JUDGMENT : S.NAGAMUTHU, J. The Appellants in Crl.A.No.41 of 2014 are Accused Nos.1 and 4; the Appellant in Crl.A.No.108 of 2014 is Accused No.2; the Appellants in Crl.A.No.16 of 2014 are Accused Nos.3 and 6; and the Appellant in Crl.A.No.503 of 2014 is Accused No.5 in S.C.No.279 of 2012 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur @ Poonamallee. They stood charged for offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 302 r/w 149 of IPC. The trial court, by judgment dated 19.12.2013, convicted A1 to A6 for offences under Sections 148, 452 and 302 r/w 149 of IPC. The trial court, however, acquitted A1 to A6 from the charges under Sections 147 and 149 of IPC. The trial court sentenced A1 to A6 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for offence under Section 148 of IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 452 of IPC; and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 302 of IPC. Challenging the above said conviction and sentences, A1 to A6 have come up with these criminal appeals. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- The deceased in this case was one Mr. Shanmugham. P.W.1 is his elder brother. The deceased was doing floor and wall tiles laying work on contract basis. The deceased used to engage A5-Selvakumar for the said work on daily wages basis. On 04.06.2009, A5 did not turn up for work. The deceased was aggrieved over the same. He questioned A5 as to why he did not turn up for work. In fact, the deceased hurled abusive and obscene language at A5. A4 is the brother-in-law of the A5. He was also present along with A5. A4 also joined in the quarrel and told the deceased that neither A5 nor his family members would come for work in future. P.W.1, who came to the place of occurrence pacified the deceased and took him away. 3. On the same day (04.06.2009) at 07.00 p.m., the wife of the deceased (P.W.4) alone was in her house. The deceased had gone out. A2, came to the house of the deceased and shouted. P.W.1, who came to the place of occurrence pacified the deceased and took him away. 3. On the same day (04.06.2009) at 07.00 p.m., the wife of the deceased (P.W.4) alone was in her house. The deceased had gone out. A2, came to the house of the deceased and shouted. P.W.4 came out of her house and told him that the deceased had gone out. A2 was holding a wooden reaper. He again shouted challenging the deceased. This occurrence was on account of the earlier occurrence in which the deceased had abused A5. A2 then left the house of the deceased. 4. Around 08.30 p.m. on the same day, the deceased came to his house. P.W.4 informed about the arrival of A2 to his house at 07.00 p.m. and his shouting. The deceased informed P.W.1 over phone about the said occurrence. P.W.1 told not to precipitate the issue as the same could be settled on the next day. Thus, there was no more occurrence on 04.06.2009. 5. On 05.06.2009, around 02.15 p.m., P.W.1 had gone to the house of the deceased. P.W.2, the brother's son of the deceased had come from his school to the house of the deceased. The deceased was sitting on the cot. P.W.4, the wife of the deceased had gone out for work. At that time, all these accused came in an unlawful assembly to the house of the deceased. Among them, A1 shouted at the deceased and challenged that he would not spare him alive. Then, all the six accused attacked the deceased with wooden reaper and wooden logs on the head and other parts of the person of the deceased indiscriminately. P.Ws.1 and 2 raised alarm. The deceased immediately fell down unconscious with injuries. The occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.1, 2 and 5. On hearing the alarm raised by P.W.1, P.W.3, an employee of the deceased also came to the place of occurrence. Then, they took the deceased in an auto-rickshaw to Government Kilpauk Medical College, Chennai. But, the doctor at the said hospital, after having examined the deceased declared him dead. An intimation was also sent in this regard from the hospital to the police in this regard. 6. On receiving the intimation from the hospital, P.W.18, the then Sub Inspector of Police, went to Government Kilpauk Medical College Hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.1 is the statement of P.W.1. An intimation was also sent in this regard from the hospital to the police in this regard. 6. On receiving the intimation from the hospital, P.W.18, the then Sub Inspector of Police, went to Government Kilpauk Medical College Hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1. Ex.P.1 is the statement of P.W.1. On returning to the police station, he registered a case in Crime No.476 of 2009 under Section 147, 148, 452 and 302 of IPC. In Ex.P.1, P.W.1 has stated that in all seven persons attacked the deceased. He had mentioned the names of the assailants as “(1) Jeyaraj (2) Durai (3) T.V.Mohan (4)Sekar (5) Chelladurai (6) Selvakumar and one unnamed person”. P.W.18, forwarded both the complaint (Ex.P.1) and the FIR (Ex.P.17) to the court which were received by the learned jurisdictional Magistrate at 07.00 p.m. on 05.06.2009. In the mean time, P.W.18 handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. 