JUDGMENT : S. Nagamuthu, J. The appellants in Crl.A.No.517/16 are the accused Nos.1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 14, 29 and 31 in S.C.No.13 of 2008, on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri. The appellant in Crl.A.No.518 of 2016 is the 13th accused in the same case. The appellant in Crl.A.No.519 of 2016 is the 15th accused, the appellants in Crl.A.o.520 of 2016 are the accused Nos.17, 18 and 19 and the appellants in Crl.A.No.814 of 2016 are the accused Nos.10 and 11 in the same case. Crl.A.No.131 of 2017 has been filed challenging the acquittal of the accused 2, 5, 12, 16, 20 to 23, 25 to 28 and 30 in the same case. Altogether there were 32 accused in the said case. Accused No.3-Mr.Prabhakaran, Accused No.9-Mr.Pondu and Accused No.24-Mr.Venkatesan died during trial and thus, the charges stood abated against them. The accused No.32-Mr.Sivalingam was discharged. Thus, a total number of 28 accused faced the trial. 2. The trial Court initially framed charges on 23.02.2010, which were later on altered on 8.4.2013 and finally altered on 13.2.2015. As per the altered charges, there were as many as six charges as detailed below: Sl. No. Charges (Section of law) Accused 1. U/s.147 of the Indian Penal Code A4, A6, A7, A14 and A20 to A23 and A25 2. U/s.148 of the Indian Penal Code A1, A2, A5, A8 to A13, A15 to A19 and A26 to A31 3. U/s.302 IPC A1, A2, A4 to A13, A15 to A19 and A29 to A31 4. U/s.302 read with Section 149 IPC A14, A20 to A23 and A25 to A28 5. U/s.27(1) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 A2, A4 and A5 6. U/s.201 read with Section 302 IPC A2 and A5 By judgement dated 29.4.2016, the trial Court convicted the appellants in Crl.A.Ns.517 to 520 and Crl.A.No.814 of 2016 as detailed below: Sl. No. Rank of accused Conviction Sentence 1. A1, A4, A6, A7, A8, A10, A11, A13, A14, A15, A17, A18, A19, A29 and A31. U/s.148 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for three years. 2. A1, A4, A6, A7, A8, A10, A11, A13, A14, A15, A17, A18, A19, A29 and A31. U/s.302 IPC Imprisonment for life, with a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment. and acquitted the other accused. U/s.148 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for three years. 2. A1, A4, A6, A7, A8, A10, A11, A13, A14, A15, A17, A18, A19, A29 and A31. U/s.302 IPC Imprisonment for life, with a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment. and acquitted the other accused. Challenging the said conviction and sentences, the convicted accused are before this Court in Crl.A.Nos.517 to 520 and Crl.A.814 of 2016. As against the acquittal of the other accused, the defacto complainant has come up with the Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.No.131 of 2017. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: (a) There are three deceased in this case, by name, Marimuthu, Mani and Viswanathan (hereinafter referred to as D1, D2 and D3, respectively). They were all brothers of P.W.1-Mr.Murugan. All of them were residing in a village known as “Mallapuram” in Dharmapuri District. The first accused Mr. Madhappan is the paternal uncle of the deceased. The other accused are all relatives of A1 as well as the deceased. All the 32 accused also were residing in the same village. Between the family of the deceased and the first accused, there were frequent disputes in respect of landed properties. To be precise, the dispute relates to lifting of water from a well and taking the same through a channel to be put up on the land belonging to the deceased. This resulted in frequent quarrels and consequently complaints to the Pennagaram Police. In fact, there were cases and counter cases against each other on the file of the Pennagaram Police Station. (b) The deceased and P.W.1 belonged to a political party known as 'Communist Party'; whereas, the first accused and his family members belonged to a political party known as 'UCPI'. Four days prior to the occurrence, it is alleged that the group led by the first accused caused extensive damages to the houses of the group of people belonging to the deceased. Out of fear for life, the deceased and P.W.1 have stayed in a different village for about five months. Since there was tense situation in the village, Peace Committee Meeting was held in the village by the Tahsildar/Village Administrative Officer, wherein both the parties participated. The final round of Peace Committee Meeting was held at the office of the Tahsildar at Pennagaram. At the end, compromise was reached between the parties. Since there was tense situation in the village, Peace Committee Meeting was held in the village by the Tahsildar/Village Administrative Officer, wherein both the parties participated. The final round of Peace Committee Meeting was held at the office of the Tahsildar at Pennagaram. At the end, compromise was reached between the parties. As a result, the deceased, P.W.1 and his group of people returned to the Village and they started renovating the houses damaged by the accused party. (c) On 24.1.1998, in connection with the complaint made by the first accused to Pennagaram Police, a policeman came to the village and informed D1 and others about the same. D1 told to the police that he would take P.Ws.10 to 13, against whom the complaint was made to the police Station. Accordingly, the policeman took four persons, namely, P.Ws.10 to 13, to the police station. Thereafter, all the three deceased, including P.W.1 and others, with a view to go to Pennagaram Police Station, were proceeding in bicycles. There were totally nine persons, who were going in a group towards the police station. When they had just crossed the village and nearing a place where E.B. Transformer is located, a blue car came on the opposite direction. On nearing these nine persons, the car was stopped. The first accused got down from the car with an 'aruval' in his hand. The second accused-Mr. Durai got down from the car with a 'revolver' in his hand. The fifth accused-Mr. Kalaiselvan also got down from the car with another 'revolver' in his hand. The accused Prabakaran/A3 got down from the car with a 'country made gun' and the fourth accused-Mr. Krishnamurthy also got down from the car with a 'country made gun'. On seeing these people rushing towards them, all the nine persons, belonged to the deceased group, out of fear, started moving towards