JUDGMENT : (Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.04.2022 made in S.C.No.74 of 2019 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Karur. By the impugned judgment, the appellants were found guilty of the offences under Sections 148 , 341 and 302 IPC . The sentence particulars are as follows:- Rank of the accused Offence u/s. Sentence Fine In default A1 to A6 148 IPC 3 years RI each 5,000/- each 3 months SI each A1 to A6 341 IPC - 500/- each 1 month SI each A1 to A6 302 IPC (2 counts) Double life imprisonment - - 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:- Veeramalai and Nallathambi are father and son. They were residing at Mudhalaipatti Village. In the said village, there is a water body spread over 39 acres. The tank had been encroached. In a portion of the tank, there was a temple known as Sellayee Amman temple. A1 Soundararajan and A10 Natarajan @ Sales Natarajan collected donations from the villagers and renovated the temple. While so, W.P.(MD) No.16338 of 2016 was filed before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court for removing the encroachments. The writ petition was allowed on 24.10.2018. Since the direction of the Court for removal of encroachments was not complied with, contempt petition came to be filed. Following the direction given in the contempt proceedings, the revenue and survey officials came to the spot for conducting survey. Veeramalai indicated the survey stone and it was found thereafter that the temple fell within the limits of the water body. Since the newly renovated temple faced the prospect of demolition, the accused developed enmity towards Veeramalai and his son Nallthambi. They hatched conspiracy and pursuant thereto, on 29.07.2019 at around 8.00 a.m., Nallthambi was hacked to death. This was witnessed by P.W.1 Annalakshmi and P.W.2 Thamarai. A1 to A6 rushed to the house of Veeramalai and seen him sitting near the well, A1 to A6 indiscriminately inflicted cut injuries on the head and other parts of the body. Both Nallathambi as well as Veeramalai died on the spot. 3. P.W.1 daughter of Veeramalai and the sister of Nallathambi lodged Ex.P.1 complaint before Kulithalai police station at around 9.00 a.m. on 29.07.2019. It was registered as crime No.320 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 147 , 148 and 302 IPC . Both Nallathambi as well as Veeramalai died on the spot. 3. P.W.1 daughter of Veeramalai and the sister of Nallathambi lodged Ex.P.1 complaint before Kulithalai police station at around 9.00 a.m. on 29.07.2019. It was registered as crime No.320 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 147 , 148 and 302 IPC . P.W.30 Inspector of Police took up investigation. He went to the spot where Nallathambi was murdered and prepared rough sketch and observation mahazar. A black colour cellphone was found near the spot where Nallathambi was killed. It was recovered under Ex.P.4. Bloodstained samples were also collected from the spot. Inquest was conducted. Ex.P.30 is the inquest report. Thereafter, the said P.W.30 went to the spot where Veeramalai was killed. He prepared Ex.P.31 rough sketch. He also collected bloodstained samples from the spot. He then arranged inquest. Ex.P.32 is the inquest report in respect of Veeramalai. He examined the family members of the deceased and recorded their statements. P.W.21 Dr.Boominathan conducted postmortem on the body of Nallathambi in the evening on 29.07.2019 from 5.15 pm. and 6.15 pm. Ex.P.22 is the postmortem report in respect of Nallathambi. The postmortem on the body of Veeramalai was performed from 6.15 pm. Ex.P.24 is the postmortem report in respect of Veeramalai. Since the investigation had not at all progressed, the Superintendent of Police, Karur District vide order dated 02.08.2019 withdrew the investigation from P.W.30 Thiru.Baskaran, Inspector of Police and entrusted the same to Thiru.Sukumar, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kulithalai Sub Division(P.W.31). He continued the investigation and recorded the statements of Annalakshmi and Periyannan. He arrested A2 Jeyagandhan at 2.30 pm. on 02.08.2019. Based on his disclosure statement of A2(Ex.P.9), one of the weapons used in committing the crime was seized. Praveenkumar(A6) had surrendered and police custody was obtained. Based on his disclosure statement (Ex.P.11), his bloodstained shirt was seized under recovery mahazar. The police custody of the other surrendered accused, namely Perumal, Sasikumar, Prabakaran, Shanmugam, Kaviyarasu and Stalin was also obtained. Based on their disclosure statements, certain incriminating materials including the weapons used for committing the crime were seized. P.W.31 arranged Test Identification Parade. Since M.O.2 mobile phone was seized from one of the occurrence spots, request was given to the State Nodal Officer of Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd., and information was obtained from them along with certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. P.W.31 