7. P.W.19, the then Inspector of Police, took up the case for investigation. He went to the place of occurrence, prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P18) and a rough sketch (Ex.P19) in the presence of P.W.10 and another witness. At his request, P.W.1, an expert from the Forensic Sciences Laboratory had arrived at the scene of occurrence. The police sniffer dog was also brought to the place of occurrence. But, the police sniffer dog could not bring out any clue for the purpose of investigation. P.W.11, identified, a bed-sheet, blood stained cotton mattress and he also took a swab of blood from the wall in a gauze cloth piece. P.W.19, thereafter, between 07.30 and 09.30 p.m., conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and prepared an inquest report (Ex.P21). Then, he forwarded the body of the deceased to the mortuary for postmortem. 8. P.W.16, the Doctor, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased at 11.45 a.m. on 06.06.2009. He found the following injuries:- "Injuries:- 1. Brown irregular abrasions: (a) 2.5 x 1.5-0.5 cm on the lower part of right side of occipital region of the scalp; (b) 4 x 3.5-2.5 cm on the right ear lobule; (c) 4 x 3-2 cm on the upper part of right cheek, near the right ear; (d) 2.5 x 0.5 cm, vertically oblique, on the right parieto-occipital region of the scalp. (2) Irregular lacerated wounds: (a) 2 x 0.5 - 0.2 cm x scalp deep, on the right parietal region of the scalp; (b) 4 x 1.3-0.5 cm x scalp deep, vertically oblique, on the right fronto-temporal region of the scalp, with an abrasion 3 x 0.8-0.6 cm on the medial border of the laceration; (c) 2.5 x 1-0.5 cm x scalp deep, horizontally oblique, on the right parietal and upper part of right side of occipital region of the scalp; (d) 4.5 x 1.5-1 cm x scalp deep, on the right parietal and upper part of right side of occipital region of the scalp; On reflection of the scalp; Dark red, scalp deep, diffuse bruising on right fronto, temporo, parieto-occipital region of the scalp; right temporalis muscle bruised; comminuted fracture 12 x 8-4 cm involving right tempro, parieto-occipital region of the calvarium ; On opening the calvarium: Thin film of subdural haemorrhage and diffuse subarachnoid haemorrhage on both the cerebral hemispheres of the brain. Heart: Normal in size; C/S: All the chambers were empty; a few raised atheromatous plaques on the root of aorta; Valves: Normal; Coronaries: Patent. Lungs: Normal in size; C/S Congested. Larynx & Trachea: Empty; Hyoid Bone: Intact. Stomach: Contained 680 ml of yellowish brown fluid, mixed with partially digested food particles; No definite smell. Mucosa: Congested. Intestines: Contained brown chyme. Liver, Spleen and Kidneys: Normal in size; C/S: Congested. Bladder: Empty. Pelvis & Spinal Column: Intact." Ex.P.12 is the postmortem certificate. He gave opinion that the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of head injuries. 9. When the investigation was in progress, it is alleged that on 07.06.2009, A2 and A3 had gone to the Office of P.W.9, the then Village Administrative Officer of Maduravoyal Village. On such appearance, A2 gave a voluntary confession. P.W.9 reduced the same into writing. A2 and A3 signed the same. Then, along with a report and the extra judicial confession, P.W.9 produced A2 and A3 before P.W.19 at 12.00 noon on 07.06.2009. On such production, P.W.19, arrested both the accused. While in custody, both A2 and A3 gave voluntary confessions one after the other. Then, A2 and A3, identified A1-Jeyaraj, A4-Sekar, A5-Selvakumar and A6-Dayalan @ Dhanasekar at 02.20 p.m. on the same day and thereafter, P.W.19 arrested A1, A4, A5 and A6 also in the presence of the same witnesses. On such production, P.W.19, arrested both the accused. While in custody, both A2 and A3 gave voluntary confessions one after the other. Then, A2 and A3, identified A1-Jeyaraj, A4-Sekar, A5-Selvakumar and A6-Dayalan @ Dhanasekar at 02.20 p.m. on the same day and thereafter, P.W.19 arrested A1, A4, A5 and A6 also in the presence of the same witnesses. On such arrest, they also gave independent voluntary independent confessions one after the other. A1, in pursuance of his disclosure statement, took the police and the witnesses to the place of hide out and produced four wooden logs [M.Os.3 to 6] and two wooden reapers [M.Os.1 and 2]. P.W.19 recovered the same under a mahazar (Ex.P6). On returning to the police station, P.W.19 forwarded the accused to the court for judicial remand and also handed over the material objects to the court. Then, he made a request to the court to forward the material objects to the Forensic Sciences Laboratory for chemical analysis. The analysis report revealed that there were human blood stains found on all the material objects which were sent for chemical examination, including the material objects recovered at the instance of the accused. In the course of investigation, P.W.19, examined the doctor who conducted autopsy, and few other official witnesses, recorded their statement, collected medical record and the analysis report and on completing the investigation, P.W.19 filed charge sheet against the accused. 