their village back. At that time, the other accused came from the village side, all armed with 'aruval' and 'wooden logs'. They were also rushing towards the nine persons of the deceased group, including the deceased. Thus, the above stated nine persons, including all the three deceased, have caught in between. On nearing them, all the 32 accused indulged in rioting and started attacking the deceased and others. They were also rushing towards the nine persons of the deceased group, including the deceased. Thus, the above stated nine persons, including all the three deceased, have caught in between. On nearing them, all the 32 accused indulged in rioting and started attacking the deceased and others. (d) According to the further case of the prosecution, the accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 7 to 12, 14 to 22 and 24 to 29 were armed with deadly weapons. Two of them were armed with revolvers and two of them were armed with country made guns, as detailed above. The other accused were armed with wooden logs. The accused Nos.2 and 5 shot D1 with the firearm on their hands, respectively. The bullets/pellets, hit the chest of D1. He fell down. The Accused 1, 6 and 8 attacked the deceased with 'Veech Aruvals' and accused No.12 attacked him with a stone and the seventh accused also attacked him with the blunt portion of the 'aruval'. D1 died on the spot, scumming to the injuries. (e) In the same transaction, it is alleged that the accused 2 and 5 fired from the revolver/gun from their hands. D2-Mani was hit by the firing. He fell down. The 9th, 10th, 11th and 15th accused cut him with 'aruval. The 16th accused attacked him with fist arm. (f) In the same transaction, it is alleged that the fourth accused short D3 with country made gun. It hit the left thigh of D3. He fell down. The fifth accused shot him with a gun on the left side of his chest. The accused 18, 13, 10, 19 and 29 cut him with 'Veech Aruvals' repeatedly. D3 did not die. (g) It is further alleged that in the same transaction, the accused 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 29, 30 and 32 were still in the unlawful assembly. The accused 14, 20 to 23 and 25 to 28, though did not cause any injury, were also present in the assembly, being the members. P.W.1 and others witnessed the occurrence and raised alarm. All the accused fed away from the scene of occurrence. (h) P.Ws.1 and 2, out of fear, fed away from the scene of occurrence and went to Pennagaram Police Station, where, P.W.1 made a complaint at 10.00 a.m. on 24.1.1998. Ex.P1 is the complaint. Ex.P.43 is the FIR. P.W.1 and others witnessed the occurrence and raised alarm. All the accused fed away from the scene of occurrence. (h) P.Ws.1 and 2, out of fear, fed away from the scene of occurrence and went to Pennagaram Police Station, where, P.W.1 made a complaint at 10.00 a.m. on 24.1.1998. Ex.P1 is the complaint. Ex.P.43 is the FIR. On the said complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.88 of 1998 under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326, 307 and 302 IPC and Section 25(1)(a) of the Indian Arms Act. Both the documents were sent to the Court, which were received by the learned Magistrate at 2.45 p.m., on 24.1.1998. (i) The case was taken up for investigation by P.W.24, the then Inspector of Police of Pennagaram Police Station at 11.00 a.m. He went to the place of occurrence at 11.15 a.m. and prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch, in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer and Village Assistant of the same village. He then conducted inquest on the body of D1 between 12.30 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. and prepared an inquest report (vide Ex.P.44). During inquest, he examined few witnesses. Then he forwarded the dead body for post-mortem. (j) On the same day between 2.00 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. he conducted inquest on the body of D2 and prepared Ex.P.47- the inquest report. Then, he forwarded the dead body of D2 to the Hospital for post-mortem. He recovered the material objects Mos.1 to 7 found at the place of occurrence. M.O.1 is a broken country made gun. M.O.2 is a country made gun. M.Os.3 to 6 are 'Veech Aruvals'. M.O.7 is a big stone. Then, he recovered few more material objects from the same place. On the same day, on returning to the Police Station, he examined P.Ws.10 to 13 and recorded their statements. (k) He forwarded P.Ws.1 and 2 to the hospital along with a memo for treatment. D3 was brought to the hospital and admitted in the Mohan Kumara Mangalam Medical College Hospital around 4.00 a.m., on 25.1.1998. D3 succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. On receiving death intimation, P.W.24 went to the hospital and conducted inquest on the body of D3 between 6.30 to 9.30 a.m. and then forwarded the body for post-mortem. (l) P.W.22-Dr.Govindaraj conducted autopsy on the body of D1-Marimuthu and D2-Mani. D3 succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. On receiving death intimation, P.W.24 went to the hospital and conducted inquest on the body of D3 between 6.30 to 9.30 a.m. and then forwarded the body for post-mortem. (l) P.W.22-Dr.Govindaraj conducted autopsy on the body of D1-Marimuthu and D2-Mani. Ex.P.41 is the post-mortem certificate for D1 and Ex.P.48 is the post-mortem certificate for D2. P.W.22 found the following injuries on D1. External Injuries: 1. An oval shaped gun shot injury of entrance on left chest 7cm below left clavicle and 4cm lateral to mid chest line. Edges inverted present 3cm and a collar of abrasion contusion surrounding the injury looking like a dark ring with inner of (n.c) and outer of abrasion. On probing entry passing medulla and pisteron's. 2. A lacerated injury with both (n.c) - 10cmx5cmx5cm right to the right eye injury lateral wall of right orbit. Blood clot present (n.c) 3. A clear cut incision 10cmx1cmx5cm depth injury (n.c) upper incision 1/1 and injury in tongue, blood clot present (n.c). 4. Clear cut injury 2.5cmx3cmx bone depth on (n.c) end of anterior part of right thigh 5cm above right knee injurying muscle and blood vessels. (n.c) present blood clots. 