arranged Test Identification Parade. Since M.O.2 mobile phone was seized from one of the occurrence spots, request was given to the State Nodal Officer of Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd., and information was obtained from them along with certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. After obtaining forensic reports and examining the medical witnesses, final report was filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kulithalai. It was taken on file in P.R.C.No.10 of 2019 and it was committed to the file of the Sessions Court. It was taken up for trial in S.C.No.74 of 2019. Charges were framed against all the 10 accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.31 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.47. Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.4 and M.O.1 to M.O.31 were also marked. On the side of the accused, five witnesses were examined. Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3 were marked. After examining the evidence on record, the trial Court vide judgment dated 25.04.2022 acquitted accused Nos.7 to 10 and convicted accused Nos.1 to 6 as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the acquittal of accused Nos.7 to 10, P.W.1 filed Crl.A.(MD).No.468 of 2022. It was dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.11.2022. 4. Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 5. The impugned judgment finding the appellants' guilty rests on the ocular testimony of P.W.1 to P.W.5. P.W.1 Annalakshmi is the daughter of Veeramalai and sister of Nallathambi. She deposed that on 29.07.2019, she and her mother Thamarai(P.W.2) after collecting flowers from their agricultural land, were going towards the grocery shop for buying soap. The grocery shop was located near their agricultural land. When they were going on the eastern side, Nallathambi, brother of P.W.1 was going east to west. There was a radio room on the way to the shop. P.W.1 saw accused Nos.1 to 6 in the radio room. Accused No.5 Prabakaran way laid Nallthambi's two wheeler. Immediately thereafter, accused No.2 Jeyagandhan hacked Nallathambi on his neck. The remaining five persons indiscriminately cut Nallathambi with billhooks and swords on his limbs. They proclaimed that if any one filed a case against the village, this would be the punishment. They further proclaimed that his father also would meet the same fate and they rushed towards the house of Veeramalai. The remaining five persons indiscriminately cut Nallathambi with billhooks and swords on his limbs. They proclaimed that if any one filed a case against the village, this would be the punishment. They further proclaimed that his father also would meet the same fate and they rushed towards the house of Veeramalai. P.W.1 and P.W.2 rushed towards their father which was at the distance of 200 meters. Before P.W.1 and P.W.2 could reach, accused Nos.1 to 6 hacked Veeramalai also. Before P.W.1 and P.W.2 could reach, Veeramalai had died. Then they saw that Nallathambi had also died on the spot. Thereafter, P.W.1 accompanied by her uncle (P.W.5) went to Kulithalai police station to lodge complaint. The complaint narrated by P.W.1 was written down by Senthilkumar(SI) P.W.28. Ex.P.1 is the complaint. Later P.W.1 identified three of the accused during the Test Identification Parade. P.W.1 identified all the six accused in the Court. Since Jeyagandhan was absent on 18.11.2020, when P.W.1 was examined in chief, the case was therefore adjourned and on 19.11.2020 when Jeyagandhan was produced, P.W.1 duly identified him. P.W.2 wife of Veeramalai and mother of Nallathambi also deposed on the same lines. P.W.3 was a child witness. He was the son of Nallathambi and grandson of Veeramalai. He deposed that he was studying in 6 th standard. When he was examined on 18.11.2020, he was aged about 13 years. He stated that he was to go to 7 th standard. He deposed that when he was sitting near the well on the occurrence spot and waiting to board the bus to go to school, at that time, accused Nos.1 to 6 came. A1 Perumal and A5 Prabakaran came in a two wheeler. A1 Perumal hacked his grandfather. His grandfather asked P.W.3 to run. P.W.3 even while running away from the spot, noticed that A1 Perumal and A2 Jeyagandhan indiscriminately cut his grandfather. P.W.3 asserted that accused Nos.1 to 6 came in two wheelers and that he saw two of them hacking his grandfather to death. P.W.3 identified accused Nos.1,2, 3,4,5 and 6. P.W.4 Thamilarasi was the wife of Nallathambi and mother of P.W.3. She deposed that it was her father-in-law Veeramalai who used to board P.W.3 in the school van. P.W.4 and P.W.5(brother of Veeramalai) were chatting outside their house. They heard screams. When P.W.4 and P.W.5 came out, they found P.W.3 running towards them. P.W.3 identified accused Nos.1,2, 3,4,5 and 6. P.W.4 Thamilarasi was the wife of Nallathambi and mother of P.W.3. She deposed that it was her father-in-law Veeramalai who used to board P.W.3 in the school van. P.W.4 and P.W.5(brother of Veeramalai) were chatting outside their house. They heard screams. When P.W.4 and P.W.5 came out, they found P.W.3 running towards them. P.W.4 deposed that she saw accused Nos.1 to 6 hacking her father- in-law. By then, P.W.1 and P.W.2 came crying. From them, P.W.4 came to know that her husband had also been hacked. P.W.5 also deposed on the same lines. 