JUDGMENT : Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the judgment dated 11.12.2015 passed in S.C. No. 155/2014 on the file of the Third Additional District and Sessions Court, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District. 1. The matter is heard through Video Conference. 2. The convicted accused are the appellants herein. 3. This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment dated 11.15.2015 passed in S.C. No. 155/2014 on the filed of the Third Additional District and Sessions Court, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District, convicting the appellants and sentenced the first appellant to undergo 4 years R.I. under Section 120(B) r/w 460 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each in default 6 months R.I. to undergo 4 years under Section 120(B) r/w 326 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo 6 months R.I. sentencing the second appellant to undergo 4 years R.I. under Section 120(B) r/w 326 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo 6 months R.I. and sentenced the 3rd appellant to undergo 4 years R.I. under Section 120(B) r/w 460 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each in default 6 months R.I. to undergo 4 years under Section 326 r/w 114 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo 6 months R.I. 4. The respondent filed the charge sheet against the appellants for an alleged offence under Section 120(b), 506(i), 109 r/w 326, 460 IPC which was taken on file in S.C. No. 155/2014 on the file of the Third Additional Sessions Court, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District on the allegations that on 09.10.2013 at about 11.00 P.M. the appellants 2 and 3 conspired together with the 1st appellant and entered the house of the defacto complainant namely Mohan and the second appellant assaulted him with Aruval and caused grievous injuries on his head, while the third appellant assisted the second appellant. After that, the first appellant came there and admitted the defacto complainant into the Hospital and thereby committed the offence. 5. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-8 and Exs.P1 to P14 were marked and MO.1 was marked. On behalf of the defence, no documents or evidence has been marked. 6. After that, the first appellant came there and admitted the defacto complainant into the Hospital and thereby committed the offence. 5. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-8 and Exs.P1 to P14 were marked and MO.1 was marked. On behalf of the defence, no documents or evidence has been marked. 6. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gobichettipalayam, has convicted the accused and awarded the sentence as stated supra. 7. Mr. I.C. Vasudevan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that: (a) PW-1 and PW-2 who are husband and wife are improved their version, after complaint, so as to falsely convicted the accused. (b) PW-1 and PW-2 are not reliable. Since the versions are a self contradictory, as per the own version given in the complaint with that their evidence before the Court. (c) There is no independent eye witness to the occurrence as projected by the prosecution. (d) No other material is placed before the Court to connect the accused in the crime. (e) Earlier version given by PW-1 (injured) given to the Government Doctors, Sathyamangalam as well as the Doctor, at Coimbatore as well as Ex.P1 complaint, it is unnamed and unknown accused. The complaint was given on 20.10.2013 and further statement of PW-1 was recorded on 21.10.2013 and further relevant statement was recorded on 27.10.2013. 8. In all three circumstances, neither PW-1 nor PW-2 have whispered the names of the accused. Thereafter, under the guise of getting the further statement under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. the investigation officer has introduced A1, A2 and A3, as an accused. Due to previous enmity between the parties, they have been falsely implicated. 9. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would contend that the scene of the crime is inside the house and hence, no independent witness would be examined, in view of the occurrence taken inside the house. Both, PW-1 and PW-2 have assigned the reason for not mentioning the name of A1. Since A1 was circumventing them at all relevant point of time, only during his absence, his name was spelt out to the investigation officer and recovery and the concern statements are proved in the manner known to law and made submissions in support of the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gobichettipalayam. 10. Since A1 was circumventing them at all relevant point of time, only during his absence, his name was spelt out to the investigation officer and recovery and the concern statements are proved in the manner known to law and made submissions in support of the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gobichettipalayam. 10. After perusing the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and also the initial statement given under Exs.P1 and P2, I find that both PW-1 and PW-2, wife of PW-1, have made improvements in the version after completion of the investigation so as to falsify the earlier complaint given immediately after the occurrence. Except PW-1 and PW-2, no other eye witnesses are projected. No other material was produced before the Sessions Court to connect the accused with the crime. 