5. An abrasion 4cmx4cm left below left knee. All (n.c) injuries are antemortal. Face : Both eyes open. Teeth : 8/8 1/1 injury (n.c.) Internal Appearances : Head & Neck : 1. Right temporal bone is fractured, orbit bone right bone fractured. Brain : Lacerated with blood clot seen Right (n.c) brain corresponding to right temporal bone right optic nerve injuries. Hyoid bone: Intact. Thorax : Left lung : upper lung lacerated injury 7cmx4cm upper end of posterior part of sterm is (n.c) .Arch of Aorta is torn. Right upper (n.c) is lacerated. Bullet is lodged in front of right (n.c) is deformed. 2. Litre of brownish blood seen in Aorta Cavity. Abdomen: Stomach 200ml of semi digested food, liver, spleen, kidneys-pale, Bladder-empty, External genitilia-normal, (n.c) 1. Bullet is present 2. Skin arms enter injury present 3. Blood (n.c) present." He opined that the death of the deceased was due to multiple injuries found on the body of the deceased, including the gun shot injuries. (m) P.W.22 found the following injuries on D2-Mani: External Injuries : A clear cut transverse incision 15cmx3cmx7cm back of right middle 1/3rd leg with gapping with clotted blood present : Debris present. Blood (n.c) present." He opined that the death of the deceased was due to multiple injuries found on the body of the deceased, including the gun shot injuries. (m) P.W.22 found the following injuries on D2-Mani: External Injuries : A clear cut transverse incision 15cmx3cmx7cm back of right middle 1/3rd leg with gapping with clotted blood present : Debris present. Muscles and blood vessels exposed : Border of the wound exerted. 2. A clear cut transverse incision 20cmx3cm bone depth on back of right knee on 1/3rd injury muscles and blood vessels ; blood clot present, Debris present, borders exerted. 3. A clear cut transverse incision 10cmx3cm bone depth on anterior part of middle 1/3rd of left leg (n.c) Artery cut, blood clots seen, borders exerted transverse. 4. A clear cut incision 10cmx3cmx bone depth on (n.c) right thigh on 1/3rd. Blood clots seen wound border exerted. 5. A clear cut transverse incision 10cmx3cm bone depth on left (n.c) near meta carpo Phalanges junction. Blood clots seen. Wound border exerted. 6. A clear cut oblique incision 2.5cmx3cmxbone depth on External aspect of left forearm tranversing obliquely from waist to Elbow, Borders exerted, Muscles and blood vessels cut, blood clots seen. 7. A clear cut transverse incision 7cmx3cmx3cm right forearm just below elbow Exterior aspects wounds border exerted. Blood clots seen. 8. A clear cut transverse incision 3cmx2cmx2cm posterior part of right waist. Borders exerted. 1. A clear cut incision 15cmx4cmxBone depth upper 1/3rd of lateral surface of left upper arm injurying blood vessels and muscles. Brachial Artery is injured. Blood clots seen. Mud Debris seen. Wound borders exerted. Head & Nect : Brain normal-not liquified. Hyoid bone-intact. Thorax : Right lung middle lobe is lacerated 4cmx4cm100ml of fluid blood present in Thoracic cavity, Left lung-normal, Hear : Empty, Ribs-normal, Thoracic cage-normal. Abdominal Cavity : Stomach-empty, Liver: A laceration of 5cmx3cmx3cm seen. 500Ml of blood clots seen. Kidneys. Spleen : Pale guts - Distended with gas. External genitals-normal, Bladder empty. Vertebral column present & spinal cord intact. Blood socked in (n.c) present." He opined that the death of the deceased (D2) was due to shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries found on the body of the deceased, due to gun shot injuries. (n) P.W.19-Dr.Vallinayagam conducted autopsy on the body of D3-Viswanathan and issued post-mortem certificate Ex.P.38. P.W.19 found the following injuries on the body of D3-Viswanathan. Blood socked in (n.c) present." He opined that the death of the deceased (D2) was due to shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries found on the body of the deceased, due to gun shot injuries. (n) P.W.19-Dr.Vallinayagam conducted autopsy on the body of D3-Viswanathan and issued post-mortem certificate Ex.P.38. P.W.19 found the following injuries on the body of D3-Viswanathan. "Injuries: (1) A sutured curved lacerated injury over (L) Parietal region of scalp 5 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep. (2) A sutured 9 cut injury present over middle of occipital region of scalp 4 x 0.5 cm x bone deep (3) Subdural and sub arachnoid haemorrhages present over both cerebral hemipheres (4) A sutured cut injury present over (R) cheek 2 x 0.5 x bone deep with cut fracture present (5) A sutured cut injury present over (R) side of nose 1 x 0.5 x bone deep with cut fracture of bone present (6) Two sutured cut injuries over middle of upper lip 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 c.m. (7) Two sutured cut injuries present over middle of lower lip 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm (8) A sutured circular punctured wound present over front of upper part of (L) side of chest, measuring 1 cm diameter with subcutaneous in filtration of blood. O/D the track goes inwards backwards thro 2nd intercostal space, cut fracture of 2nd rib in its middle present. On further dissection, entry and exit injuries as penetrating wounds of upper lobe of (L) lung present measuring 2 x 0.5 x thro. On paravertebral region therein is a penetrating injury noted on 2nd intercostal space with fracture of 2nd rib present as an exit wound on (L) scapular region with everted margin of oozing of blood. (Sutured) (L) pleural cavity contusion 80 cc fluid blood of (L) lung found collapsed. (10) 1A circular penetrating injury with inverted margin. (11) present (sutured) one front of upper 1/3 rd of (L) thigh 1 cm diameter with inverted margin. On dissection, the injury track goes back and inwards. Compound fracture of (L) femula in its middle 1/3rd present with fragment of bone of 2 fragments of metallic particles (sent for ballistic analysis). The injury track goes backwards and present as a circular penetrating injury (everted) margin on the back of upper 1/3rd of (L) thigh (sutured). On dissection, the injury track goes back and inwards. Compound fracture of (L) femula in its middle 1/3rd present with fragment of bone of 2 fragments of metallic particles (sent for ballistic analysis). The injury track goes backwards and present as a circular penetrating injury (everted) margin on the back of upper 1/3rd of (L) thigh (sutured). (12) Two transverse cut injuries over outer aspect of (13) lower hand of (L) arm each measuring 3.5 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep (cut fracture of humerus present) and 1.