JUDGMENT : S. Nagamuthu. J The appellants are the accused 1 to 3 in S.C.No.1 of 2011, on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore. They stood charged for offence under Sections 302, 323 & 506(ii) I.P.C. By judgment dated 26.06.2012, the trial Court convicted all the three accused under all the three charges and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 323 I.P.C., and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-each in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months, for the offence under Section 506(ii) I.P.C. The trial Court has ordered the sentences to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, A.1 has come up with Crl.A.No.85 of 2013; A.2 has come up with Crl.A.506 of 2012 and A.3 has come up with Crl.A.No.663 of 2012. 2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- A.2 Mr.Senthil Kumar @ Anjugam Nagar Senthil is a close friend of one Ms.Priya. Ms.Priya was residing in Kumarasamy Gounder Street in Coimbatore City. By the side of the house of Ms.Priya, the house property belonging to one Mr.Rajagopal Naicker was situated. P.W.1 Mr.Rajapandi was having a wooden furniture factory at Samy Gounder Street in Coimbatore. P.Ws.2 to 4, 9 and the deceased were working in the factory belonging to P.W.1. 3. P.W.9 was staying in a portion of the house belonging to Mr.Rajagopal Naicker at Kumarasamy Gounder Street. Thus, P.W.9 was the neighbour of Ms.Priya. One Mr.Krishnasamy was also residing with him. Mr.Mani who was working under P.W.1 used to take liquors and to eve tease the women in a drunken state. He was also staying along with P.W.9. 4. It is alleged that on 24.04.2010, at 8.30 pm, Mr.Mani had returned to his room where P.W.9 and Mr.Krishnasamy were staying. At that time, he was in a full drunken mood. Mr.Mani developed quarrel with Ms.Priya, who was residing in the next compound. After the quarrel was over, Ms.Priya had gone to her house and Mr.Mani had gone to the room of P.W.9. At that time, he was in a full drunken mood. Mr.Mani developed quarrel with Ms.Priya, who was residing in the next compound. After the quarrel was over, Ms.Priya had gone to her house and Mr.Mani had gone to the room of P.W.9. On the next day, early morning at 6.00 am, Mr.Mani had left the room of P.W.9. Since, it was a Sunday and there was no work in the factory, P.W.9 was staying in their room. 5. At about 9.30 am, these three accused came to the house of Ms.Priya. It appears that Ms.Priya narrated to them that Mr.Mani had abused her and quarrelled with her on the previous day evening. P.W.9 did not come out of his room and he was under the impression that these three accused had left the house of Ms.Priya. But, these three accused continued to stay at the house of Ms.Priya. When P.W.9 opened the door of his room, all the three accused came to his room and questioned him as to why Ms.Priya was unnecessarily disturbed. P.W.9 told them that Mr.Mani in an inebriated condition had quarrelled with Ms.Priya on the previous day and on 25.04.2010 at 6.00 am, itself, Mr.Mani had left the room of P.W.9. These three accused were not satisfied with the said explanation. They warned P.W.9 that all should vacate their room forthwith and leave the said locality. P.W.2 was not then available. 6. On 25.04.2010, at 8.00 pm, P.W.9 told P.W.2 about the occurrence. Thereafter, P.W.2 and P.W.9 went to the house of Ms.Priya. It was around 9.00 pm, all the three accused were in the house of Ms.Priya. On seeing the accused, P.W.2 questioned them as to why they had threatened the tenants residing in the Naicker compound. In the said quarrel, all the three accused attacked P.W.2 with hands. P.W.2 sustained an injury on his rib. P.W.2 and P.W.9 out of fear, left the said place. 7. P.W.2 immediately spoke to P.W.1 and informed him about the occurrence. Within a short time, P.W.1 and the deceased came in a motor cycle to the house of Ms.Priya. In yet another motor cycle, P.W.3, P.W.4 and one Mr.Ananda Kumar, came to the place of occurrence. All the seven went to the house of Ms.Priya again found all the three accused there. Within a short time, P.W.1 and the deceased came in a motor cycle to the house of Ms.Priya. In yet another motor cycle, P.W.3, P.W.4 and one Mr.Ananda Kumar, came to the place of occurrence. All the seven went to the house of Ms.Priya again found all the three accused there. P.W.1 called all the three accused and questioned as to why they threatened the tenants and attacked P.W.2. All the three accused abused P.W.1 and the others in filthy language. The deceased, Thyagarajan infuriated by the same quarrelled with the accused. 8. After the said quarrel was over, all the seven of them had gone to M/s.K.R.P.Saw Mills. All the three accused came there. On seeing them, the deceased Thyagarajan went down and took a wooden log and the others started pelting stones on the accused. At that time, A.3 attacked the deceased Thyagarajan with a beer bottle, on his head. A.1 attacked him with Aruval and A.3 also stabbed the deceased. The others raised alarm. On hearing the same, the other neighbours gathered at the place of occurrence. When the neighbours and the prosecution party attempted to catch them hold, they criminally intimidated them and ran away from the scene of occurrence. 