JUDGMENT : N. Sathish Kumar, J. 1. Appellants are arrayed as A1, A2, A5, A6, A8 and A9, in the case in SC.No.143/2009 on the file of the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai. Originally, there were 22 accused and they were tried for offences u/s.147, 148 and 302 read with 109 IPC. The Trial Court, under impugned Judgment dated 04.08.2017, acquitted A3, A4, A7, A10 to A22 and convicted and sentenced the appellants/A1, A2, A5, A6, A8 and A9 [hereinafter referred to as appellants/accused] as follows:- Rank of the Accused Conviction under section Sentence Awarded A1, A2 and A8 148 IPC Each of the accused were sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each with a default sentence of 9 months rigorous imprisonment. 302 read with 109 IPC Each of the accused were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment. A5, A6 and A9 149 IPC Each of the accused were sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each with a default sentence of 6 months rigorous imprisonment. 302 read with 109 IPC Each of the accused were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentences, the present appeal came to be filed by the appellants/accused. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case, are as follows:- [a] P.W.1-Arumugam is the brother of the deceased Kasi. P.W.2-Annamalai is the nephew of the deceased. P.W.3-Sekar is a resident of Karapattu village. P.W.4-Sivakami is the wife of the deceased. P.W.5-Chinnakuzhandhai is yet another brother of the deceased Kasi. All are residents of Karapattu Village. The accused, viz., A1 to A22, are also the residents of the same village. There existed a dispute between the deceased Kasi and A1-Arumugam over the ridge that exist between their respective lands. Besides, A1 belonging to Udayar Community, used to dominate the deceased who belonged to a Minority Community. All are residents of Karapattu Village. The accused, viz., A1 to A22, are also the residents of the same village. There existed a dispute between the deceased Kasi and A1-Arumugam over the ridge that exist between their respective lands. Besides, A1 belonging to Udayar Community, used to dominate the deceased who belonged to a Minority Community. [b] When the matter stood thus, on 31.03.2007, at about 7.00 p.m., while the deceased was reaching his home in his bicycle, the accused with a common intention to do away the life of the deceased due to previous enmity between A1 and the deceased, formed an unlawful assembly near the residence of Kasi with A1 and A2 holding Karuvela Stick [wooden log] and A8 holding a cycle chain and in continuation of the same, A1 and A2 hit the deceased Kasi with Karuvela stick [wooden log] and pushed him down and also hit him on the head while A8 hit the deceased on his back and legs using cycle chain while A3 to A7 and A9 to A22 beat the deceased using hands and legs. They restrained P.W.1 and others when they made an attempt to save the deceased from the said attack. As a result, the deceased succumbed to injuries on the spot. The occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.1 to 5. P.W.1 immediately contacted the police over cellphone and thereafter, went to Pudupalayam Police Station and lodged the complaint under Ex.P.1 to P.W.8. [c] P.W.8-Soundarapandian, Sub Inspector of Police, at the relevant time, after the receipt of the complaint from P.W.1 under Ex.P.1 on 01.04.2007 at about 1.00 a.m., registered the crime in Cr.No.242/2007 u/s.147 and 302 IPC. Ex.P.5 is the First Information Report. He despatched the originals of Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.5 to the jurisdictional Court and copies to the higher officials. [d] P.W.9-Sekar, Inspector of Police attached to the respondent police station, at the relevant point of time, on receipt of FIR in Cr.No.7242/2007 on 01.04.2007 at about 2.00 a.m., went to the place of occurrence at 10.15 p.m., and prepared the Observation Mahazar [Ex.P.3] and Rough Sketch [Ex.P.6] in the presence of P.W.6 and one Ravichandran. On the same day, at about 2.45 a.m., he held inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of Panchayatdars and witnesses and prepared Ex.P.7-Inquest Report. He enquired the witnesses and recorded their statements. On the same day, at about 2.45 a.m., he held inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of Panchayatdars and witnesses and prepared Ex.P.7-Inquest Report. He enquired the witnesses and recorded their statements. He seized M.O.3-Cycle in the presence of the said witnesses. He effected the arrest of A17, A21 and A22 on 01.04.2007 at about 1.00 p.m. The accused were sent for judicial remand. [e] P.W.10-Ravi, Inspector of Police [Incharge] of the respondent Police Station, at the relevant time, took up the further investigation and arrested A1 on 05.07.2007 at about 4.00 p.m. near the bus stand at Kanchi village. A1 came forward to give a voluntary confession statement in the presence of one Pandurangan and