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm. (14) Another gaping cut injury present over inner aspect of middle 1/3rd of (L) forearm 5 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm (sutured)" He opined that the death of the deceased was due to shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries, including the gun shot injuries. (o) During the course of investigation, on 29.1.1998, at 2.30 p.m. at Naganur Bus-stop, P.W.24 arrested the accused Chinnakkannan (A6), Annathurai (A8), Ilamathi Raja (A11). All the three accused gave independent voluntary confessions, in which they disclosed the place where they have separately hidden one 'Veech Aruval' each. In pursuance of the same, each accused took P.W.24 and the witnesses to the respective places and produced one 'aruval' each. Thus, three 'Veech aruvals' were recovered by P.W.24. On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded these three accused to the Court for judicial remand. (p) On 30.01.1998, at Chinnaperamanur Village, P.W.24 arrested the accused Sampath (A16), Palani @ Palanisamy (A17) katturaja (18) and Settu (A19). While in custody, they made separately one confession each, in which, they disclosed the place where they had hidden the respective 'aruvals'. In pursuance of the same, they took the police and the witnesses to the respective places and produced one 'Veech Aruval', each. P.W.24 recovered the same under the mahazar. The accused Durai (A2), Prabhakaran (A3) and Muthu (A7), Rajesh (A27), Krishnamurthy (A26) and Kovindasamy (A28) had surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate at Harur. P.W.24 took steps to take police custody of these six accused. Accordingly, on the orders of the learned Magistrate, he took police custody of all the six accused on 9.2.1998. While in custody, the fifth accused kalaiselvan disclosed that he had handed over a revolver to one Sivalingam (but the same could not be recovered). He also disclosed the place where he had hidden a Yamaha Motorcycle. Accordingly, on the orders of the learned Magistrate, he took police custody of all the six accused on 9.2.1998. While in custody, the fifth accused kalaiselvan disclosed that he had handed over a revolver to one Sivalingam (but the same could not be recovered). He also disclosed the place where he had hidden a Yamaha Motorcycle. In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses to the place of hide-out and produced the motorcycle. The accused Muthu (A7) made a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden one 'Veech Aruval'. In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses to the place of hide-out and produced the 'Veech Aruval'(M.O.5). Then the accused Prabhakaran (A3) made a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had thrown the country made gun. In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses and identified the place in the lake in the village. But nothing was recovered from out of the same. Then, the accused Krishnamurthy(A26) made a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden an 'Veech Aruval'. In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses and produced the ' Veech Aruval' (M.O.28). Similarly, the accused Govindasamy (A28) made a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had thrown the 'Veech Aruval'. In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses to the said place and identified a lake, from where a 'Veech Aruval' (M.O.29) was recovered. On the same day, the accused Prabhakaran (A3) disclosed the place where he had thrown the country made gun. In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses to the place of hide-out and produced one country made gun (M.O.2). P.W.24 recovered all these material objects. On the same day, the accused Rajesh (A27) made a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden one 'Veech Aruval'. In pursuance of the same, M.O.3-Veech Aruval was recovered. The accused Durai(A2) made a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden a motorcycle. In pursuance of the same M.O.30-Motorcycle was recovered. In pursuance of the same, M.O.3-Veech Aruval was recovered. The accused Durai(A2) made a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden a motorcycle. In pursuance of the same M.O.30-Motorcycle was recovered. Then, on returning to the Police Station, he forwarded all the six accused to the Court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects also to the Court. (q) On 11.2.1998, after getting house search warrant from the Judicial Magistrate No.I, P.W.24 conducted house search of one Sivalingam. But nothing was recovered from there. P.W.24 then recovered the blood stained clothes removed from the dead bodies. The efforts taken by P.W.24 to retrieve the revolver from Cauveri river, as identified by the accused Durai (A2) and Kalaiselvan (A5) could not succeed. Thereafter, since he was transferred, the investigation was continued by one Chinnaraj - his successor. (r) M.Os 1 and 2, the iron particles recovered from the dead body of D3 and the other material objects were sent for chemical examination. The Ballistic Expert's opinion was obtained, medical opinion was also obtained from the doctors, who conducted autopsy. On completing the investigation, Mr. Chinnaraj laid charge-sheet against all these accused for offence under Sections 147, 148, 302, 302 read with Section 149 IPC, 27(1) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959 and under Section 201 read with Section 302 IPC, on 13.2.2015. 3. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges and altered the charges as detailed above. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case on the side of the prosecution as many as 27 witnesses were examined, 76 documents and 42 Material Objects were marked. As many as 6 documents were marked as Court documents as Exs.C1 to C6. On the side of the accused certain documents were marked. One Mr. Senthil was examined as defence witness (D.W.1). 