11. As admitted by PW-7 and PW-8, the investigation officer, the name of the accused is implicated by PW-1, after many number of days. There is no evidence to connect as to the alleged previous enmity as motive. It is the specific evidence of PW-1 that at the time of assault, A1 has stated that because of PW-1, he had suffered loss in the business and A2 and A3 stabbed with Aruval. With regard to the Aruval, as a weapon of crime, it is discussed infra. 12. A1 was charged under Section 120(B) of IPC. PW-1 had disclosed before PW-6, that he suffered injury by assault, by unknown person, at the earliest point of time and even, according to the evidence of PW-1, both the complaint and his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on information passed on to first accused through PW-3, the first accused came and accommodate him and took him to the hospital, he was all along with PW-1, till he was admitted in hospital, complaint was given on 20.10.2013. The evidence of PW-4 to PW-8 appears to be hearsay evidence. PW-1 is the victim, PW-2 is the wife of PW-1. PW-3 is the sister son of the PW-2. 13. In the cross examination, has admitted, which reads as under: “TAMIL” 14. The evidence of PW-4 to PW-8 appears to be hearsay evidence. PW-1 is the victim, PW-2 is the wife of PW-1. PW-3 is the sister son of the PW-2. 13. In the cross examination, has admitted, which reads as under: “TAMIL” 14. PW-5 has deposed in support of the answer elicited in the cross examination of investigation officer that neither in the complaint nor in the initial statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. he has not disclosed any person in fact, he has specifically stated that he could find no person inside his home. PW-2, the wife of PW-1, has categorically stated that the wife of the first accused/Srinivasan, used to visit his home. However, as his wife suspected such visit of husband to the house of PW-1, PW-1 stopped coming. Till 21.10.2013 and 27.10.2013, the statement and witnesses of PW-1 and PW-2 is that they have not disclosed the name of the first accused. Only on 21.10.2013, it is projected that PW-1 has disclosed that A1 was also in the scene. In the cross examination, both PW-1 and PW-2 have admitted that till 21st, they have not disclosed about the alleged person of A1/Srinivasan, assumes significance. 15. It remains to be stated that when PW-1 was admitted to the Hospital, he was full of conscious and he had admitted that the first accused/Srinivasan alone has accompanied PW-1 to the Hospital and paid the necessary fees and he has aided for the medical treatment. However, would say that he assumed that if the name of the Srinivasan/first accused is dispel to the police, he may give harm to the family. The Doctor who had given initial treatment to PW-1, who has examined as PW-6. As per accident register/Ex.P9 on 19.10.2013, at around 11.00 p.m. a unknown person, with Aruval has attacked him and he has sustained injuries and the injury no. 2 is simple in nature and injuries 1 and 3 are grievous in nature. In the cross examination, he has admitted that under Ex.P9/accident register, PW-1 is fully drunk and the same is noted as under the influence of alcohol. 16. 2 is simple in nature and injuries 1 and 3 are grievous in nature. In the cross examination, he has admitted that under Ex.P9/accident register, PW-1 is fully drunk and the same is noted as under the influence of alcohol. 16. In view of the answer elicited in the cross examination of PW-1 and PW-2, coupled with the answer elicited in the cross examination of investigation officer/PW-7 and PW-8, as extracted supra, I find that both PW-1 and PW-2 are not reliable witnesses and their evidence is self contrary and no other independent witnesses examined by the prosecution for the alleged notice, conspiracy and involvement of the appellants in the appeal. PW-1 has specifically stated before PW-6/Doctor, that he was assaulted by unknown person at the earliest point of time which is duly reflected in accident register/Ex.P9. 17. Furthermore, Doctor also noted in the accident register that PW-1 is under the influence of alcohol. The Ex.P1/complaint, which came into force at the relevant point of time, accident register and initially, statement given to the police disclosed that unknown person has attacked him only upon the further statement of PW-1. A1/Srinivasan was implicated based upon the alleged conspiracy was in existence between A1, A2 and A3 in making assault on PW-1. So being the prosecution case, however, the prosecution has failed to explain the prosecution witnesses, PW-1 and PW-2 were not disclosed the same at the earliest point of time about the involvement of first accused especially, when his name was not found in the FIR. In fact, PW-1 was admitted that A1 alone was admitted PW-1 in the hospital and saved his life as per the earlier part of the prosecution. 