6. The Court below found the evidence of these witnesses to be inspiring confidence. It noted that there is no discrepancy or contradiction among these five witnesses. It also found their testimonies to be credible and trustworthy and rested its findings on that basis. 7. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants questions the approach of the trial Court. The following contentions were urged on the side of the appellants:- a) According to the prosecution, Ex.P.1 complaint was lodged by P.W.1 at 9.00 a.m. on 29.07.2019. Ex.P.2 FIR in crime No.320 of 2019 was registered at 9.00 a.m. But the FIR reached the Court only at 7.30 pm. on 29.07.2019. P.W.27 Sub Inspector of Police who handed over the FIR to the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kulithalai admitted that the distance between the police station and the quarters of the Judicial Magistrate was 100 meters. He also admitted that the FIR was handed over to him at 11.30 a.m. itself. In fact, the police station and the Court as well as the residential quarters of the Magistrate were opposite to each other. The learned Senior counsel pointed out that the delay in despatching the FIR to the Court has not been explained in this case. According to him, FIR was prepared only in the evening after due deliberation and consultation. b) P.W.1 admitted that she knew the accused even earlier. They all hail from the very same village. But in Ex.P.1 complaint, accused Nos.1 to 3 alone had been named. The remaining three persons were referred to as “identifiable but names not known”. P.W.1 admitted in her cross examination that A5 Prabakaran used to collect flowers from their agricultural land and even he eaten in their house and they knew him for 15 years. But in Ex.P.1 complaint, accused Nos.1 to 3 alone had been named. The remaining three persons were referred to as “identifiable but names not known”. P.W.1 admitted in her cross examination that A5 Prabakaran used to collect flowers from their agricultural land and even he eaten in their house and they knew him for 15 years. Therefore, the omission to mention A5 by name indicates that A5 was not present in the occurrence spot on 29.07.2019. P.W.23 dog handler Karthikeyan received information at 9.00 a.m. on 29.07.2019 about the occurrence and he was instructed to take the dog. The sniffer dog after sniffing, ran up to a certain point and sat there. Ex.P.25 was the report submitted by P.W.23. The learned Senior counsel contended that the fact that sniffer dog was summoned would indicate that the identity of the accused was not known. Ex.P.25 report reads that the information was received by the Karur District Dog Squad at 8.30 a.m. and that the department dog arrived at the scene at 9.45 a.m. c) P.W.1 to P.W.5 are immediate family members. The murders had occurred in a public place. However, not even a single independent witness was examined. d) P.W.4 had given TV interview. From the contents of the interview, one can safely conclude that she came to the spot only after receiving information about the murder and that she was not an eyewitness. The evidence on record indicate that Veeramalai and Nallathambi and P.W.1 to P.W.4 resided at Puliyur that was 2 kms. away from the occurrence spot. In Mudhalaipatti Village, they had only an agricultural land and house and they were not residing therein. Therefore, the prosecution witnesses could not have been present in the spot at 8.00 a.m. on the occurrence date. e) The fact that all the witnesses had spoken parrot like renders their testimonies not worthy of inspiring the confidence of the Court. P.W.1 and P.W.2 obviously had lifted the bodies of Veeramalai and Nallathambi and their clothes would have definitely been stained with blood. The investigation officer did not seize the bloodstained clothes from P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.1 and P.W.2 did not depose that P.W.3 to P.W.5 were present at the spot. f) None of the appellants had committed encroachments. Therefore, the motive for the murder has not been established. The investigation officer did not seize the bloodstained clothes from P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.1 and P.W.2 did not depose that P.W.3 to P.W.5 were present at the spot. f) None of the appellants had committed encroachments. Therefore, the motive for the murder has not been established. g) The background of Veeramalai indicates that he had enemies in the village and the crime could have been committed by any person inimically disposed towards Veeramalai. The investigation done by the police is hardly satisfactory. P.W.1 claimed that three swords were recovered from A4 to A6. However, only one sword M.O.16 was marked. The learned Senior counsel relied on a catena of case laws in support of his contentions. He called upon this Court to set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the appellants. 8. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the impugned judgment is well reasoned. He took us through the deposition of the witnesses as well as the contents of the exhibits. According to him, the presence of A1 to A6 has been convincingly established by the the testimony of the eyewitnesses P.W.1 to P.W.5. According to him, the prosecution had established its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and the impugned judgment being the reasoned one and it does not call for interference. He called upon this Court to dismiss the appeal. 9. We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the evidence on record. 10. As already noted, the judgment of the Court below rests entirely on the eyewitness testimony of P.W.1 to P.W.5. No doubt, P.W.1 to P.W.5 are the members of the family of the deceased. P.W.1 is the sister of the deceased Nallathambi and daughter of the deceased Veeramalai. P.W.2 is the mother of the deceased Nallathambi and wife of the deceased Veeramalai. P.W.3 is the son of the deceased Nallathambi and grandson of the deceased Veeramalai. P.W.4 is the wife of the deceased Nallathambi and the daughter-in-law of the deceased Veeramalai. P.W.5 is one of the brothers of the deceased Veeramalai. Merely because they are related to the deceased, the testimony of P.W.1 to P.W.5 cannot be rejected on that sole ground. This is for more than one reason. 11. It is true that the murders had taken place in a public road. P.W.5 is one of the brothers of the deceased Veeramalai. Merely because they are related to the deceased, the testimony of P.W.1 to P.W.5 cannot be rejected on that sole ground. This is for more than one reason. 11. It is true that the murders had taken place in a public road. But the prosecution had successfully established that when the deceased took steps to clear the encroachments, the occurrence had taken place. P.W.18 Anandhan is a practising lawyer. He deposed that Veeramalai and his son Nallathambi came to him and at their instance, he filed W.P. (MD)No.16338 of 2016 for clearing the encroachment in Mudhalaipatti Village tank. An order passed by the Madurai Bench allowing the writ petition was marked as Ex.P.3. He further deposed that since this order was not complied with, P.W.18 filed contempt petition and the direction for removal of encroachment was issued. When the officials came to the spot for removing the encroachment, they had a doubt regarding the boundary stone. It was Veeramalai who identified the boundary stone. It turned out that the temple recently renovated by the villagers fell within the encroachment area. Therefore, the local villagers inimically treated Veeramalai's family. The prosecution witnesses have deposed that this was the trigger for the occurrence. Therefore, it would be futile to expect any villager to depose in support of the prosecution against the fellow villagers. Therefore, failure on the part of the prosecution to examine an independent witness from the village can very well be understood. 12. We however find considerable merit in the contention that P.W.4 could not have witnessed the occurrence. P.W.4 had given a TV interview. She admitted during cross examination that she had stated in the TV interview that she came to the spot only after hearing the news and she wanted action to be taken. P.W.4 explained that since she was threatened and under stress, she stated so. This explanation does not sound convincing. If she was afraid, she would have avoided the media. No one compelled her to give any interview. The stand taken by her in the TV interview indicates that she was not present in the spot. We therefore reject the testimony and hold that P.W.4 could not have been an eyewitness. It is beyond dispute that the murders of Nallathambi and Veeramalai took place one after the other. No one compelled her to give any interview. The stand taken by her in the TV interview indicates that she was not present in the spot. We therefore reject the testimony and hold that P.W.4 could not have been an eyewitness. It is beyond dispute that the murders of Nallathambi and Veeramalai took place one after the other. The group of killers after murdering Nallathambi killed Veeramalai also who was at a distance of hardly 200 meters. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have clearly deposed that they saw A1 to A6 as constituting the said group. It is true that P.W.1 in her complaint named A1 to A3 alone. She did not specifically name A4 to A6. The accused were described as identifiable but names not known. The question that calls for consideration is whether on this ground A4 to A6 could be acquitted. It is true that A5 Prabakaran was known to the family of the deceased for more than 15 years. Failure to name A5 is really surprising. But then, one should not lose sight of the fact that P.W. 1 was a villager. The entire family would have not been in a traumatized condition. Therefore, failure on the part of P.W.1 to name A3 to A6 in her complaint cannot be said to go to the root of the matter. In any event, she identified them shortly thereafter to the investigation officer. She identified A1 to A6 in the Court. It is well settled that identification in the Court alone would constitute substantive evidence. The learned Senior counsel for the appellants tried to argue that the family of the deceased was actually residing at Puliyur and not in Mudhalaipatti. This argument does not appear to be correct. The stand of the defence is falsified by their own documents. Ex.D.1 was marked on the side of the defendants. Ex.D.1 is the copy of FIR in Crime No.166 of 2019 registered on the file of Kulithalai police station. It was lodged on 03.04.2019. Veeramalai was the complainant. He had alleged that he was threatened by an unknown person. In the FIR, the address of Veeramalai had been mentioned as Mudhalaipatti, Keelamedu, Kulathukarai, Kulithalai Taluk, Karur District. Likewise P.W.7 Vivekanandhan who though turned hostile admitted that Veeramalai's family had a house at Puliyur and they used to stay at their agricultural land in Mudhalaipatti also. He had alleged that he was threatened by an unknown person. In the FIR, the address of Veeramalai had been mentioned as Mudhalaipatti, Keelamedu, Kulathukarai, Kulithalai Taluk, Karur District. Likewise P.W.7 Vivekanandhan who though turned hostile admitted that Veeramalai's family had a house at Puliyur and they used to stay at their agricultural land in Mudhalaipatti also. In the cross examination, he admitted that Veeramalai and his family used to reside at Mudhalaipatti. Ex.D.2 is the final report filed against Veeramalai and Nallathambi in 2002 in crime No.297 of 1998. In the said final report also, the address of Veeramalai and Nallathambi have been mentioned as Madhalaipatti. P.W.1 deposed that the house at Puliyur was a joint family house and that it has no partition and it had one room and that there was no possibility of accommodating three families and that is why, they used to stay at Mudhalaipatti in their agricultural land. We therefore conclude that the family of the deceased very much resided at Mudhalaipatti in their agricultural land. 13. We also do not find any merit in the contention that merely sniffer dog arrived, it meant that the identity of the accused was not originally known. What happened was a double murder. Obviously, message would have reached the district police. There is nothing wrong in pressing the sniffer dog into service. Sniffer dog is used primarily to locate and assuming that the killer was hiding in the vicinity or had taken a particular route to escape, the sniffer dog can very well help to identify the same. 14. The murders of Veeramalai and his son Nallathambi took place very near to their house at Mudhalaipatti. It is quite natural that P.W.1 and P.W.2 were going to grocery shop to make some purchase. It is not as if the occurrence took place at some unearthly hour and it could not have been seen. It had taken place at 8.00 a.m. in the morning. Therefore, the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 near the occurrence spot cannot be said to be improbable. What clinches the case of the prosecution is the testimony of child witness. The occurrence had taken place on Monday. P.W.4 had deposed that her father-in-law(Veeramalai) used to take the child for boarding the school van. One can take judicial notice of the fact that a school van would pick up children around this time. What clinches the case of the prosecution is the testimony of child witness. The occurrence had taken place on Monday. P.W.4 had deposed that her father-in-law(Veeramalai) used to take the child for boarding the school van. One can take judicial notice of the fact that a school van would pick up children around this time. P.W.3 identified all the six accused as those who hacked his grandfather. P.W.3 could not be shaken during the cross examination also. P.W.3 was aged about 14 years at the time of examination. He was aged 12 years when the occurrence took place. Mudhalaipatti is not a very large village. P.W.3 obviously knew A1 to A6 even earlier. Therefore, there is nothing unnatural about the testimony of P.W.3. The testimony of P.W.5 also reinforces the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3. 15. No doubt there are certain serious flaws in the investigation. The foremost defect is the inordinate and unexplained delay of the FIR in reaching the Court / residence of the Magistrate. The police station is at a distance of hardly 100 meters from the residence of the Magistrate. The police claimed to have registered the FIR at 9.00 a.m. in the morning. But it reached the Magistrate only at 7.30 p.m. on 29.07.2019. But on this ground, the prosecution case cannot be discarded. This is a case in which the police did not seem to have moved till 02.08.2019. The situation was so alarming. The Superintendent of Police noted that the case dairy of the police was blank after 01.08.2019. That is why, he withdrew the investigation from P.W.30 and entrusted it to P.W.31 Deputy Superintendent of Police. 