9. P.W.1 immediately took the deceased to Kovai Medical College & hospital. P.W.16 -Dr.Karuppusamy, examined the deceased at 11.30 pm on 25.04.2010. P.W.1 told P.W.16 that the deceased was attacked by unknown persons with Aruval. On examination, P.W.16 found the deceased dead. He made entries in the Accident Register and kept the body in a mortuary. Ex.P.14 is the death intimation sent to the Police. 10. On receiving intimation, P.W.18, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Kattoor Police Station rushed to the Kovai Medical College & Hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1. On returning to the Police Station, at 1.30 am on 26.04.2010, she registered a case in Crime No.1028/2010 for offence under Sections 302 & 506(ii) I.P.C. Ex.P.16 is the F.I.R. She forwarded both, the complaint and the F.I.R., to Court and the same were received by the learned Judicial Magistrate at 8.00 am on 26.04.2010. 11. The case was taken up for investigation by P.W.21 at 6.00 am on 26.04.2010. He visited to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar and rough sketch in the presence of P.W.12 and another witness. 11. The case was taken up for investigation by P.W.21 at 6.00 am on 26.04.2010. He visited to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar and rough sketch in the presence of P.W.12 and another witness. He recovered the broken beer bottle at the place of occurrence under a mahazar. Then, on going over to the hospital, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 7.00 am and 10.30 am on 26.04.2010. Ex.P.25 is the inquest report. Then, he forwarded the body for post mortem. 12. P.W.19 – Dr.Jeyasingh, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased at 10.45 am on 26.04.2010. He found the following ante mortem injuries:- “1.Vertically oblique cut injury 10x1cm x cavity deep noted on left parietal region, anterior outer end is 3 cm left to midline, the posterior medial end is starting from midline. Margins of the wound are regular and posterior end implunt. On dissection the wound: Anterior part of the wound is scalp deep, posterior part of wound is fracture seen entering the cranial cavity cutting the left parietal bone 4x3 cms. Horizontally oblique radiating crack fracture 6 cm in length 1 oted on starting from medial border of above body cut and passing to right, another crack fracture 10 cms starting from the posterior aspect of above bony cut and passes backwards. Underlying dura found pierced to a length of 5 cms and the wound has continued in-between the tyc cerebral hemizpheres causing a contusion 6x4x3cms 2. Vetrical cut wound 5x1cm carnial cavity deep noted on midline of parietal region, anterior end is 12 cm above to glabella. Both ends are sharp and margins are regular. Underlying parietal bone found cut 4.5 cms and continues on both end as radiating cracks 6 cms anteriorly and 3 cms posteriorly. The wound is seen entering the carnial cavity. 3. Vertical cut wound 5x1cm x scalp deep noted on right parietal region, anterior end is 3 cm right to midline, posterior end is 3 cm right to midline, both ends is sharp. Margins of the wound are regular. 4. Vertical oblique cut wound 6 x1cm x scalp deep noted on left lateral parietal region, anterior inner end is 7 cm left to midline, the posterior over end is 8 cm left to midline. Margins of the wound are regular. 5. Margins of the wound are regular. 4. Vertical oblique cut wound 6 x1cm x scalp deep noted on left lateral parietal region, anterior inner end is 7 cm left to midline, the posterior over end is 8 cm left to midline. Margins of the wound are regular. 5. Transversely oblique cut wound 4 x 1cm x scalp deep noted on left postero parietal region, the medial lowe end is 1 cm left to midline, lateral out end is 12 cm above to left upper ear lobe, medial end is blunt. 6. Transversely oblique cut wound 7 x 2cm x bone deep noted on right occipital region, the medial upper end is 1 cm right to midline, the lower end is 6 cm above to upper part of right ear jobe, both ends are sharp, on dissection the sound cutting the scalp, partially cutting the outer table of occipital bone. Margins of the wound are regular 7. Vertically oblique cut wound 2.2x1cm x skin deep noted on right forehead above eyebrow medial blunt end is 1.5 cm above to eyebrow, lateral sharp end is 3 cm above to right eyebrow. Margins of the wound are regular. 8. Incised wound 8 x1cm x muscle deep noted on medial aspect of left forearm, lower border is 15 cm above left wrist, upper border is 11 cm below left elbow joint. 9. Incised wound 2x0.5 cm x muscle deep noted on back of lateral aspect of left elbow joint. 10. Horizontal stab wound 2.2x0.5 cm x elbow joint deep noted on left posterior aspect of mind elbow joint, on dissection the wound cutting the underlying muscle, tendons and enter into the elbow joint. The lateral end is blunt. 11. Sub scalpal contusion 6 x4 cm noted on right occipital region.” 