4. Out of the above stated witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 4 and 8 were examined as eye witnesses. P.W.4 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. P.Ws.1 and 2 are injured eyewitnesses. They claimed that they sustained injuries at the hands of the accused in the same occurrence. PWs.3 and 4 are villagers, who have claimed that they witnessed the entire occurrence. Thus, P.Ws.1 to 3 and 8 have spoken about the occurrence. P.Ws.1 and 2 are injured eyewitnesses. They claimed that they sustained injuries at the hands of the accused in the same occurrence. PWs.3 and 4 are villagers, who have claimed that they witnessed the entire occurrence. Thus, P.Ws.1 to 3 and 8 have spoken about the occurrence. They have also spoken about the presence of all the accused and their participation in the occurrence. P.W.5 is the wife of the accused, who has stated that she saw some of the accused fleeing away from the scene of occurrence. P.W.6, a Villager, has also spoken about the same facts. P.W.7, the wife of D1, has also seen the accused fleeing away from the scene of occurrence. P.W.9, examined as eyewitness, has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution. P.Ws.10 to 13 have stated that they went to the occurrence village, met D1 and spoke about the loan dues to Gogulam Finance. According to them, when they were with D1 in the village, one policeman came to the village and took them to the police station for enquiry. But P.W.12 has turned hostile and he has not stated anything incriminating. P.W.14, the wife of D3, has also stated that she saw some of the accused fleeing away from the scene of occurrence. P.W.15 has spoken about the arrest of the accused A4 and A10 and also spoken about the recovery of certain material objects. P.W.16 has stated that he took the deceased No.3 to the hospital and admitted him. P.W.17 has spoken about the confessions made by the accused A2, A3, A6, A11, A25 and A26 and the consequential recoveries. P.W.18 has spoken about the confessions made by A2, A3, A6, A11, A25 and A26. P.W.19-Dr.Vallinayakam has spoken about the post-mortem conducted on the body of D3 and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.20 has spoken about the house search conducted at the house of A13 (But no incriminating material was recovered from his house). P.W.21 has spoken about the injuries on P.Ws.1 and 2 and the treatment given to them. P.W.22 has spoken about the post-mortem conducted on D1 and D2 and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.23 has spoken about the registration of the case on the complaint of P.W.1. P.W.24, the Inspector of Police, has spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed. P.W.22 has spoken about the post-mortem conducted on D1 and D2 and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.23 has spoken about the registration of the case on the complaint of P.W.1. P.W.24, the Inspector of Police, has spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed. P.W.25, a Serologist, has spoken about the serology examination conducted on the M.Os. P.W.26 is an expert from the Forensic Science and Laboratory, who has spoken about the biology report. P.W.27 is an important witness for the prosecution, who is a Ballistic Expert, who has spoken about the examination conducted on M.Os.1 and 2 and the metal pieces recovered on the body of D3. 5. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused, they denied the same as false. They examined one witness by name Senthil as D.W.1. D.W.1 was a Doctor at the Primary Health Centre at Perumpalayam Village. He was the one who is maintaining Attendance Register in the said hospital. A13-Mr.Subbu was working as a Pharmacist in the said hospital, during the relevant period. According to him, on 24.1.1998, the 13th accused turned for duty at 8.00 a.m. and was present in the hospital till 5.00 p.m. attending to his work. He made an application at 2.30 p.m., seeking leave. Accordingly he went on leave from 25.1.1998 onwards. The evidence of D.W.1 is to prove that A.13 made application for leave and he was on leave from 25.1.1998 onwards. 6. Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted the appellants in C.A. Nos. 517 to 520 of 2016 and 814 of 2016, as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgement. The trial Court acquitted the other accused. Challenging the same, the convicted accused are before this Court with the appeals and the defacto complainant is before this Court challenging the acquittal of the others. Since all these appeals arise out of the same judgement, we heard all the appeals together and disposed of the same by means of this common judgement. 7. We have heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the state and we have also perused the records carefully. We have also heard the learned Senior counsel Mr. N.R. Elago, appearing for the defacto complainant, who is appellant in Crl.A.No.131 of 2017. 8. 7. We have heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the state and we have also perused the records carefully. We have also heard the learned Senior counsel Mr. N.R. Elago, appearing for the defacto complainant, who is appellant in Crl.A.No.131 of 2017. 8. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the accused would, at the outset, assail the FIR. According to him, the FIR in this case would not have come into being at the time presented by the prosecution. It is his contention that it was an earlier information to the police, which has been suppressed by the prosecution. Ex.P1 is the complaint. According to the learned Senior counsel, this is a document prepared out of deliberation and the same is not the first information. Therefore, according to the learned Senior counsel, the entire case of the prosecution should be doubted. 9. In this regard, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the learned Senior counsel Mr. N.R. Elango, appearing for the defacto complainant, would have serious objection. According to them, P.Ws.1 and 2, immediately after the occurrence, had gone to the police station and made a complaint at 10.00 a.m. Thus, for the occurrence, which took place at 9.00 a.m., the complaint was registered at 10.00 a.m. and it reached the hands of the learned Magistrate at 2.45 p.m. Thus, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the FIR was promptly launched and the same had promptly despatched to the Court. Therefore, there can be no doubt regarding the origin of the FIR, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended. 10. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the accused next contended that the FIR in this case, registered in Crime No.88 of 1998, bears the Serial No.384960, whereas, the FIR registered in Crime No.89 of 1998 bears the Serial No.384954 and the FIR registered in Crime No.91 of 1998 bears the Serial No.384958. Thus, according to the learned Senior counsel, the FIR in Crime No.88 of 1998 would not have been registered before the FIR in Crime Nos.89 of 1998 and 91 of 1998. Thus, according to the learned Senior counsel, the FIR is a doubtful document. But the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned Senior counsel Mr. N.R. Elango would submit that it is true that there was some anomaly in respect of the above aspect. Thus, according to the learned Senior counsel, the FIR is a doubtful document. But the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned Senior counsel Mr. N.R. Elango would submit that it is true that there was some anomaly in respect of the above aspect. But that would not in any manner, according to these counsel, go to create any dent in the case of the prosecution. These, according to them, are negligible latches on the part of the police. 11. The learned Senior counsel for the accused next contended that Ex.D7, the police memo, which was issued by the Sub-Inspector of Police, to take P.Ws.1 and 2 to the hospital, contains the narration of the occurrence. In Ex.D7, it has been stated by the Sub-Inspector of Police that only eight persons participated in the occurrence. The learned Senior counsel would submit that there is no explanation as to how it is swelled into 32 accused. 12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned Senior counsel Mr. N.R. Elago would submit that Ex.D7 contains the statement made by P.Ws.1 and 2, since Ex.D7 was not used to contradict P.Ws.1 and 2, no weightage could be given to Ex.D7. They would further submit that therefore the contents of Ex.D7 cannot be used for any purpose, more particularly, a substantive piece of evidence. 13. The learned Senior counsel for the accused would further submit that P.W.27, the Ballistic Expert has stated that M.O.1, which was a damaged county made gun, was not in working condition. M.O.2 was a country made gun. But he has categorically stated that the bullets recovered from the body of D3 would not have been fired from M.O.2. The Expert has further stated that these pellets would have been fired only from a 9 mm barrel gun; whereas M.Os.1 and 2 are not 9 mm barrel guns. P.W.27 has further stated that M.Os.1 and 2 would not have been used at all to fire the pellets recovered from the body of D3. 14. The learned Senior counsel would further point out that for all the deceased, the entry wounds were found on the back of the chest and the exist wounds were on the chest. But, the eyewitnesses have stated that the deceased were shot from the opposite direction and the bullets hit their chest. Thus, there is material contradiction between the medical evidence and the eyewitness account. But, the eyewitnesses have stated that the deceased were shot from the opposite direction and the bullets hit their chest. Thus, there is material contradiction between the medical evidence and the eyewitness account. 15. For this, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that it would have happened that when the deceased and the accuse were running towards their village and from their behind they would have been shot. Therefore, according to him, no weightage could be given for the above contradiction. 16. The learned Senior counsel for the appellants would further take us through the injuries found on P.Ws.1 and 2, which according to him, would not have been caused in the manner alleged. Thus, according to him, the medical evidence is in complete contradiction to the eyewitness account. 17. In conclusion, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the accused would submit that there are lot of doubts in the case of the prosecution and therefore, all the accused are entitled for acquittal. Whereas, according to the learned Senior counsel Mr. N.R. Elango, appearing for the defacto complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the contradictions and improbabilities pointed out by the learned Senior counsel for the accused are negligible in nature and according to them, the prosecution has proved the charges against all the accused. 18. We have carefully considered the above submissions. 19. Before going to analyse the arguments advanced by either side and the evidence let in, let us now look into the charges framed in the case. As we have already pointed out, initially, the charges were framed by the trial Court on 23.2.2010. The said charges were later on altered on 8.4.2013. Once again the charges were altered on 13.2.2015 and the accused faced the trial only in respect of the altered charges, dated 13.2.2015. Though the charges were altered twice, it is unfortunate that appropriate charges were not framed by the trial Court. Admittedly, three persons were done to death in one and the same transaction. According to the positive case of the prosecution, the accused Nos.1 to 5 came in a car and A1 was armed with Aruval and A2 to A4 were armed with firearms. The other accused came from the other direction, all armed with either 'aruvals' or 'wooden logs'. Admittedly, three persons were done to death in one and the same transaction. According to the positive case of the prosecution, the accused Nos.1 to 5 came in a car and A1 was armed with Aruval and A2 to A4 were armed with firearms. The other accused came from the other direction, all armed with either 'aruvals' or 'wooden logs'. All came to the place of occurrence with the common object of killing the deceased and also causing injuries to P.Ws.1 and 2. According to the police report, all the 32 accused were the members of unlawful assembly. The trial Court has framed charges against some of the accused under Section 148 IPC and some others under Section 147 IPC. But strangely the trial Court had framed a charge under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC only against the accused 14, 22 to 23 and 25 to 28 (vide Charge No.4). As against these accused, though there were three persons, who were allegedly done to death, the charge for murder, invoking Section 149 IPC was of only single count. As against the other accused, the trial Court had not invoked Section 149 IPC at all. These accused have been charged under Section 302 IPC simplicitor for single count (vide charge No.3) 20. The 5th charge is against the accused 2, 4 and 5 under Section 27(1) of the Indian Arms Act and the 6th charge is under Section 201 read with Section 302 IPC against the accused 2 and 5. It is not explained to the Court as to why there was no corresponding charge invoking Section 149 IPC. 21. In essence, we find that though charges were altered three times, the trial Court had apparently not bestowed its attention to frame proper charges. But, the accused were put on notice in respect of the allegation against them. Though proper charges were not framed, on that score, we are not inclined to acquit the accused. We only recorded our anquish that the trial Court has not bestowed its attention to frame proper charges, in order to avoid miscarriage of justice. 