JUDGMENT DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN., J AND R.POORNIMA.,J The Criminal Appeal against the order of acquittal is preferred by the State, being aggrieved by the judgment of the III Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli, acquitting all the five accused in S.C.NO.298 of 2021, dated 29.12.2021. 2.The case of the prosecution is that due to previous enemity, the deceased Senthilvel was done to death by A1 to A4 on the instigation of A5. On completion of investigation conducted on the complaint given by P.W.1, prosecution has filed the final report against four persons out of 9 accused.The trial Court framed the charge sheet under Section 147 IPC against A3 and A4, Section 148 IPC as against A2 and A2, Section 341 IPC against accused No.1 to 4, Section 342 IPC as against A3 and A4, Section 302 IPC against A5, Section 302 IPC against A1 and A2, Section 302 r/w 149 IPC against A3 and A4, Section 506(ii) IPC as against A1 and A2. 3.To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses and marked 16 exhibits and 7 material objects. After analyzing the evidence, the trial Court found that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove that the occurrence was witnessed by P.W.1 to P.W.3.Their evidence is inconsistent, destructive to each other and not cogent. The trial Court has also observed that the Investigating Officer P.W.12 has lost his way in the investiation and failed to fix the right witness and right accused.The complaint marked as Ex.P1 by P.W.1 Murugan itself found to be of facts with concocted allegations. Even during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has found that except Lakshmi A5, her name in the FIR not involved in the crime. Even as far as A5 Lakshmi is concerned, there was not enough material to show that she has instigated the other accused to commit the said crime. That apart, the trial Clourt has also found that the body of the deceased was not at the scene of crime when the investigating Officer went to the spot to conduct the investigation on 28.4.2013. The manner in which the body of the deceased person removed from the scene of crime was not explained by the prosecution. That apart, the trial Clourt has also found that the body of the deceased was not at the scene of crime when the investigating Officer went to the spot to conduct the investigation on 28.4.2013. The manner in which the body of the deceased person removed from the scene of crime was not explained by the prosecution. P.W.9 Constable who speak about the handing over of the body to the mortuary, had not stated anything about the time of receiving the body from the Investigating Officer along with requisition letter and the time he has handed over the body to the hospital authority.So taking note of the inconsistent case of the prosecution, verdict of not guilty was rendered by the Court below.Being aggrieved, the present Criminal Appeal is filed by the State on the ground that the evidence of P.W.1 to 4 categorically identified the assailants.The post moretem report clearly show that the deceased would appear to have died of multiple injuries 6 to 24 hours prior to the post- mortem examination and the Doctor has observed as many as 27 injuries on the body of the deceased.The trial Court ought not to have disbelieved the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 citing minor contradictions elicited during cross-examination which was conducted one year after the examination-in-chief. 4.The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 would submit that it is a case of false implication of two family in the village, who are minority.The motive attributed for committing the murder on Senthilvel has not been established by the prosecution. The complaint Ex.P1 lodged at 21.00 hours reiterating that the alleged incident occurred at 18.45 hours itself tamper with false acquisition and made after sufficient delibeation to include all the family members of A1. The complaint Ex.P1 lodged at 21.00 hours reiterating that the alleged incident occurred at 18.45 hours itself tamper with false acquisition and made after sufficient delibeation to include all the family members of A1. He would further submit that on receipt of the complaint at 21.00 hours on 28.4.2013, the Investigating Officer has deposed that he went to the spot at about 9.30 p.m and at that time, the body was not in the scene of crime and that is the reason why he has not marked the cite of body lying in the rogh sketch.While so, there is no evidence to show that on whose instruction the body was removed and when it had reached the mortuary of the Government Hospital, Tirunelveli.The scene of occurrence is highly doubtful, since there is contradiction in the evidence of P.W.1 vis-a-vis, the rough sketch. The fact that the scene of crime not ascertained, the body was not found in the scene of crime, even according to the Investigating Officer, person who removed the body from the scene of crime to the hospital not explained.The apparent exaggeration of the event by P.W.1 to P.W.3 who were not a witness to the occurrence but been planted by the prosecution cumulatively had lead to acquittal by the trial Court. 5.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 and perused the materials placed before this Court. 6.The case of the prosecution as spoken through the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.12 clearly indicate that Senthilvel, the deceased was brutally attacked and done to death and he had sustained 25 injuries as per the post mortem report.P.W. 1 had deposed that A1 and A2 caused injury with aruval while A2 and A3 and juvenile accused were present and restrained the deceased from moving.Almost on the similar line, P.W.2 and P.W.3 deposed. However, in the cross examination, the evidence of P.W.1 to 3 has been substantially contradicted and found the occurrence could not have happened in the manner in which these three witnesses had narrated. That apart, this Court has also concur with the view of the tril Court in respect of the removal of the body of the deceased from the scene of crime. That apart, this Court has also concur with the view of the tril Court in respect of the removal of the body of the deceased from the scene of crime. We call for the records from the Public Prosecutor and found that the CD file does not show any material how the body was removed, on whose instruction it was removed, when it was removed. The only explanation of Additional Public Prosecutor is that due to tension prevailing in the village, the body was removed from the scene of crime immediately. Even to justify the said explanation, there must be some records placed before this Court or at least in the CD file to take note of by this Court. Unfortunately, We find that earliest record regarding the removal of the body from the scene of occurrence is the requisition letter (not marked) prepared by the Investigating Officer ie., on 29.4.2013. P.W.9, the Constsable, who deposed about the handing over of the body for post-mortem, in his evidence, is conspicuously silent about time and the passport he received to take the body from the scene of crime to the hospital. Since the body was not found in the scene of crime even at 9.30 p.m. at 26.4.2013 and the rough sketch, observation Mahawar in the light of evidence of P.W.1 and 2 does not tally with each other.There is strong doubt about the scene of crime itself . 7.In the light of the above fact, the trial Court has found that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Due to the finding given in the order of acquittal by the trial Court for want of adequate evidence, double benefit is now enure on the respondents 1 to 4, since this Court does not find any perversity or omission in appreciating the evidence and the reason given by the trial Court is also a possible view and it is to be confirmed. 8.Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed and the order of acquittal rendered by the trial Court stands confirmed.