13. Ex.P.18 is the post mortem certificate and Ex.P.19 is his final opinion regarding the cause of the death of the deceased. P.W.19 opined that the cut injuries found on the head of the deceased would have been caused by a weapon like Koduval. The injuries 8 & 9 would have been caused by a weapon like Knife. Injury No.10, according to him, would have been caused by a weapon like Koduval. Injury No.11 would have been caused by a broken beer bottle. 14. P.W.21 recovered the blood stained cloth on the body of the deceased and the other Material Objects. The injuries 8 & 9 would have been caused by a weapon like Knife. Injury No.10, according to him, would have been caused by a weapon like Koduval. Injury No.11 would have been caused by a broken beer bottle. 14. P.W.21 recovered the blood stained cloth on the body of the deceased and the other Material Objects. On the same day, at 6.00 pm, he arrested A.1 at Nallampalayam in the presence of P.W.13 and another witness. On such arrest, he made a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden a full hand shirt and an Aruval. In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, he took the Police and the witness to the place of hide out and produced M.O.1 (Koduval) and M.O.10 (shirt). P.W.21 also recovered a motor cycle from the custody of A.1 under a mahazar. 15. A.1 told P.W.21 that he was also attacked by P.W.1 and two others, in the same occurrence. On the said complaint, P.W.21 registered a case in Crime No.1037/2010 for offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(i) I.P.C. Then, he forwarded A.1 for treatment. On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded A.1 to Court for judicial remand and also handed over the material objects to Court. P.W.17, Dr.Meena examined A.1 and treated him at Kovai Medical College & Hospital. She found an abrasion measuring 1 ½ cm near left cheek of A.1. Ex.P.15 is the accident register pertaining to A.1. A.2 and A.3 in the presence of P.W.14 and another witness. On such arrest, A.2 gave a voluntary confession followed by a voluntary confession by A.3. P.W.21 reduced the same into writing. In the said confession, A.2 disclosed that he had parked a two wheeler motor cycle near Gandhipuram Town Bus Stop. In pursuance of the same, A.3 took the Police and witnesses and produced a motor cycle bearing registration No.TN 38 AB 3238. Then, A.2 took the Police and witness to Nallampalayam Railway Poromboke Land and produced a blood stained pant (M.O.12) and a half hand shirt 16. On 30.04.2010 at 6.00 am, at Gandhipuram, P.W.21 arrested (M.O.11) and a knife (M.O.2) under a mahazar, in the same witnesses. In the disclosure statement made by A.3, he had disclosed the place where he had hidden a T.shirt. On 30.04.2010 at 6.00 am, at Gandhipuram, P.W.21 arrested (M.O.11) and a knife (M.O.2) under a mahazar, in the same witnesses. In the disclosure statement made by A.3, he had disclosed the place where he had hidden a T.shirt. In pursuance of the same, he took the Police and witness to the place of hide out and produced the T.shirt (M.O.13). On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded both the accused to Court for judicial remand and handed over the Material Objects also to Court. On completing investigation, P.W.21 laid charge sheet against all the three accused. 17. So far as the investigation in Crime No.1037/2010 is concerned, P.W.21 filed a negative final report under Ex.P.27, reporting that the case was referred “as mistake of fact”. 18. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment. In order to prove of the case of the prosecution, as many as 21 witnesses were examined and 27 documents were exhibited besides 17 Material Objects. On the side of the accused, two documents were marked. Ex.D.1 is the signature of P.W.10 in the witness summon and Ex.D.2 is the copy of Accident Register of the deceased Thiyagarajan. However, no witness was examined on the side of the accused. 19. Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 4 & 9 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence, who have vividly spoken about the same. P.Ws.5.6 & 8 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.7 has stated that he saw 4 to 5 people going to the house of Ms.Priya. P.W.10 has stated that his motor cycle was taken by P.W.11. P.W.11 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.W.12 has spoken about the preparation of observation mahazar; rough sketch and the recoveries made at the place of occurrence. P.W.13 has spoken about the arrest of A.1 and his confession and the consequent recovery of Material Objects. P.W.14 has spoken about the arrest of A.2 and A.3; their confession and the consequent recovery of Material Objects. P.W.15 is the Constable who brought the dead body of the deceased to hospital for post mortem. P.W.16 – Dr.Karuppusamy has stated that he examined the deceased on 25.04.2010 at 11.30 pm, and declared him as dead. P.W.14 has spoken about the arrest of A.2 and A.3; their confession and the consequent recovery of Material Objects. P.W.15 is the Constable who brought the dead body of the deceased to hospital for post mortem. P.W.16 – Dr.Karuppusamy has stated that he examined the deceased on 25.04.2010 at 11.30 pm, and declared him as dead. He has further stated that he sent an intimation to the Police. P.W.17 has stated that he treated A.1 on 26.04.2010 at 12.30 am and he has spoken about the injuries found on him also. P.W.18 is the Inspector of Police, who registered the case on the complaint of P.W.1. P.W.19 has spoken about the post mortem conducted by him and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.20 is the Assistant Chemical Examiner, Tamil Nadu Forensic Lab and he has stated that he examined the Material Objects, on the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate and found that there were blood stains on all the Material Objects, including the cloths recovered from A.1. P.W.21 has spoken about the investigation done and his final report. He has also spoken about the fact that he referred the counter case as mistake of fact. 20. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused, they denied the same as false. They marked Exs.D.1 & D.2 as defence documents. In short, their defence was a total denial. 21. Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted all the accused as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment. Challenging the same, the appellants/accused 1 to 3 are before this Court with these Criminal Appeals. 22. On 23.03.2016, when the matter was called, there was no representation for the appellant in Crl.A.No.506 of 2012. Hence, this Court appointed Mr.Raj Thilak, learned counsel as a legal-aid-counsel for the appellant. 23. We have heard Mr.Raj Thilak, learned legal-aid-counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.506 of 2012; Mr.Ramesh Kumar Chopra learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.663 of 2012; Mr.C.M.Gunasekaran, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.85 of 2013; learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also perused the records carefully. 24. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that P.Ws.1 to 4 and 9 have not come forward with a true version of the occurrence. 24. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that P.Ws.1 to 4 and 9 have not come forward with a true version of the occurrence. He would further submit that there is inordinate delay in preferring the complaint as well as in forwarding the F.I.R., to Court, which would also create doubt in the case of the prosecution. He would further submit that these eye witnesses have got no prior acquaintance with these three accused and for the first time, they identified these accused in Court. In the absence of prior Test Identification Parade, the identification made by these eye witnesses, for the first time in Court, cannot be accepted. He would further submit that the counter case registered on the complaint of A.1 has not been investigated properly and the records pertaining to the said case also have not been produced. Thus, the prosecution has suppressed an important part of the occurrence, the learned counsel contended. For these reasons, according to the learned counsel, the appellants are entitled for acquittal. 25. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would vehemently oppose these appeals. According to him, the presence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and 9 cannot be doubted at all. He would further submit that P.W.2 is an injured eye witness, whose evidence requires prudence. He would further submit that they have spoken about the entire occurrence vividly and there are no reasons to doubt their evidences. He would further submit that so far as the counter case is concerned, it was properly and thoroughly investigated and referred as mistake of fact. Thus, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the trial Court has come to a right conclusion to convict the accused which does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. So far as the delay in preferring the complaint and forwarding the F.I.R., to Court is concerned, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the same has not caused any harm to the case of the prosecution. 26. We have considered the above submissions. 27. The alleged occurrence had taken place just in front of the house of Ms.Priya. The origin for the occurrence was the eve teasing by one Mr.Mani, the friend of P.W.9, who came to the room of P.W.9 for staying. 26. We have considered the above submissions. 27. The alleged occurrence had taken place just in front of the house of Ms.Priya. The origin for the occurrence was the eve teasing by one Mr.Mani, the friend of P.W.9, who came to the room of P.W.9 for staying. For the reasons best known for the prosecution, neither Mr.Mani nor Ms.Priya have been examined as prosecution witnesses. Though, the place of occurrence is on the road side, which is surrounded by several houses, no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. P.Ws.1 to 4 and 9 are interested witnesses and P.Ws.2 to 4 and 9 were all working under P.W.1, in his factory. At the time of occurrence, according to the positive case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 4 & 9 had gone as a group to the house of Ms.Priya, to question these three accused, as to why they had earlier frightened the tenants of Naicker Compound and also man handled P.W.2 with hands. It is the further positive