Sampath, the admissible portion is marked as Ex.P.8, pursuant to which, the Investigating Officer recovered M.O.1-Karuvela Stick under the cover of Mahazar [Ex.P.9]. The accused was sent for judicial remand and the material objects were sent to Court along with requisition. [f] P.W.12-Dr.A.Manoharan, Assistant Civil Surgeon in the Government Medical College and Hospital at Sivagangai, at the relevant point of time, received the requisition and commenced the postmortem on 01.04.2007 at 10.30 a.m., and found the following injuries:- “External Injuries:- [1] Contusion over right thigh upper outer aspect 3x7cm. On dissection, underlying muscles found to be bruised. Abrasions seen in following areas: [2] 3x2cm over right forehead. [3] 1x1cm over mid frontal area. [4] 1.5x1cm over right elbow back. [5] 1x1cm over left elbow back. [6] 2x1cm over right leg front midleg. [7] 1x1cm over right back below scapula. [8] Lacerated wound on left parietal area 3x1cmxbone deep.” Ex.P.4 is the Postmortem Certificate issued by him, wherein he had stated that in view of negative chemical analysis report, definite cause of death cannot be given, but death due to vasovagal shock due to cumulative effect of all injuries cannot be ruled out.” [g] P.W.12-Ulaganathan, Sub Inspector of Police [Incharge] attached to the Chengam Police Station, conducted further investigation in the case and arrested A2-Palani near Chengam New Bus Stand in the presence of Murugan and Brammanathan and he voluntarily came forward to give a confession statement, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P.10, pursuant to which M.O.2-Karuvela Stick was recovered under the cover of a Mahazar. A2 was sent for judicial remand and the material object was sent to Court under Form 95. A2 was sent for judicial remand and the material object was sent to Court under Form 95. [h] P.W.11-Chinnaraj, Circle Inspector attached to Chengam Police Station took up the case for further investigation and he enquired P.W.7, the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, ; received the medical reports and on completion of investigation, filed the Final Report u/s.302 read with 149 IPC against A1 to A22 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Chengam, who took it on file in PRC.No.8.2008 and issued summons to the accused and on their appearance, furnished them copies of the documents u/s.207 Cr.P.C. and having found that the case is exclusively tried by the Sessions Court, committed the same to the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai, u/s.209 Cr.P.C., who took it on file in SC.No.143/2009 and on appearance of the accused, had framed the charges u/s.148 and 302 read with 149 IPC as against A1, A2 and A8 and u/s.147, 302 read with 149 IPC against A3 to A7 and A9 to A22 and questioned them. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them. [i] The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and marked Exs.P.1 to 10 besides marking M.O.1 to M.O.3. [j] A1 to A22 were questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances against them in the evidence rendered by the prosecution and they denied it as false. No evidence was let in on the side of the defence nor any documents were marked. [k] The Trial Court, on consideration and appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and other materials, had acquitted A3, A4, A7, A10 to A22 and convicted and sentenced the appellants/A1, A2, A5, A6, A8 and A9, as above stated and hence, this appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that FIR in the instant case is an after-thought and the prosecution has not explained the delay in filing the FIR. The evidence of the eyewitnesses to the occurrence, viz., P.Ws.1 to 5, is highly unnatural. It is his submission that P.W.1 could not be an eyewitness to the occurrence as he was working as a Writer in the Post Office at Chennai and therefore, his presence at the scene on the date and time, is highly doubtful and impossible. The evidence of the eyewitnesses to the occurrence, viz., P.Ws.1 to 5, is highly unnatural. It is his submission that P.W.1 could not be an eyewitness to the occurrence as he was working as a Writer in the Post Office at Chennai and therefore, his presence at the scene on the date and time, is highly doubtful and impossible. Further, the medical evidence had clearly disproved the prosecution case and the injuries as spoken by P.Ws.1 to 5 does not corroborate with the medical evidence and the same is also inconsistent. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution version is highly doubtful and unbelievable and prayed for acquittal of the appellants. 