ORDER : 1. The appellant stands convicted under Section 302 read with Section 120B I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life. 2. The occurrence took place on 31.12.2004 wherein deceased 'Aladi Aruna' who was an Ex-Minister of the Government of Tamilnadu and 'Ponraj' were killed. In all nine persons were sent up for trial on the main charge of murder out of whom the trial court convicted two accused (A-2 and A-3). They were sentenced to death. 3. On appeal, the Madras High Court confirmed the conviction of A-2 and A-3 but converted the sentence to imprisonment for life. The High Court also reversed the acquittal of the appellant, apart from two other accused, who were acquitted by the Trial court that is A-4 and A-7. 4. Appeal of A-7 was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 30.07.2010, S. Arul Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2010) 8 SCC 233 . 5. We are, thus, concerned in the present case only about the case of A-1 Veldurai, the appellant. 6. Our attention was drawn to the finding of the Trial Court in paragraph 95 of the judgment, exonerating the appellant and A-7 of the charge of the conspiracy and finding in paragraph 114 to the effect that the presence of A-1 and A-4 at the place of occurrence was not established. The High court, in paragraph 125 of the impugned judgment held that the charge of conspiracy between A-1, A-4 and deceased accused Benny was established. A-4 was also alleged to have purchased the weapons used by A-2 and A-3 for commission of offence but as far as A-1 is concerned only evidence relied upon against him is the evidence of PW-11, who claimed to have been cutting grass nearby at the time of occurrence and saw A-1 at the place of occurrence. This finding is relied upon by learned Counsel for the State. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the version of PW-11 of having seen A-1 without any corroboration is not enough in the circumstances to hold A-1 responsible for the murders of Aladi Aruna and Ponraj. There is no charge of A-1 sharing common intention with A-2 and A-3 who actually committed the murder or A-4 who arranged the weapons. 8. We find merit in the submission. We are satisfied that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. There is no charge of A-1 sharing common intention with A-2 and A-3 who actually committed the murder or A-4 who arranged the weapons. 8. We find merit in the submission. We are satisfied that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. 9. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed and conviction and sentence of A-1 for offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B I.P.C. are set aside. He is said to be in custody and has already undergone sentence of about 11 years. He is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.