JUDGMENT : S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The appellants are the accused Nos. 1 to 12 in S.C. No. 113 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Thoothukudi. They stood charged for the offences as detailed below; Charges Accused Penal Provisions 1 A1, A3, A7, A9, A10 and A12 120(b) IPC 2 A1 to A12 341 IPC 3 A1 to A12 148 IPC 4 A1 to A7 302 IPC 5 A8 to A12 302 r/w. 149 IPC 6 A5 & A7 Section 5(A) of the Explosives Substance Act By judgment dated 10.10.2011, the trial court convicted all the 12 accused as detailed below: Accused Conviction under Section Sentence imposed A1 to A12 341 IPC To undergo simple imprisonment for one week for the offence under Section 341 IPC; A1 to A12 148 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one years for the offence under Section 148 IPC; A1 to A7 302 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each A8 to A12 302 r/w.149 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302r/w. 149 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with this appeal. 2. During the pendency of this appeal, the sixth accused Mr. S. Johnson died on 10.10.2013. The death certificate issued by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Nagercoil Municipality, Kanyakumari District, has been produced. No one has come on record to prosecute the appeal in the place of the 6th accused, Mr. S. Johnson and thus, this appeal stands abated against the 6th accused. Thus, we are presently concerned with the appeal filed by the accused 1 to 5 and 7 to 12. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The deceased in this case was one Mr. Joseph. He was a resident of Madathur Village in Thoothukudi District. The deceased was supplying some raw materials to SIPCOT in Thoothukudi. All the accused also belonged to the same village. One Mr. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The deceased in this case was one Mr. Joseph. He was a resident of Madathur Village in Thoothukudi District. The deceased was supplying some raw materials to SIPCOT in Thoothukudi. All the accused also belonged to the same village. One Mr. Thalamuthu, who was originally arrayed as first accused in the case, was selling illicit arrack in the village, 15 years prior to the occurrence. The deceased Joseph was a VIP in the Village. In the village Panchayat, it was decided that no one should manufacture arrack or any other illicit liquor in the Village. The deceased Joseph was instrumental for such a resolution. In violation of the said decision taken, Mr. Thalamuthu continued to sell arrack. The deceased Joseph informed the police and accordingly, action was taken against Mr. Thalamuthu by the police. Thus, Mr. Thalamuthu was virtually prevented by the deceased from selling arrack. 3.1. There was, thus, enmity between Mr. Thalamuthu and his family members on one side and the deceased and his family members on the other side. Mr. Thalamuthu, however, later on, became the Village Panchayat Board President of Meelavittan village twice. But in the panchayat election held in the year 2006, Mr. Thalamuthu was defeated. In the said election, it was stated that the deceased Joseph and his supporters voted against Mr. Thalamuthu, which was the cause for his defeat. The defeat in the panchayat election infuriated Mr. Thalamuthu further and the enmity became very stronger. This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence. 3.2. The deceased used to go to the Phillips Company in Thoothukudi, everyday, in the morning. In the usual course, on 27.12.2006, the deceased was proceeding to the Phillips Company in his motorcycle bearing registration No. TN-69 J 7032. PW 1 is the son of the deceased and PW 2 is his Driver. P.Ws. 1 and 2 followed the deceased in a car driven by PW 2. When the deceased was nearing the Ladies Hostel run by Thalamuthu, on the road leading to SIPCOT, the Maruti Zipsy van bearing registration No. TCZ-4000 came to the spot and it was stopped just in front of the vehicle of the deceased. The said car was driven by the third accused, Mr. Somu. The deceased lost his balance and fell from his motorcycle along with the motorcycle. The said car was driven by the third accused, Mr. Somu. The deceased lost his balance and fell from his motorcycle along with the motorcycle. Even before the deceased could get up, all the 12 accused came out from the car and surrounded him. Mr. Thalamuthu, however, was not present at the time of occurrence. The accused 1 to 7 had aruvals in their hands. They indiscriminately cut the deceased. The accused 8 to 12 surrounded