4. Per contra, Mr.V.Arul, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that P.Ws.1 to 5 has spoken about the specific role played by the appellants herein in causing injuries on the deceased. Their evidence clearly establishes the fact of unlawful assembly of the accused. Merely because the injuries noted by the medical officer is not consistent and corroborated with the version of ocular witness, that itself cannot be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution case. However, it is the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that there is a delay in despatching FIR to the Court. Hence, he submitted that the judgment of the Trial Court warrants no interference at the hands of this Court and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 5. We have perused the entire materials and evidence on record. 6. In the light of the above submissions, now it has to be analysed whether the prosecution has brought home, the guilt of the appellants/accused beyond all reasonable doubt? 7. The motive projected by the prosecution in this case is that there was an enmity between the deceased Kasi and A-1 with regard to the ridge that exists between their respective lands. Besides, the accused belonging to a dominant community in the village, used to threaten the deceased who belonged to a minority community. 7. The motive projected by the prosecution in this case is that there was an enmity between the deceased Kasi and A-1 with regard to the ridge that exists between their respective lands. Besides, the accused belonging to a dominant community in the village, used to threaten the deceased who belonged to a minority community. Accordingly, in the morning hours on 31.03.2007, a dispute arose between A1 and the deceased, due to which, at 7.00 p.m., on the same day, accused persons, numbering 22, assembled and decided to do away the life of the deceased and prosecuting their common object, A1 and A2 were armed with Karuvela sticks ; A8 carried a cycle chain and all the accused assembled in front of the deceased house unlawfully. A1 and A2 beat the deceased with sticks while A8 beat him with the cycle chain on his back and legs and the other accused beat the deceased with their hands and legs. But, none of the witnesses have whispered a word about the previous enmity/dispute that exist between A1 and the deceased as regards the ridge. Similarly, there is also no whisper about the communal discard between A1 and the deceased, in the evidence of the eyewitnesses. Be that as it may, the motive projected by the prosecution assumes insignificance, when the direct eyewitnesses are available. 8. Though the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to 5 as eyewitnesses to the occurrence, it is seen that all the P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 5 are related to the deceased and P.W.3 is a resident of Karappattu Village. P.W.1 and 5 are the brothers of the deceased ; P.W.2 is the nephew and P.W.4 is the wife of the deceased. Of course, the evidence of the relatives cannot be discarded outrightly and merely on the ground that they are interested witnesses. But, at the same time, when the relatives are interested witnesses and their evidence suggest false implication, their evidence has to be scanned properly, in order to base the conviction. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, when carefully scrutinised, shows that they, in an unison voice, have stated that A1 beat the deceased with stick on the head while the deceased was giving in his cycle and A2, A5, A6, A8 and A9 also beat the deceased with sticks and cycle chain all over the body. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, when carefully scrutinised, shows that they, in an unison voice, have stated that A1 beat the deceased with stick on the head while the deceased was giving in his cycle and A2, A5, A6, A8 and A9 also beat the deceased with sticks and cycle chain all over the body. It is the further evidence of P.W.1 that the other accused were present in the scene of crime and they were guarding the scene and prevented the eyewitnesses from saving the deceased from the attack. It is curious to note that none of the eyewitnesses have whispered a word about the presence of the other witnesses, despite the fact that they are closely related to the deceased. P.W.2, in his evidence, has also not spoken about the presence of the other accused forming unlawful assembly. He was specific in his evidence that only the appellants herein were present in the scene of occurrence and are said to have attacked the deceased. It is to be noted that the evidence of P.W.2 is totally inconsistent with the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.1 had never given the graphic details about the places in the body of the deceased where the injuries are seated. No doubt, Criminal Courts cannot expect same reaction from each of the witnesses. Minor variances or discrepancies are bound to be there. But, at the same time, when the evidence itself is doubtful and unnatural, their evidence cannot be given much credence or importance. 