22. But, the accused were put on notice in respect of the allegation against them. Though proper charges were not framed, on that score, we are not inclined to acquit the accused. We only recorded our anquish that the trial Court has not bestowed its attention to frame proper charges, in order to avoid miscarriage of justice. 22. Now turning to the facts of the case, it is too well settled that in a case of this nature where there are multiple number of accused, multiple number of deceased and injured witnesses and the witnesses are partisan and there is every likelihood of false implication of some other people due to animosity, the same would create doubt in the entire case of the prosecution and unless the said doubt is explained by the prosecution, it would be very difficult to act upon the evidences of such witnesses (vide Thulia Kali vs. The State of Tamil Nadu ( AIR 1973 SC 501 ). 23. In the instant case, the alleged occurrence was at 9.00 a.m. P.Ws.1 and 2 have stated that immediately after the occurrence, out of fear, they went to the police station and made a complaint at 10.00 a.m. But P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W.10 have stated that immediately after the occurrence, police arrived at the scene of occurrence. When they came, D3 was lying at the place of occurrence with injuries, struggling for life. It was, according to these witnesses, only the police, who took D3 to the hospital, with the help of others. This positive admission of P.Ws.3, 5 and 10 would go a long root to prove that the police arrived at the scene of occurrence, on some information when D3 was still lying at the place of occurrence. It must be the earliest information. 24. Secondly P.Ws.10, 11 and 13 have stated that they were taken to the Police Station by Pennagaram Police from Mallapuram village, before the occurrence, for the purpose of enquiry. When they were in the police station, the Sub-Inspector and Inspector of Police received a phone message that in Mallapuram village three persons had been murdered. Immediately thereafter, the Sub-Inspector and the Inspector of Police rushed to Mallapuram Village. Who gave this information is not known. What precisely was the information is also not known. It is also not explained as to why the said information has been suppressed by the prosecution. Immediately thereafter, the Sub-Inspector and the Inspector of Police rushed to Mallapuram Village. Who gave this information is not known. What precisely was the information is also not known. It is also not explained as to why the said information has been suppressed by the prosecution. In normal course, going by the established procedure, whatever was the said information, the same should have been entere, at least, in the General Diary of the police station and after making further entry in the General Diary that P.Ws.23 and 24 were proceeding to Mallapuram Village, they would have left the police station. Thus, the General Diary must contain the information, either detailed or cryptic, authentic or unauthentic. If the said information is treated as the earliest information, the same can be taken as an unembellished. But in this case, the said information has been suppressed by the prosecution, which creates initial doubt in the case of the prosecution. 25. P.Ws.1 and 2 have stated that they reached the police station at 10.00 a.m., itself. Ex.D7 was the Police Memo issued by the police while forwarding P.Ws.1 and 2 to the Government Hospital, which was signed by the Sub-Inspector of Police Mr. Marimuthu. Ex.D7 contains a statement that eight persons were involved in the occurrence. P.W.23 was extensively cross-examined in respect of the contents of Ex.D7. He has admitted that Ex.D7 was issued at the Police Station to forward P.Ws.1 and 2 to the Hospital. When he was confronted with Ex.D7, he has got no explanation to offer as to why it was mentioned in Ex.D7 that the total number of persons, who participated in the occurrence, was only eight. 26. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that no weightage could be given to Ex.D7, because, it contains the statement of P.Ws.1 and 2. It is his further contention that the said statement could have been at the best used only to contradict P.Ws.1 and 2 and the same cannot be used as substantive evidence. Interestingly it is not the evidence of P.W.23 that the said statement contained in Ex.D7 was made either by P.W.1 or by P.W.2. When it is not the stand of the prosecution at all that the said statement was made either by P.W.1 or by P.W.2, there would have been no occasion for the defence to contradict either P.W.1 or P.W.2 with the said statement. When it is not the stand of the prosecution at all that the said statement was made either by P.W.1 or by P.W.2, there would have been no occasion for the defence to contradict either P.W.1 or P.W.2 with the said statement. Since it is a document issued at the police station and since P.W.23 is responsible for the said statement, it was duly used to contradict P.W.23. Though contradicted by the defence, P.W.23 had no explanation at all to offer. Thus, the information contained in Ex.D7 that the total number of participants were only eight needs to be given utmost weightage. It is not explained to the Court as to how the number of assailants later on swelled into 32 from 8. The fact that Ex.D7 contains that the total number of assailants were only 8 would go to clinchingly prove that Ex.P1 would not have been the earliest information and the earliest information has been suppressed by the prosecution. 