10. Based on the above materials, the trial court framed as many as five charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment. A1 to A6 denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 19 witnesses were examined, 24 documents and 15 material objects were marked. 11. Out of the said witness, P.Ws.1 and 2 have spoken about the entire occurrence. P.W.1 has spoken about the earlier two occurrences also. P.W.1 has further spoken about the complaint made by him to the police. According to these two witnesses, all the accused attacked the deceased indiscriminately with wooden log and wooden reapers. 11. Out of the said witness, P.Ws.1 and 2 have spoken about the entire occurrence. P.W.1 has spoken about the earlier two occurrences also. P.W.1 has further spoken about the complaint made by him to the police. According to these two witnesses, all the accused attacked the deceased indiscriminately with wooden log and wooden reapers. P.W.3, the employee of the deceased, has stated that around 02.30 p.m. on the day of occurrence, when he came to the house of the deceased to get his wages from the deceased, he heard the hue and cry from the house of the deceased and when he rushed to the house of the deceased, he found the deceased lying in a pool of blood. According to him, P.Ws.1 and 2 were present at that time. He has further stated that he found a few persons running out from the scene of occurrence. Then, he joined P.Ws.1 and 2 and took the deceased to the hospital. 12. P.W.4 has stated about the earlier two occurrences which took place on the previous day involving A4, A5 and A2. According to her, at the time of the occurrence in which her husband was indiscriminately attacked by all the six accused, she was not at her house and thus, she is not an eye witness. P.W.5 has stated that on the day of occurrence, on hearing the hue and cry, he rushed to the place of occurrence and found a part of the occurrence. According to him, a total number of six persons were running out of the place of occurrence. In that group, according to P.W.5, he found A4 and A6 alone and the other persons were not known to him. P.W.6 has spoken only about the hearsay information. He has not stated anything incriminating against the accused. P.W.7 has stated that he was residing two houses away from the house of the deceased. On that day around 01.00 p.m. he saw A2, A4 and A5 fleeing away from the scene of occurrence in a car. P.W.8 has not stated anything about the occurrence. 13. P.W.9 has spoken about the extra judicial confession given by A2 on 07.06.2009. P.W.10 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar and the rough sketch by the police. P.W.11, the Finger Print Expert has stated about the recovery of the blood stained material objects from the place of occurrence. P.W.8 has not stated anything about the occurrence. 13. P.W.9 has spoken about the extra judicial confession given by A2 on 07.06.2009. P.W.10 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar and the rough sketch by the police. P.W.11, the Finger Print Expert has stated about the recovery of the blood stained material objects from the place of occurrence. P.W.12, the Head Clerk of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate has stated that on the orders of the learned Magistrate he forwarded all the material objects to the forensic sciences laboratory for chemical analysis. He has further stated that, according to the analysis report, there were blood stains detected on all the material objects. P.W.13 has spoken about the arrest of the accused. P.W.14 has stated that he took the dead body of the deceased to the mortuary and identified the same to the doctor for post-mortem. P.W.15, the doctor has stated that at 03.30 p.m. on 05.06.2009, the deceased was brought before him and on examination, he found him dead. He has further stated that he gave intimation to the police. P.W.16 has stated about the autopsy conducted by him and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.17, the then Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, Tiruvallur District, has spoken about the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. P.W.18 has spoken about the registration of the case and handing over the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. P.W.19 has spoken about the entire investigation done by him and the filing of charge sheet against the accused. 14. When the above incriminating materials were put to A1 to A6 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. they denied the same as false. However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor did they mark any document on their side. Their defence was a total denial. 15. Having considered all the above, the trial court convicted the Appellants/A1 to A6 as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment. Challenging the above said conviction and sentences, A1 to A6 have come up with these criminal appeals. 16. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/A1 to A6 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State and we have also perused the records carefully. 