case of the prosecution that the deceased and yet another person by name Mr.Ananda Kumar had also come to the place of occurrence. Thus, including the deceased, there were seven persons, as an assembly, on the side of the prosecution. These seven persons had voluntarily gone to the house of Ms.Priya, where the accused were staying. There, they developed quarrel and thereafter, they pelted stones and the deceased took out a wooden log from M/s. K.R.P.Saw Mills. This shows that the prosecution party were the aggressors. It is the further case of the prosecution that at that juncture, there arose a clash between both the groups. On the side of the prosecution party, the deceased sustained injuries and on the side of the accused party, A.1 sustained injury. Rightly, two cases were registered in respect of the said occurrence. But, P.W.21, had simply referred the case registered on the complaint of A.1 as 'mistake of fact', without assigning any reason. No materials collected during the investigation of the counter case have been placed before the Court. The prosecution has completely suppressed these materials and there is no explanation for the same also. This creates further doubt in the case of the prosecution. This suppression gives an inference that the prosecution has not come forward with the true version of the occurrence. 28. The prosecution has completely suppressed these materials and there is no explanation for the same also. This creates further doubt in the case of the prosecution. This suppression gives an inference that the prosecution has not come forward with the true version of the occurrence. 28. So far as these three accused are concerned, all the eye witnesses have uniformly admitted that prior to the occurrence, they had not even seen these accused once. For the first time, they saw these accused in Court and they identified them. But, there was no prior Test Identification Parade conducted at all by putting up these three accused in the Test Identification Parade. For the first time, these eye witnesses have identified the accused in Court. As a matter of fact, P.W.9 was not even able to identify A.2 in Court. Thus, we find it difficult to attach any importance to the said identification made in Court. 29. P.W.1 has categorically stated during cross examination that he was not aware of the names of the assailants who participated in the occurrence. But, surprisingly in Ex.P.1, the names of all the three accused are mentioned. There is no explanation by P.W.1 as to how he came to know the names of the assailants. Though, it is stated that the F.I.R., was registered at 1.30 am on 26.04.2010, it had reached the hands of the learned Judicial Magistrate only at 8.00 am on 26.04.2010. Thus, there was in-ordinate delay in forwarding the F.I.R., to Court. The said delay has not been explained away. This gives an inference that the F.I.R., would not have reached the Court in time and the same would have come into being belatedly after ascertaining the names of the accused. This doubt has not been cleared by the prosecution. 30. From the foregoing discussions, it is clear that there is doubt in the F.I.R., and there is also evidence to show that the prosecution parties were the aggressors. There is doubt regarding the identity of the accused for want of prior Test Identification Parade. The counter case registered on the complaint of A.1 has not been investigated properly. Thus, the prosecution has not come forward with true version of the occurrence. 31. Apart from that, Ex.D.2, the accident register pertaining to the deceased which was entered by Dr. There is doubt regarding the identity of the accused for want of prior Test Identification Parade. The counter case registered on the complaint of A.1 has not been investigated properly. Thus, the prosecution has not come forward with true version of the occurrence. 31. Apart from that, Ex.D.2, the accident register pertaining to the deceased which was entered by Dr. Karuppasamy at 11.30 pm on 25.04.2007, states that P.W.1 told the Doctor that the deceased was attacked by one unknown person at 9.30 pm on 25.04.2010 near Kannappan Nagar, 10th street, by using sickles. P.W.1 has been duly contradicted with this earlier statement made by him to the Doctor. He has not offered any explanation for the said contradictory statement. This being the earliest statement made by P.W.1 to the Doctor, needs weightage. According to this statement, till 9.30 pm on 25.04.2010, the assailants were not known. Only after that, the prosecution fixed the names of these accused as assailants and prepared the F.I.R., and that is the reason why there was inordinate delay in forwarding the F.I.R., to Court. There are lot of doubts. The prosecution has failed to clear these doubts. In view of the same, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. 32. In the result, the Criminal Appeals are allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/accused 1 to 3 by the trial Court are set aside and all the accused are acquitted of all the charges. The fine amount, if any, paid by the accused, shall be refunded to them. The bail bonds, if any executed shall stand discharged.