the deceased and facilitated the accused 1 to 7 to cut the deceased. The deceased fell unconscious in a pool of blood. P.Ws. 1 and 2 attempted to rescue. But the accused wielded the aruvals against them and threatened them with dire consequences. Then, all the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. The occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws. 3 and 4 also. 3.3. Immediately P.Ws. 1 and 2 took the deceased to the Government Hospital at Thoothukudi. PW 20 examined him at 8.25 a.m. on 27.12.2006 and she found him dead. She made necessary entry in the Accident Register and forwarded the body to the mortuary. PW 20 gave due intimation to the police about the same. 3.4. PW 21 was the Head Constable at the Thoothukudi Government Hospital out Police station, which is situated in the premises of the hospital. On receiving the intimation, he immediately rushed to the hospital, where he confirmed that the deceased was declared dead. He enquired PW 1, who was present there, about the occurrence. PW 1 told him that on 27.12.2006, at 07.30 a.m. on the road leading to SIPCOT from Madathur, the deceased was attacked by unknown persons. He further told that when the deceased was brought to the hospital, he was already dead. 3.5. PW 21 made necessary entry in the Register maintained at the Outpost Police Station. That entry has been marked as Ex. D.1. P.W. 21, then, gave intimation to the jurisdictional police. 3.6. P.W. 16, the Head Constable attached to SIPCOT Police Station, on getting intimation, rushed to the Government Hospital at Thoothukudi, where he collected the written death intimation and returned to the Police Station. P.W. 19, the then Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Thoothukudi SIPCOT Police Station, thereafter, proceeded to the Government Hospital, Thoothukudi, where P.W. 1 presented a written complaint to him at 09.15 a.m. (vide Ex. P1). P.W. 19, the then Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Thoothukudi SIPCOT Police Station, thereafter, proceeded to the Government Hospital, Thoothukudi, where P.W. 1 presented a written complaint to him at 09.15 a.m. (vide Ex. P1). On returning to the Police Station, at 09.30 a.m., he registered a case in Crime No. 221 of 2006 under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC. Ex. P36 is the FIR. He forwarded both the documents to the Court, which were received at 01.00 p.m. by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Thoothukudi. Then he handed over the Case Diary to the Inspector of Police, namely, P.W. 22. 3.7. PW 22 took up the case for investigation at 10.15 a.m. on 29.12.2006. He proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar and a rough sketch at the place of occurrence at 10.30 a.m. on 27.12.2006, in the presence of PW 9 and another witness. He recovered the blood stained earth, sample earth, a pair of chappals and a motorcycle bearing registration No. TN-69J-7032 from the place of occurrence. Then, she went to the hospital and conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 12.00 and 2.30 p.m. and she forwarded the body for postmortem. 3.8. PW 14 Dr. Selvamurugan, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 27.12.2006 at 02.55 p.m. He found the following injuries: Abrasion of size 5 x 4 cm seen over right side of forehead. 1. Abrasion of size 2 x 1 cm seen near left eye. 2. Abrasion of size 1 x 1 cm seen over right cheek. 3. An oblique gapping heavy cutting injury of size 15 x 2 x cavity depth seen over left tempero parietal region. It cuts the underlying left temporal bone and enters into cranial cavity. 4. An oblique gapping heavy cutting injury of size 10 x 2 x 6 c.m. seen over left side of upper part of neck. It cuts the underlying muscles, arteries, nerves and left side of mandible. It also cuts the lower part of left ear. 5. An oblique gapping heavy cutting injury of size 12 x 2 cm x bone depth seen over lower part of occipital bone. It cuts the underlying soft tissues. 6. An oblique gapping heavy cutting injury of size 14 x 2 x 10 cm seen over upper part of back of neck. 5. An oblique gapping heavy cutting injury of size 12 x 2 cm x bone depth seen over lower part of occipital bone. It cuts the underlying soft tissues. 6. An oblique gapping heavy cutting injury of size 14 x 2 x 10 cm seen over upper part of back of neck. It cuts the underlying muscles, arteries, nerves, cervical vertebra and spinal cord. It lies 1 cm below injury No. 6. 7. An oblique gapping heavy cutting injury of size 7 x 2 x 3 cm seen over upper part of back of neck. It cuts the underlying muscles. It lies 1 cm below injury No. 7. 