documents to the Court and handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. 4.4. Taking up the case for investigation, PW-18, the then Inspector of Police, at 01.00 AM, on 14.05.2009, proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared an Observation Mahazer and a Rough Sketch, showing the place of occurrence in the presence of PW-6 and another witness. He recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and forwarded the dead body for postmortem. 4.5. PW-10, Dr. A. Muniyarasu conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased, at 11.30 AM, on 14.05.2009. He noticed the following injuries:- "1. An oblique 3 cm length, 1 cm breath of an incised stab wound seen on the left side anterior chest wall at the level of 3rd and 4th intercostal space in the MCL and depth of the wound penetrated in the chest cavity/ The edges are clear cut and sharp, both ends of the edges are pointed [acute]. 2. On exploring the wound, the injury piercing the skin, sub-cutaneous tissue, deep muscles of the chest on left side further the wound extended into the chest cavity, in the 3rd and 4th intercostal space with clotted blood. 3. On exploring the rib cage, there is 3 X 1 cm, deeply penetrated wound seen on left upper lobe of the lungs. On anterior sides with clotted blood. The thoracic cavity contains 1500 ml of partially clotted blood. Heart chamber empty. Head & Neck: No fracture skull bone : Brain shows pale in appearance. Hyoid bone intact". He gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to injuries to vital organ - lung. 4.6. On anterior sides with clotted blood. The thoracic cavity contains 1500 ml of partially clotted blood. Heart chamber empty. Head & Neck: No fracture skull bone : Brain shows pale in appearance. Hyoid bone intact". He gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to injuries to vital organ - lung. 4.6. During the course of investigation, on 15.05.2009, at 09.00 AM, near the river at Parthibanoor, he arrested all the three accused in the presence of PW-19 and another witness. On such arrest, the first accused gave a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place, where he had hidden a knife. In pursuance of the same, he took PW-18 and the witnesses to the said pace and produced MO-1, the knife from the hide out. PW-18 recovered the same under a mahazer. On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand. Then, he handed over the material objects to the Court. Since PW-18 was transferred, he handed over the investigation to his successor. 4.7. PW-19, took up the case for investigation, on 29.08.2009. He made a request to the Court to forward the material objects for chemical examination. The report revealed that there was human blood on all the material objects, including the knife. On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused. 4.8. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed appropriate charges, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment. When the accused were questioned in respect of the charges, they pleaded innocence. In order to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, 19 witnesses were examined, 15 documents and 6 material objects were marked. Out of the said 19 witnesses, PW-1, the father of the deceased, has spoken about the motive as well as the entire occurrence. PW-2 is the wife of the deceased. She has also stated about the motive and the entire occurrence. PW-3 is the brother of the deceased. He has also stated about the motive as well as the entire occurrence. PW-4 has spoken about the complaint made by PW-1, in which she attested. PW-5 is the cousin of the deceased. He has spoken about the motive and the registration of the case in respect of the earlier occurrence. PW-3 is the brother of the deceased. He has also stated about the motive as well as the entire occurrence. PW-4 has spoken about the complaint made by PW-1, in which she attested. PW-5 is the cousin of the deceased. He has spoken about the motive and the registration of the case in respect of the earlier occurrence. PW-6 and PW-7 have spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazer and the rough sketch and the recovery of knife, at the instance of the first accused. PW-8 and PW-9 have not stated anything incriminating against the accused. PW-10 has spoken about the autopsy conducted by him and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. 4.9. PW-11 is the Scientific Assistant in the Forensic Lab, who has spoken about the chemical analysis conducted on the material objects. PW-12 has spoken about the serology report given by her. PW-13 has spoken about the case registered against the deceased in respect of the earlier occurrence. PW-14 has spoken about the fact that he carried the First Information Report from the Police Station and handed over the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate, on 14.05.2009, at 07.00 AM. PW-15 is the Constable, who carried the dead body to the hospital for postmortem. PW-16 -Dr.R.Ravikumar has stated that on 13.05.2009, at 09.00 PM, when he was in the hospital, the deceased was brought for treatment. He found him dead. EX-P10 is the Accident Register. He gave intimation to the police regarding the same. He has spoken about the same. PW-17 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who obtained the complaint from PW-1 and registered the case against the accused. PW-18 and PW-19 have spoken about the investigation conducted by them and the filing of the final report against the accused. 4.10. When the Trial Court examined the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the incriminating evidences available against them, they denied the same as false. However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor to exhibit any document. Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court convicted the appellants, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment and punished them accordingly. That is how, the appellants are now before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 5. In this case, since the learned counsel for the appellants on record had withdrawn his appearance, we appointed Mr. Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court convicted the appellants, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment and punished them accordingly. That is how, the appellants are now before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 5. In this case, since the learned counsel for the appellants on record had withdrawn his appearance, we appointed Mr. I. Robertchandrakumar, as Legal Aid Counsel to argue the case of the appellants. We have heard the learned Legal Aid Counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and also perused the records carefully. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that PW-1 to PW-3, who claimed to have seen the occurrence, would not have, in fact, witnessed the occurrence at all. He would further submit that the presence of PW-1 to PW-3, at the place of occurrence and at the crucial time, is highly unbelievable. He would further submit that even assuming that PW-1 to PW-3 were present at the time of occurrence, their evidences would go to reflect their unnatural conduct, which would further go to show that their evidences cannot be fully believed, insofar as the accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned. He would further submit that the occurrence was at 09.00 PM, on 13.05.2009. Though it is alleged that the First Information Report was registered at 11.00 PM, it had reached the hands of the learned Judicial Magistrate only at 07.00 AM, on 14.05.2009. The learned counsel would further submit that this inordinate delay in forwarding the First Information Report to the Court creates doubt in the case of the prosecution. At any rate, according to the learned counsel, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts and thus, the accused Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for acquittal. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, oppose this Criminal Appeal. According to him, the occurrence, in this case, took place at 09.00 PM, on 13.05.2009 and the First Information Report was registered at 11.00 PM on the same day and it had reached the hands of the learned Judicial Magistrate at 07.00 AM, on 14.05.2009. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, oppose this Criminal Appeal. According to him, the occurrence, in this case, took place at 09.00 PM, on 13.05.2009 and the First Information Report was registered at 11.00 PM on the same day and it had reached the hands of the learned Judicial Magistrate at 07.00 AM, on 14.05.2009. So far as the delay of eight hours in forwarding the First Information Report to the Court is concerned, though the said delay has not been explained away by the prosecution, that by itself would not create any doubt in the case of the prosecution. He would further submit that the presence of PW-1 to PW-3 is quite natural and there are no reasons to reject their evidences. He would further submit that the medical evidence also duly corroborates the eye-witness account. He would further submit that the recovery of the weapon also further strengthened the case of the prosecution. Thus, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the Trial Court does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. 8. We have considered the above submissions. 9. Even according to the case of the prosecution, the occurrence was at 09.00 PM, on 13.05.2009. The First Information report, in this case, was registered at 11.00 PM on the same day. Now, the question is whether at 11.00 PM, the First Information Report would have been registered, as it is projected by the prosecution. Had it been true that the First Information Report was registered at 11.00 PM, on 13.05.2009, since the distance between the Police Station and the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate at Parthibanoor is hardly 15 kilometres, it would not have taken eight hours to reach the hands of the learned Judicial Magistrate. Such delay has not been explained away by the prosecution. This inordinate and unexplained delay creates doubt in the case of the prosecution as to whether the First Information Report would have been registered at 11.00 PM, on 13.05.2009, at it is projected by the prosecution. 10. Next, the learned counsel would submit that in the same occurrence, the sister of the first accused -Mrs.Latha sustained injuries, which has been spoken to by PW-1. 10. Next, the learned counsel would submit that in the same occurrence, the sister of the first accused -Mrs.Latha sustained injuries, which has been spoken to by PW-1. Neither the wound certificate of Mrs.Latha nor the investigation done in respect of the said injuries sustained by Mrs.Latha has been placed before the Court at the time of the trial. Absolutely, there is no explanation for this flaw also. This also creates doubt in the case of the prosecution. 11. Next comes the place of occurrence. The occurrence was not anywhere either near the house of the accused or the deceased. The occurrence took place near the Village Common Well, situated near the village community centre. The time of occurrence was at 09.00 PM. It is not explained to the Court as to why PW-1 to PW-3 had gone to the said place at the crucial time of 09.00 PM. PW-1 to PW-3 claimed to have been present at the time of occurrence by chance. It is too well settled that as a rule of caution, the evidence of such witnesses need to be very carefully scrutinized. If the witnesses claim to have been present at the time of occurrence by chance, then, it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to satisfactorily explain as to what made the witnesses to be present at the crucial time of occurrence. In other words, their chance presence should be probabilised. In the instant case, a perusal of the evidences of PW-1 to PW-3 would go to show that absolutely, there is no such explanation offered by them for their presence at the place of occurrence. Thus, we have to further doubt their very presence at the place of occurrence. 12. Next comes the actual occurrence, as spoken to by PW-1 to PW-3. It is the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 that the accused Nos.2 and 3 held the deceased and the accused Nos.1 had caused a single stab injury on the deceased. It is their evidence that all three accused came to the place of occurrence with a common object to do away with the deceased. Had it been true, the accused Nos.2 and 3 would not have simply caught hold the deceased, as it is projected by the prosecution. The first accused did not repeat any blow on the deceased. It is their evidence that all three accused came to the place of occurrence with a common object to do away with the deceased. Had it been true, the accused Nos.2 and 3 would not have simply caught hold the deceased, as it is projected by the prosecution. The first accused did not repeat any blow on the deceased. For having caused a single blow on the deceased, the assistance of the accused Nos.2 and 3 would not have been required. Thus, the manner in which they narrated the occurrence also creates some doubt in the mind of this Court. 13. Admittedly, PW-1 to PW-3 are not only interested witnesses, but also enimical towards the accused party. Their presence at the time of occurrence was also by chance. If their evidences are to be believed, their evidences should inspire the fullest confidence of the Court or at least there should be some other evidence from independent sources to corroborate the same. In this case, for the flaws, which we have discussed hereinabove, we hold that the PW-1 to PW-3 are not fully believable and their very presence at the place of occurrence cannot be fully believed so as to sustain the conviction. In our considered view, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts against the accused Nos.2 and 3.In such view of the matter, we are inclined to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused Nos.2 and 3/the appellants 2 and 3. 14. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed; the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant Nos.2 and 3, by Judgment dated 13.10.2011 made in S.C.No.2 of 2011, on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, [Fast Track Court], Ramanathapuram, is set aside and the appellant Nos.2 and 3 are acquitted. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant Nos.2 and 3 shall be refunded to them. Bail bond executed by them and the sureties shall stand terminated. The Criminal Appeal stands dismissed as abated as against the first accused/the first appellant. The Legal Services Authority is directed to pay fees to the learned counsel, who has been appointed as Legal Aid Counsel to argue the case on behalf of the appellants.