9. P.W.3 had stated that A1, A2, A5, A8 and A6 beat the deceased with sticks and cycle chain and he also not spoken about the presence of the other accused as stated by P.W.1. P.W.4-wife of the deceased Kasi though stated that the appellants, viz., A1, A2, A5, A6, A8 and A9 beat the decease, she has also not spoken about the presence of the other accused. She has also not stated about the specific overt act against each of the appellants herein. Her cross-examination clearly suggest that she could not have witnessed the occurrence and that she was not an eyewitness to the same. She had stated that she found the dead body of her husband lying on the street. She has also not stated about the specific overt act against each of the appellants herein. Her cross-examination clearly suggest that she could not have witnessed the occurrence and that she was not an eyewitness to the same. She had stated that she found the dead body of her husband lying on the street. It is further to be noted that though she claims to be an eyewitness to the occurrence, she has not been examined by the police and her statement was recorded belatedly. In fact, her statement u/s.161[3] Cr.P.C. reached the Court only on 30.11.2007. It is curious to note that while the Final Report was filed on 265.10.2007, the same has been returned by the learned Magistrate on the ground that the statements u/s.161[3] Cr.P.C., of L.Ws1 to 27 were not available along with the Charge Sheet/Final Report. Thereafter, on 30.11.2007, the statements were sent to the Court. These facts creates serious doubt in the prosecution case, particularly, the presence of P.W.4 in the place of occurrence. 10. Similarly, we have our own doubt in the entire prosecution case/version for the following reasons. The version of the eyewitnesses is that the deceased was beaten up with cycle chain ; whereas the medical evidence does not even suggest any injury caused by the use of such cycle chain. Except ordinary abrasions and laceration with deep bone level in the head, no other serious injuries have been noted by the medical officer. If the deceased was beaten black and blue by the appellants/accused, numbering 6 and another 20 persons, as stated by the witnesses, there would have been serious injuries all over the body, by way of either contusion or internal injuries. But the medical officer evidence does not suggest any serious injuries. 11. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that the law was set in motion only on the basis of Ex.P.1-complaint lodged by P.W.1. P.W.1 though claims to be an eyewitness, his evidence when carefully analysed, the same shows that he could not have been an eyewitness at all for the reason that he was working as a Writer in the Post Office at Chennai. According to him, he has reached his native place, viz., Karapattu, in the night hours on 30.03.2007 and he was present at the time of occurrence. According to him, he has reached his native place, viz., Karapattu, in the night hours on 30.03.2007 and he was present at the time of occurrence. It is to be noted that Ex.P.1 was given to the Sub Inspector on 01.04.2007 at about 1.00 a.m., despite the fact that the alleged occurrence took place at 7.00 p.m., on 31.03.2007. Thus, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 clearly show that Ex.P.1-complaint and Ex.P.5-Fir is nothing but an after-though and a fabricated one and result of deliberation and a concocted one. P.W.1 had admitted in his cross-examination that immediately ater the occurrence, he informed the police over his cellphone and the police also reached the spot and were enquiring all of them and they also obtained the signature of P.W.1. Further, the other witnesses have also stated in their evidence that the police removed the dead body of the deceased from the place of occurrence at about 8.30 p.m., itself ; whereas the complaint came to be filed only on 01.04.2007 at 1.00 a.m. At the risk of repetition, it is to be stated that the police had arrived at the scene during night hours on 31.03.2007 itself and conducted enquiry ; but the complaint-Ex.P.1 came to be filed as if it was given for the first time before the police on 01.04.2007 at 1.00 a.m. The manner in which Ex.P.1 was projected by the prosecution itself creates a serious doubt about the entire prosecution case. The prosecution, in fact, has burked the earlier version in this case. Even a perusal of Ex.P.1 would show that it is the specific statement of P.W.1 that 26 persons had participated in the occurrence and while mentioning the names of those persons, he had stated only the names of 23 persons and failed to reveal the names of the other 3 persons. This Court is of the view that Ex.P.1 complaint is attached with artificiality. P.W.1, in the entire cross-examination, has categorically admitted about the presence of the police and removal of the dead body from the place of occurrence and the enquiry made by the police and recording the statements of the witnesses. When that be so, Ex.P.1-complaint now projected by the prosecution is nothing but the result of deliberation and fabrication and the same has been