8. An oblique gapping heavy cutting injury of size 5 x 2 x 2 cm seen over left side of neck. It cuts the underlying muscles. It lies 3 cms below injury No. 5. 9. A horizontal gapping heavy cutting injury of size 10 x 2 x 3 c.m. seen over lower part of neck with a tailing of 5 cm anteriorly. It lies 3 cms below injury No. 9. It cuts the underlying soft tissues and muscles. 10. A flapping heavy cutting injury of size 8 x 3 x 2 cm seen over the left cheek. 11. An oblique gapping heavy cutting injury of size 13 x 2 x 2 cm with a tailing of 2 cm posteriorly seen over left shoulder. It cuts the underlying muscles. 12. An oblique gapping heavy cutting injury of size 9 x 2 x 3 cm seen over back of left shoulder. It cuts the underlying muscles and left scapula bone. 13. An oblique gapping heavy cutting injury of size 29 x 4 cm cavity depth seen over left side of upper part of back and back of left upper arm. It cuts the underlying soft tissues, muscles, left scapula, left 5th rib and enters into left pleural cavity. It lies 4 cm below injury No. 13. 14. An oblique gapping heavy cutting injury of size 9 x 1.5 x 1 cm seen over left side of back with a tailing of 11 cms outwards. It lies 7 cms below injury No. 14. It cuts the underlying soft tissues. 15. A vertical gapping heavy cutting injury of size 10 x 4 x 2 cm seen over outer aspect of upper part of left thigh. It cuts the underlying muscles. 16. It lies 7 cms below injury No. 14. It cuts the underlying soft tissues. 15. A vertical gapping heavy cutting injury of size 10 x 4 x 2 cm seen over outer aspect of upper part of left thigh. It cuts the underlying muscles. 16. An oblique gapping heavy cutting injury of size 5 x 2 x 1 cm seen over outer aspect of upper part of left thigh. It lies 6 cms below injury No. 16. Ex. P. 28 is the postmortem Certificate. He gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to heavy cut injuries to neck. He further opined that the injury No. 7 was fatal. He also opined that the death would have occurred 6 to 12 hours prior to autopsy. 3.9. In the course of investigation, PW 22 recovered the dress materials found on the dead body of the deceased and forwarded the same to the Court. On 02.01.2007 at 12 noon, at Meelavittan to Thoothukudi Road, he arrested the 2nd accused Sakthivel and 8th accused Mahesh, in the presence of PW 11 and another witness. On such arrest, the 2nd accused gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place, where he had hidden an aruval and a motorcycle. The 8th accused, Mahesh gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place, where he had hidden an Yamaha motorcycle. In pursuance of these two confessions, the respective properties were recovered. On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded these two accused to Court and handed over the material objects also. 4. On 03.01.2007, at 2.15 p.m., P.W. 22 arrested the accused Thalamuthu (he died even before the trial) at AVM hospital, where he was undergoing treatment. On 29.12.2006, the accused Nos. 1 and 3 had surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. IV, Tirunelveli. She took police custody of these two accused on 06.1.2007. While in custody, the first accused gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place, where he had hidden the Ambassador Car bearing registration No. TMH-699 and an aruval. The third accused Somu, gave a voluntary confession at 7.30 a.m., in which, he disclosed the place, where he had hidden the aruval and Maruthi Zipsi Car bearing registration No. TCZ-4000. In pursuance of these two confessions, the respective material objects were recovered at their instance. The third accused Somu, gave a voluntary confession at 7.30 a.m., in which, he disclosed the place, where he had hidden the aruval and Maruthi Zipsi Car bearing registration No. TCZ-4000. In pursuance of these two confessions, the respective material objects were recovered at their instance. They were all recovered under two different mahazars. Then she forwarded the accused to Court and handed over the material objects also. 4.1. On 06.01.2007, at 2.00 p.m., at Thoothukudi Harbour By-pass road, she arrested the accused 5 and 6. On such arrest, the 5th accused gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place, where he had hidden the two country made bombs. At 2.00 p.m., the 6th accused made a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place, where he had hidden an aruval. In pursuance of the confession, the accused No. 5 took the police and the witnesses to Pudur Pandiapuram and from a bush, produced an aruval and two country made bombs. P.W. 22 recovered the same under a mahazar. Then the 6th accused Johnson produced a blood stained aruval. PW 22 recovered the same in the presence of the witnesses. On returning to the Police Station, she forwarded the accused to Court. Then, she handed over the material objects also to the Court. 