27. Now we have to deal with the Serial Number of the FIRs. The present case was registered in Crime No.88 of 1998, at 10.00 a.m. on 24.1.1998. According to the prosecution, the Serial number of the FIR is 384960. Had it been true that the said case was registered at 10.00 a.m., the FIR which came to be registered subsequently should carry the Serial Number following the Serial No.384960. Ex.C6 is the FIR in Crime No.89/1998. The FIR was registered at 2.00 p.m. on 24.1.1998, i.e. on the same day, after four hours. The Serial Number of this FIR is 384954. It is not explained to the Court as to how the FIR registered at 2.00 p.m. bears the Serial No.384954. The next FIR in Crime No.91 of 1998 was registered at 10.00 a.m., on 28.1.1998. That was after four days. It bears the Serial Number 384958. The FIR in Crime No.89 of 1998 has reached the hands of the learned Magistrate at 5.20 p.m., whereas, the FIR in the present case reached the hands of the learned Magistrate at 2.45 p.m. on 24.1.1998. This creates enormous doubt in the case of the prosecution. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, the FIR in the present case has come into being very belatedly after the deliberation. This again creates enormous doubt in the case of the prosecution. 28. This creates enormous doubt in the case of the prosecution. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, the FIR in the present case has come into being very belatedly after the deliberation. This again creates enormous doubt in the case of the prosecution. 28. When there are multiple number of accused, and it has been probabilised by the defence that the FIR is a concocted document, since the possibility of false implication, out of previous enmity cannot be ruled out, it has become difficult for this Court to accept the case of the prosecution that all the 32 accused were in the unlawful assembly and have caused the death of D1 and D3 and caused injuries to P.Ws.1 and 2. 29. Apart from the above, there are other circumstances also, which create enormous doubt in the case of the prosecution. Admittedly M.Os.1 and 2 were recovered from the place of occurrence. No weapon, either revolver or country made gun, was recovered from the possession of the accused. Two metal pieces were recovered from the body of D3. P.W.27-the Ballistic Expert has stated that M.Os.1 and 2 would have been used from a 9 m.m. single barrel gun. Neither M.O.1 nor M.O.2 could have been used to fire the pellets, which have been recovered from the body of the deceased. He has further stated that there were chemical particles found in M.Os.1 and 2, which would indicate that they would have been used, but it cannot be assessed as to whether they were used at the time of occurrence. At any rate, there is no evidence that M.Os.1 and 2 could have been used to fire the pellets recovered from the body of the deceased. It is the evidence of the eyewitnesses that two of the accused have used revolvers and the other two used country made guns. M.Os.1 and 2, which were recovered from the place of occurrence, were country made guns. As we have already stated, the metal pieces found on the body of the deceased would not have been fired from M.Os.1 and 2. Similarly, these pellets would not have been fired from a revolver also. To repeat, as has been opined by the Forensic Expert, these pellets would have been fired only from 9 m.m. pistil. This anomaly has not been explained by the prosecution. 30. Similarly, these pellets would not have been fired from a revolver also. To repeat, as has been opined by the Forensic Expert, these pellets would have been fired only from 9 m.m. pistil. This anomaly has not been explained by the prosecution. 30. Above all, according to the eyewitnesses, the deceased were shot with firearms at the chest. But there were no entry wounds found on the chest at all. The entry wounds were found only on the back. This contradiction also has not been explained by the prosecution. Similarly, there are lot of contradictions between the evidences P.Ws.1 and 2 and the medical evidence. Though P.Ws.1 and 2 have graphically stated about the individual overtacts, in our considered view it is humanly impossible to specifically state the individual overtacts of each accused, when there were lot of persons in a mob and the situation was tense. Thus, the medical evidence also does not corroborate the eyewitness account. 31. So far as A13 is concerned, D.W.1 has stated that on the day of occurrence, he was very much on duty at the Primary Health Centre. We find no reason to reject the evidence of D.W.1, who is very respectable Government official, whose evidence is based on the Attendance Register. 32. The learned Senior counsel Mr. N.R. Elango would submit that the trial was conducted after 17 years and most of the witnesses were not cross-examined on the same day. It was because of the fading memory, the witnesses have stated something enormously and therefore, the contradictions between their evidences cannot be given any weightage. In our considered view, the delay in the trial cannot be solely attributed to the accused. It is not only on the contradictions between the evidences of the so called eyewitnesses we find it difficult to sustain the conviction, but it is on the other major flaws in the case of the prosecution and the improbabilities, moreso because, we find that Ex.P1-the FIR is a concocted document and an attempt has been made to implicate as many number of persons as accused in the case. Though in this case, three persons have been killed in a cruel manner, we are unable to convict any of the accused on account of the above inherent weakness, improbabilities and contradictions. Though in this case, three persons have been killed in a cruel manner, we are unable to convict any of the accused on account of the above inherent weakness, improbabilities and contradictions. Thus, we hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts and therefore, all the accused are entitled for acquittal. 33. In the result, Crl.A.Nos.517, 518, 519, 520 and 814 of 2016 are allowed and the appellants are acquitted from all the charges. The conviction and sentences imposed on the appellants are set aside and they are acquitted. The fine amount, if any paid by them shall be refunded to the respective accused. Crl.A.No.131 of 2017 is dismissed and the acquittal of the respondents in the said appeal is confirmed.