brought into record after the investigation has already commenced. When that be so, Ex.P.1-complaint now projected by the prosecution is nothing but the result of deliberation and fabrication and the same has been brought into record after the investigation has already commenced. Hence, the same is hit under section 162 Cr.P.C. 12. P.W.2 claims to be the nephew of the deceased. Though he claims to have seen the occurrence, his conduct assumes significance. Even after the arrival of police at the place of occurrence immediately after an hour, he did not give any complaint to the police. This conduct of P.W.2 also creates a serious doubt. Further, from the cross-examination of P.W.2, it could be inferred that he could not have witnessed the occurrence from his shop and further, he has stated that when he attempted to prevent the accused from beating the deceased, the accused did not beat him. He has also spoken about the removal of the dead body by the police from the scene of crime and also the enquiry done by the police. All the eyewitnesses in one voice, have stated the same facts. It is curious to note that they being the relatives, when the police had reached the spot, they have not taken any steps to inform the police about the attack immediately. 13. P.W.5, brother of the deceased has stated that the occurrence took place at about 6.00 p.m., whereas it is the evidence of the other eyewitnesses that the occurrence took place at 7.00 p.m. Further, P.W.5, had stated in his cross-examination that the occurrence had taken place on 30.03.2007 ; but it is not so. The occurrence had taken place on 31.03.2007. The prosecution has not established the factum of the presence of light in the street. When the very foundation, viz., FIR, itself doubtful and the version of P.Ws.1 to 5 also cannot be reliable, more particularly, taking note of their conduct that being close relatives, their non-attempt of taking the deceased to the hospital immediately after the occurrence and that it is their specific statement that only the police removed the dead body at about 8.30 p.m., this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt. When the evidence of the Investigating Officer is carefully scanned, this Court entertains a doubt as to the truthfulness of the investigation. When the evidence of the Investigating Officer is carefully scanned, this Court entertains a doubt as to the truthfulness of the investigation. The evidence of the Investigating Officer-P.W.9 and the Inquest Report shows as if the dead body was all along lying in the place of occurrence and inquest was conducted from 2.30 a.m. till 5.00 a.m. on 01.04.2007, which is totally against the version of the eyewitnesses, viz., P.Ws.1 to 5. It is the categorical version of P.Ws.1 to 5 that police came and removed the dead body on 31.03.2007 at 8.30 p.m. itself. The FIR in this case, has reached the Court only on 01.04.2007 at about 7.15 a.m., i.e., 12 hours after the alleged occurrence. The delay is also not explained properly and FIR as such, is the result of deliberation and came into existence after the commencement of the investigation No other independent witnesses were examined. The possibility of narrating and including the names of the assailants as stated in the complaint also cannot be ruled out. The medical evidence also shows that except 3x1cmxbone deep laceration on the right side of the scalp, the other injuries are only abrasions and the deceased died due to vasovagal shock and the shock sometimes, the result of violence. Therefore, there is no doubt that the deceased died due to homicidal violence. But, this Court is of the considered view that once there is an evidence to show that there were some other violence which resulted to the shock, which culminated into death, it should be held as homicidal violence only. However, it has to be analysed whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. Since the very evidence of the eyewitnesses, viz., P.Ws.1 to 5, is highly doubtful, unnatural and create a doubt, it is highly unsafe to rely upon those testimonies to base a conviction in a grave crime. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt and that they are entitled for benefit of doubt at the hands of this Court. 14. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt and that they are entitled for benefit of doubt at the hands of this Court. 14. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences imposed on the appellants/accused for the offence u/s.147, 148 and 302 r/w 149 IPC by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai, in SC.No.143/2009 vide Judgment dated 04.08.2017, are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges levelled against them. Fine amounts if any paid, shall be refunded to them. 15. It is reported that the appellants/accused are in jail. They are directed to be released forthwith unless their presence/custody is required in connection with any other case/proceedings.