4.2. On 05.01.2007, the accused Nos. 4, 7, 9 and 12 were arrested. On such arrest, Mr. Anandharaj, gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden the aruval. At 7.30 a.m. the 7th accused gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden an aruval. The 9th accused, then, gave a voluntary confession, in which, he did not make any disclosure statement. The 10th accused gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden an aruval. In pursuance of the respective disclosure statements, aruvals were recovered. 4.3. The 11th accused and 12th accused had surrendered before the Magistrate Court. Then she obtained a sanction from the District Collector, Thoothukudi, for filing final report. Finally, she laid charge sheet against the accused. 4.4. Based on the above materials, the trial court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment. The accused denied the same. 4.3. The 11th accused and 12th accused had surrendered before the Magistrate Court. Then she obtained a sanction from the District Collector, Thoothukudi, for filing final report. Finally, she laid charge sheet against the accused. 4.4. Based on the above materials, the trial court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 22 witnesses were examined, 42 documents and 24 material objects were marked. 4.5. Out of the said witnesses, PW 1 is the son of the deceased, who has spoken vividly about the entire occurrence. According to him, he along with P.W. 2 followed the deceased and he witnessed the entire occurrence involving all the 12 accused. He has also stated that he took the deceased to the hospital and made a complaint to the police. P.Ws. 2 and 3 have turned hostile. Though they were examined as eyewitnesses, they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. PW 4 is yet another eyewitness. He has stated that at the time of occurrence, he was present somewhere near the place of occurrence and witnessed the entire occurrence. He has further stated that after the occurrence, he went to Madurai, stayed there for two days and returned to the village on 29.12.2006 and then disclosed about the occurrence. PW 5, Mr. Paulraj, has spoken about the conspiracy hatched by the accused 1,3,4,7,9,10 and 12 on 23.12.2006 at 6.00 p.m. near Iyyappan Nagar, Thottam at Pudukottai. According to him, these accused were found talking among themselves indicating that they were planning to do away with the deceased. P.Ws. 6, 7 and 8 have not stated anything incriminating against the accused. PW 9 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar, rough sketch and recovery of material objects at the place of occurrence. P.Ws. 10 and 11 have spoken about the arrest of the accused and the consequential recoveries of the material objects. 4.6. PW 12 is the Forensic Expert, who has stated that he defused the country made bombs, which were recovered during the course of investigation. PW 13 is the Head Clerk of the jurisdictional Magistrate Court, who has stated that he forwarded the material objects for chemical examination. PW 14 has spoken about the Postmortem conducted by him and his final opinion. PW 13 is the Head Clerk of the jurisdictional Magistrate Court, who has stated that he forwarded the material objects for chemical examination. PW 14 has spoken about the Postmortem conducted by him and his final opinion. PW 15 is an official from the District Collectorate, Thoothukudi, who has stated about the sanction given for prosecution. PW 16 is the Head Constable attached to SIP-COT Police Station. He has stated that he took the country made bombs, which were recovered during the course of investigation and handed over the same to the Forensic Lab for diffusing. PW 17 is yet another Head Constable, who has stated that he got the cover containing the complaint and the FIR from the Sub-Inspector of Police and handed over the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Thoothukudi at 1.00 p.m. PW 18 has spoken that he carried the dead body of the deceased and handed over the same to the Doctor for postmortem. PW 19 is the one who registered the case on the complaint of PW 1. PW 20 - Dr. Thankalakshmi is the one, who examined the deceased at the hospital on 27.12.2006 at 8.25 a.m. She has further stated that she declared him dead and informed the same to the police. PW 21 was working as a Head Constable at the Outpost Police Station at the Government Hospital, Thoothukudi. He has stated that he received the intimation from the Doctor on 27.12.2006 and immediately rushed to the hospital, where he found PW 1. PW 1 told him that the deceased was cut by unknown persons. He has made entry in the relevant register under Ex. D1. PW 22 has spoken about the investigation. 5. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false. On their side, the entry made in the Tuticorin Government Hospital Out Police Station intimation register has been marked (vide Ex. D1). Ex. D2 is the general diary maintained in SIPCOT Police Station, wherein entry had been made at 8.50 a.m. on 27.12.2006. Ex. D3 is the Accident and injury intimation police book between 22.12.2006 and 28.12.2006. The defence of the accused was a total denial. D1). Ex. D2 is the general diary maintained in SIPCOT Police Station, wherein entry had been made at 8.50 a.m. on 27.12.2006. Ex. D3 is the Accident and injury intimation police book between 22.12.2006 and 28.12.2006. The defence of the accused was a total denial. Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted all the 12 accused as detailed in the 1st paragraph of the judgment and that is how, they are before this Court with this appeal. 6. We have heard Mr. A. Ramesh, learned senior counsel for the appellants, Mr. C. Mayilvahana Rajendran, Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and Mr. P. Kumaresan, learned counsel for the complainant, who assisted the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. We have also perused the records carefully. 7. The learned senior counsel for the appellants would submit that P.Ws. 1 to 4 cannot be believed for various reasons. According to him, P.W. 1, at the earliest point of time, had told P.W. 21 that the deceased was attacked by unknown persons. He would further submit that subsequently in Ex. P1, he mentioned the names of the accused 1 to 3 and Mr. Thalamuthu and did not mention the names of the accused 4 to 12. He would further submit that even during investigation, he did not make any mention about the participation of the accused 4 to 12. He would further submit that his presence at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful. 7.1. So far as P.W. 4 is concerned, the learned senior counsel would submit that by his very conduct that he kept mum for 2 days without disclosing the occurrence for 2 days, he has rendered himself unbelievable. He would further submit that the original FIR in this case has been suppressed. He would further submit that an attempt has been made to rope in as many number of persons as possible, as accused in the case, because of previous enmity. Thus, according to the learned senior counsel, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts. 8. But the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently oppose this appeal. Mr. P. Kumaresan, learned counsel for the de-facto complainant would also oppose this appeal. 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that Ex. D. 1, the entry in the register maintained in the out post police station cannot be given any weightage of. 8. But the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently oppose this appeal. Mr. P. Kumaresan, learned counsel for the de-facto complainant would also oppose this appeal. 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that Ex. D. 1, the entry in the register maintained in the out post police station cannot be given any weightage of. He would further submit that though it is true that in Ex. P1, P.W. 1 had mentioned the participation of the accused 1 to 3 and Mr. Thalamuthu, he had failed to mention the names of the accused 4 to 12, it was only because P.W. 1 was in a disturbed mind due to the demise of his father. He would further submit that subsequently he has mentioned the participation of the 12 accused in the occurrence. He would further submit that there is nothing unnatural on the part of P.W. 4. He would further submit that P.Ws. 1 and 4's presence cannot be doubted and thus, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court are liable to be confirmed. 10. We have considered the above submissions. 