17. Challenging the above said conviction and sentences, A1 to A6 have come up with these criminal appeals. 16. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/A1 to A6 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State and we have also perused the records carefully. 17. The first and the foremost contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the none of the eye witness examined on behalf of the prosecution would have witnessed the occurrence at all. In order to substantiate his said contention, the learned counsel for the appellants would make reliance on Ex.P.1-complaint which was allegedly preferred at 06.00 p.m. on 05.06.2009 by P.W.1. 18. In Ex.P.1, the total number of assailants mentioned was seven, (i.e.,) six named persons and one unnamed. The names of the assailants mentioned therein were (1) Jeyaraj, (2) Durai, (3) T.V.Mohan, (4) Sekar, (5) Chelladurai and (6) Selvakumar. The learned senior counsel appearing for some of the accused would point out that T.V.Mohan and Chelladurai were not at all arrayed as accused in this case. Similarly, when Ex.P.1 states about the involvement of the seven assailants, the present case projected by the prosecution is only against six persons. The learned senior counsel would further point out that Ex.P.1 was duly used to contradict P.W.1, he has admitted the above contradictions in respect of their presence and participation in the occurrence. The only explanation offered by him was that by mistake he mentioned the names of T.V.Mohan, Chelladurai and another person as the assailants. In our considered view, this explanation offered by P.W.1 cannot be accepted. There was no investigation done as to whether all these persons namely, T.V.Mohan, Chelladurai and another were present and participated in the occurrence. In a serious case of this nature, when there are multiple number of accused, it is absolutely essential to rule out the possibility of false implication. In the instant case, the very fact that three persons by name T.V.Mohan, Chelladurai and another have been implicated, even according to the prosecution falsely, would speak volumes about the case of the prosecution. When P.W.1 had, admittedly, gone to the extent of implicating three persons falsely as assailants, there can be no guarantee that he would not have implicated the appellants also falsely. 19. When P.W.1 had, admittedly, gone to the extent of implicating three persons falsely as assailants, there can be no guarantee that he would not have implicated the appellants also falsely. 19. Apart from that, P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased and P.W.2 is the brother's son of the deceased. Had it been true that P.Ws.1 and 2 were really present at the time of occurrence by all means they would have gone to the hospital to the hospital. They did not go to the hospital at all. According to P.W.2, the assailant T.V.Mohan mentioned in the FIR had attacked the deceased with wooden log on the right side of the head and another assailant Chelladurai mentioned in the FIR had attacked the deceased with wooden log on the right side of the chest. He has stated that instead of mentioning the name of A3-Perumal @ Maan S/o.Narayanan, he had mentioned the name of Chelladurai and instead of mentioning the name of A6-Dayalan @ Dhanasekar S/o.Varadhan, he had mentioned the name of one T.V.Mohan as the assailants. 20. Further, P.W.2 during the cross examination has admitted that when they were examined by the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. he had not mentioned the names of any of the accused. As we have already pointed out, P.Ws.1 and 2 did not go to the hospital also along with the deceased. 21. From these anomalies, we find force in the arguments of the learned senior counsel for the appellants that it is doubtful whether P.Ws.1 and 2 would have been present at the time of occurrence. Assuming that they were present at the time of occurrence, we cannot give credibility to these witnesses inasmuch as they had implicated some persons falsely and P.W.2 did not mention the names of any of the assailants when he was examined by the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. In view of these doubts in the case of the prosecution we are unable to sustain the conviction of any of the appellants. Thus, we hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts and so, the appellants/A1 to A6 are entitled for acquittal. 22. In the result, the criminal appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentences imposed on the appellants/A1 to A6 are set aside and they are acquitted of all the charges. Thus, we hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts and so, the appellants/A1 to A6 are entitled for acquittal. 22. In the result, the criminal appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentences imposed on the appellants/A1 to A6 are set aside and they are acquitted of all the charges. Fine amounts already paid, if any, shall be refunded to them. The bail bonds executed by the appellants shall stand terminated.