18. Furthermore, though the investigation officer alleged that the criminal conspiracy was in existence between A1 on one hand and A2 and A3 on the other hand. In the cross examination, they have categorically stated that none of the witnesses during his investigation, deposed regarding the alleged criminal conspiracy stated by PW-7, in the cross examination assumes significance. Though PW-8/Investigation officer would depose that A1 has indulged in criminal conspiracy and has plan to attack PW-1 with the aid of A2 and A3 through phone and he has collected the details. However, for the reasons best known, no call details were filed before the Court. 19. Though PW-8/Investigation officer would depose that A1 has indulged in criminal conspiracy and has plan to attack PW-1 with the aid of A2 and A3 through phone and he has collected the details. However, for the reasons best known, no call details were filed before the Court. 19. In the absence of any positive evidence, being adduced by the prosecution with regard to the alleged criminal conspiracy of for the charge under Section 120(B) of IPC, I find that the trial Court has erroneously convicted the first accused with the aid of 120(B) of IPC. The essential ingredients of charge under Section 120(B), there must be some motive and previous enmity is said to be the motive for the offence against PW-1. As stated supra, neither PW-1 nor PW-2 had deposed about any pre-existence ill motive between them and A1, assumes significance. 20. In view of the material contradiction on material particulars regarding involvement of A2 and A3, as spoken to by PW-1, at the first instance under Ex.P9/accident register and thereafter, under Ex.P1/complaint and even thereafter, under 161 statement given to the police only after 21.10.2013, he has implicated the A1. As stated supra, the reason for inclusion for the name of the first accused suffers from material contradiction and does not stand the legal scrutiny. The alleged call details said to have been collected by the investigation officer/PW-8, was not marked. The non production of alleged collected call details between A1 to A3 also creates serious doubt in the prosecution theory. 21. Yet another point is that the material object that was produced before the Court. It is the specific case of PW-1 and PW-2 that the Aruval used as a weapon of crime had blood stain. Though, the investigation officer had admitted that during his investigation, on the scene of the crime, he had noticed blood stain on the clothes. However, he has not collect and seized the same and sent for forensic department. It is the specific case of PW-1 and PW-2 that the Aruval used as a weapon of crime had blood stain. Though, the investigation officer had admitted that during his investigation, on the scene of the crime, he had noticed blood stain on the clothes. However, he has not collect and seized the same and sent for forensic department. It is also cause serious doubt, as to the involvement of M.O.1 and M.O.2, weapon of the crime in the alleged offence and hence, I find that in view of the improvements made in the version of PW-1 and PW-2, and the reason assigned for the inclusion of the name of the first accused who is said to have been called by PW-1 through PW-3, at the earlier instance and the first accused having accompanied by PW-1/injured to the hospital and taken care of PW-1 all along was subsequently implicated as an accused without any positive evidence and hence, I find the version of PW-1 and PW-2 are unreliable and untrustworthy, the same suffers from self contradiction, as per the statement given at the earliest point of time as discussed supra and hence, all is not well with the prosecution theory and there is no positive evidence to connect the first accused with the alleged crime, there is no positive evidence to connect there was a criminal conspiracy between A1 in one hand and A2 and A3 on the other hand. For the presence of A2 and A3, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 are totally inconsistent with the earlier statement given by the police and given by the Doctor and thus, I find that there is no positive evidence to connect the accused with the crime. 22. In the absence of any positive evidence, to connect the accused having nexus with the crime, I find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. By operation of law, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused. Giving benefit of doubt to the accused/appellants, they are acquitted. 23. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence as against the appellants 1 to 3/accused in the judgment dated 11.12.2015 in S.C. No. 155/2014 on the file of the Third Additional District and Sessions Court, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District are set aside. Giving benefit of doubt to the accused/appellants, they are acquitted. 23. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence as against the appellants 1 to 3/accused in the judgment dated 11.12.2015 in S.C. No. 155/2014 on the file of the Third Additional District and Sessions Court, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District are set aside. The appellants/accused are acquitted from the charges under Section 506(i), 120(B), 460 and 326 of IPC. The fine amount, if any, paid by them is ordered to be refunded to them. The bail bonds executed by them, shall stand terminated/discharged.