11. As we have already pointed out the prosecution relies on the eye witness account of P.Ws. 1 and 4 to prove the guilt of the accused. P.W. 1 is the son of the deceased and P.W. 4 is the close relative of the deceased. The occurrence had not taken place anywhere near the house of either P.W. 1 or P.W. 4. The occurrence had taken place near SIPCOT in Thoothukudi. The presence of P.Ws. 1 and 4 is, thus, by chance. It is too well settled that in a case, where a witness claims to have been present at the crucial point of time, at the place of occurrence by chance, he should explain to the satisfaction of the Court the reasons for his being present at the time of occurrence. Here, in this case, P.W. 1 has offered an explanation to say that he along with P.W. 2 had followed the deceased in a car. It is not as though P.Ws. 1 and 2 had any job to follow the deceased, who was going in his motorcycle. It is not as if the car could carry only two people. P.W. 2, according to P.W. 1, was the Driver of the car and P.W. 1 was sitting in the car. It is not as though P.Ws. 1 and 2 had any job to follow the deceased, who was going in his motorcycle. It is not as if the car could carry only two people. P.W. 2, according to P.W. 1, was the Driver of the car and P.W. 1 was sitting in the car. Had it been true that the deceased and P.W. 1 had a common work to do anywhere near SIPCOT, they would have gone by the same car. But the deceased was proceeding to Phillips Company. It is not explained to the Court as to why P.Ws. 1 and 2 followed them. Thus, the explanation offered by P.W. 1 for his being present at the time of occurrence is doubtful. 12. Similarly, P.W. 4 has offered no explanation at all for his presence at the place of occurrence. He has simply stated that at the time of occurrence, he was just walking at the place of occurrence. Thus, the presence of P.W. 4 is also doubtful. 13. The alleged occurrence was at 8.10 a.m. on 27.12.2006. Immediately, the deceased was taken to the hospital. P.W. 20 had examined the deceased at 8.25 a.m. at the Government Hospital at Tuticorin. At that time, the deceased had already breathed his last. But P.W. 1 did not tell the Doctor as to how the deceased sustained injuries. In the Accident Register, which is supposed to contain the history of the injuries, which is normally recorded by the Doctors, there is no such mention at all. P.W. 20 has stated during cross examination that P.W. 1 did not say anything about the same. Regarding this, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that because the deceased had already breathed his last, the Doctor did not enquire from P.W. 1, as to how the deceased sustained injuries. This explanation to some extent may be accepted. Therefore, we need not attach much importance for the non mentioning of the history of the injuries in the accident register. 14. After admission, P.W. 20 gave intimation to the police. P.W. 21 was the Head Constable attached to the Out Post Police Station of the Government Hospital at Tuticorin situated within the hospital premises. Therefore, we need not attach much importance for the non mentioning of the history of the injuries in the accident register. 14. After admission, P.W. 20 gave intimation to the police. P.W. 21 was the Head Constable attached to the Out Post Police Station of the Government Hospital at Tuticorin situated within the hospital premises. According to him, on receiving the said intimation from the hospital, he immediately rushed to the hospital, where he found the dead body of the deceased and P.W. 1 was very much available. When he enquired P.W. 1, according to P.W. 21, P.W. 1 told him that the deceased was attacked by unknown persons at 7.30 a.m. on the Madathur to SIPCOT Road. He had further stated that when he was brought to the hospital, he died. P.W. 21 immediately returned to the police station and made necessary entry in the register maintained in the police station. Ex. D. 1 is the said entry. Had it been true that P.W. 1 had seen the occurrence, in which, these accused had attacked the deceased, certainly, he would have told P.W. 21 that the deceased was attacked by known persons. Admittedly, all these 12 accused were very well known to P.W. 1, as they were all his arch enemies. 15. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that Ex. D1 may not be given any weightage of, because P.W. 1 has stated in his evidence that he did not say so to P.W. 21. This argument deserves only to be rejected, because under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, this statement under Ex. D1, being the former statement of P.W. 1, could be used either to corroborate him or contradict him. Here, in this case, P.W. 1 has been duly contradicted by his statement. Above all, this entry has been made in the routine official business of P.W. 21, an officer, who was duty bound to register, while making entry. Under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, we have to presume that the entry was made as per the information furnished by P.W. 1. Of course, such presumption is rebuttable. But the prosecution has not let in any evidence or brought on record any materials to rebut the said presumption. The said presumption is, thus, unrebutted. Therefore, we have every reason to hold that Ex. Of course, such presumption is rebuttable. But the prosecution has not let in any evidence or brought on record any materials to rebut the said presumption. The said presumption is, thus, unrebutted. Therefore, we have every reason to hold that Ex. D1 was made duly as per the information furnished by P.W. 1. Having come to the said conclusion, we have no option but to hold that at the earliest opportunity, P.W. 1 had told P.W. 21 that the deceased was attacked by unknown persons. Had it been true that these accused had attacked the deceased and that was seen by P.W. 1, there would have been no reason for him to make such a statement to P.W. 21. This has not been explained away by the prosecution. This further strengthens the doubt in the case of the prosecution. 16. After making entry under Ex. D1, P.W. 21 gave intimation to the jurisdictional police. P.W. 19 the Sub Inspector of Police instructed P.W. 16 the Head Constable attached to SIPCOT Police Station to visit the police station and collect the death intimation. Accordingly, he went to the police station, collected the death intimation, saw the entry in Ex. D1 maintained at the Out Post police station and returned to the police station. After getting the said written death intimation, P.W. 19 went to the hospital, where P.W. 1 preferred Ex. P1 complaint. The complaint was registered at 9.30 a.m. on 27.12.2006. Curiously in Ex. P1, as we have already pointed out, the name of one Mr. Thalamuthu finds a place as the first accused. Admittedly, he was not present at the time of occurrence and he did not participate in the occurrence at all. But still, P.W. 1 had chosen to array him as 1st accused in the complaint. Apart from him, in Ex. P1 the names of A1 to A3 alone have been mentioned, as the persons, who participated in the occurrence. Apart from A1 to A3, in Ex. P36 (FIR), it is stated that few more persons also participated in the occurrence. But, the names of those persons have not been mentioned. Had it been true that the accused 4 to 12 had also participated in the occurrence, nothing would have prevented P.W. 1 from mentioning the names of A4 to A12 also in Ex. P1. P36 (FIR), it is stated that few more persons also participated in the occurrence. But, the names of those persons have not been mentioned. Had it been true that the accused 4 to 12 had also participated in the occurrence, nothing would have prevented P.W. 1 from mentioning the names of A4 to A12 also in Ex. P1. But the explanation offered now before this Court that P.W. 1 was depressed over the death of his father and therefore, he was not in a mood to give all the details of the names of the accused, is difficult to be accepted. When P.W. 1 had mentioned the names of accused 1 to 3 and when he has given such a long statement attributing overt acts to the accused including the motive, it is difficult to believe that P.W. 1 would not have been in a mood to give all the details of the rest of the accused also in the complaint. Thus, the non mentioning of the names of the accused 4 to 12 in Ex. P1 further strengthens doubt in the case of the prosecution. 17. After the case was registered, on the same day, inquest was held by the Inspector of Police, during which, P.W. 1 was examined. P.W. 1, has admitted during cross examination that even at the time of inquest when he was examined by the Inspector of Police, he did not mention the names of the accused 4 to 12 as the assailants. It will be again very difficult to believe that at the time of inquest, he was in a depressed mood. Thus, from the narration of the above events, it is crystal clear that at the earliest point of time, when P.W. 1 admitted the deceased at the hospital, he did not even claim that he witnessed the occurrence. Subsequently, when P.W. 21 enquired him, he told him that the deceased was attacked by unknown persons. But to P.W. 19, in the complaint, he mentioned the names of the accused 1 to 3 and Mr. Thalamuthu and further mentioned that few more persons also participated in the occurrence and finally, the number swelled into 12 including the accused 4 to 12. Thus, at every stage, attempt had been made to improve the number of accused and finally, it reached the mark of 12. 