16. It is well settled that the Court should not throw out the prosecution case merely because of some lacuna in the investigation. The function of the Court is to ensure that the innocent is not punished and guilty is convicted. If the Court is convinced on the strength of the evidence on record that it establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, then, the accused may be found guilty and they should not be acquitted by citing some flaws in the investigation. That is the role to be played by the Court. We therefore reject the contention of the learned Senior counsel for the appellants that the appellants may not be guilty merely by citing flaws in the investigation. 17. That is the role to be played by the Court. We therefore reject the contention of the learned Senior counsel for the appellants that the appellants may not be guilty merely by citing flaws in the investigation. 17. It is true that there are some discrepancies regarding recoveries said to have been effected by P.W.31 who claimed that three swords were found and only one was marked. As rightly noted by the Court below, the case on hand does not rest on recovery or confession. It rests entirely on ocular version of the main prosecution witnesses. 18. As rightly noted, the murders of Nallathambi and Veeramalai were not carried out by two separate groups. The same group which killed Nallathambi first also murdered his father Veeramalai who was sitting at a distance of hardly 200 meters. Killing of Nallathambi was witnessed by P.W.1 and P.W.2. They saw A1 to A6 attacking Veeramalai after killing Nallathambi. This was seen by them at a distance. P.W.3 evidenced the occurrence at close quarters. Even if we doubt the presence of P.W.4 and also P.W.5, the impugned judgment convicting the appellants can very well rest on the testimonies of P.W.1 to P.W.3. 19. This is a case of double murder. The accused entertained feelings of enmity towards the deceased because the deceased took steps to clear the village water tank of encroachments. The encroachment included the renovated temple also. The learned Senior counsel would claim that the appellants are not the encroachers. It has been brought out in evidence that A1 was one of the main persons who collected donations from the public and arranged renovation of the temple at a cost of Rs.50 Lakhs. It is also established in evidence that the relatives of the accused were shown as respondents in the writ petition filed before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court. 20. The conduct of the appellants cannot also be lost sight of. The police investigation did not really gather pace till 02.08.2019 when P.W.31 took up investigation. Only A1 to A3 had been mentioned in the FIR. A4 and A5 on their own surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate on 31.07.2019 itself. They did not give any convincing explanation during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The mobile phone belonging to A3 Sasikumar was seized from the occurrence spot under the cover of mahazar on 29.07.2019 immediately after the occurrence. A4 and A5 on their own surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate on 31.07.2019 itself. They did not give any convincing explanation during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The mobile phone belonging to A3 Sasikumar was seized from the occurrence spot under the cover of mahazar on 29.07.2019 immediately after the occurrence. The details were collected from the Nodal Officer. Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.4 are the witness side exhibits marked in this regard. A3 Sasikumar could not deny that M.O.2 mobile phone was his. A3 had been named in Ex.P.1 complaint itself. We are more than satisfied that the implication of A3 has been established beyond reasonable doubt. We therefore reject the plea of alibi in respect of A3. 21. P.W.21 conducted postmortem on the bodies of Nallathambi and Veeramalai. He noted 13 external injuries on the body of the deceased Nallathambi and 10 external injuries on the bodies of the deceased Veeramalai. The case of the prosecution is that A1 to A6 had attacked Nallathambi and Veeramalai and inflicted indiscriminate injuries on them. The medical testimony is in consonance with the ocular version. The contentions put forth by the learned Senior counsel are not sufficient to dislodge the finding of guilt arrived at by the Court below. We independently considered the entire evidence on record and our categorical finding is that P.W.1 to P.W.3 appear to be natural witnesses. Their testimonies command our confidence. There is no merit in this appeal. This criminal appeal stands dismissed. No costs.