18. Thalamuthu and further mentioned that few more persons also participated in the occurrence and finally, the number swelled into 12 including the accused 4 to 12. Thus, at every stage, attempt had been made to improve the number of accused and finally, it reached the mark of 12. 18. As we have already pointed out, the village is factious. The accused belonged to one faction and the prosecution witnesses belong to other faction. When it has been shown that at every stage, P.W. 1 had made improvements to increase the number of accused, we have to necessarily hold that he is highly unbelievable. When there is no explanation for his statement at the earliest point of time to P.W. 21 that the deceased was attacked by unknown persons, we have to doubt the veracity of P.W. 1 and we have to necessarily hold that P.W. 1 would not have witnessed the occurrence. 19. Now, turning to the evidence of P.W. 4, he is not a stranger to the deceased, as he has admitted, during cross examination, that he is closely related to the deceased. We have already pointed out his presence at the place of occurrence is doubtful. Apart from that, his conduct also assumes much importance. He has stated that he witnessed the entire occurrence and thereafter, he did not choose to go the hospital along with P.W. 1, instead, he had stated that he went to Madurai, stayed there for two days, i.e., on 27.12.2006, 28.12.2006 and returned to the Village only on 29.12.2006. He has further stated that during the interregnum period, he did not inform anybody about the occurrence. He has stated that on 29.12.2006, he went to the village and then suddenly, he informed the police that he witnessed the occurrence. From this conduct, had it been true that he witnessed the occurrence, being a close relative of the deceased, he would not have conducted himself in such a manner to stay away at Madurai for three days without informing to anybody about the occurrence. Thus, the conduct of P.W. 4 is unnatural, which renders his evidence unbelievable. 20. Now, turning to the evidence of P.W. 5, he has spoken about the conspiracy. But, during the cross examination, he has stated that though the conspiracy was hatched on 23.12.2006, he did not inform the same to anybody. Thus, the conduct of P.W. 4 is unnatural, which renders his evidence unbelievable. 20. Now, turning to the evidence of P.W. 5, he has spoken about the conspiracy. But, during the cross examination, he has stated that though the conspiracy was hatched on 23.12.2006, he did not inform the same to anybody. Above all, he is the nephew of the deceased. He was also inimical towards the accused party. It is highly doubtful that the accused would have conspired in his presence. This again is highly unbelievable that if really he had witnessed the conspiracy, he would not have informed about the conspiracy to the deceased or to his family members, because, he had every interest in the welfare of the deceased and his family members. Therefore, we hold that P.W. 5 is also unbelievable and thus, conspiracy said to have been hatched by some of the accused has also not been proved. 21. Then, what remains for the prosecution is the recovery of material objects on the confessions made by some of the accused. It is too well settled that it is not the discovery of every fact that makes the disclosure statement admissible and it is only the discovery of relevant fact, which makes the statement admissible in evidence, under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. In other words, the prosecution should establish the link between the fact discovered and the crime. Here, in this case, there is no link established by the prosecution between the recovered objects and the crime. Thus, the disclosure statements said to have been made by the accused themselves are inadmissible in evidence. 22. From the foregoing discussions, since the evidences of P.Ws. 1, 4 and 5 are disbelieved and since there is no other evidence available to prove the guilt of the accused, we hold that the accused are entitled for acquittal and the conviction imposed on them cannot be sustained. We hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants are set aside and they are acquitted of all the charges. Fine amount, if any paid by them, shall be refunded to them. Bail bonds shall stand terminated. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petitions M.P. Nos. 1 to 4 of 2013 are closed.