JUDGMENT : G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. This appeal is directed as against the Judgment of conviction passed in S.C.No.200 of 2017 dated 24.09.2025 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, thereby convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C . 2.The case of the prosecution is that there was a dispute regarding the administration of a temple between the deceased and accused. Further, a dispute arose between them with regard to construction of a compound wall around the temple premises. In the year 2011, the deceased assaulted one Arunachalam/10 th accused, which resulted in enmity between the two groups. Further, the deceased lodged a complaint against the accused. Due to the said motive, all the accused conspired together to do away with the life of the deceased. While being so, on 05.09.2014, at about 08.00 a.m., when the deceased went to attend his natural call, all the accused came there in an auto and waylaid him. Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 and 11 discriminatively assaulted him with sickles, causing his death on the spot. On the complaint, the respondent registered an F.I.R in Crime No.331 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 147 , 148, 341 and 302 of I.P.C . After completion of investigation, the respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court. 3.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.18 and marked Exs.P1 to P22. The prosecution had produced Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.8.On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.7 before the trial Court. 4.On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the appellants/A.2 and A.3 alone guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under of . Aggrieved by the same, A.2 and A.3 as appellants have preferred the present appeal. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the Trial Court convicted the appellants based on the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4, who were projected as eyewitnesses to the occurrence. However, the unnatural conduct of P.W.3 and P.W.4 creates suspicion with regard to their very presence in the scene of crime. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the Trial Court convicted the appellants based on the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4, who were projected as eyewitnesses to the occurrence. However, the unnatural conduct of P.W.3 and P.W.4 creates suspicion with regard to their very presence in the scene of crime. P.W.1 went to the police station and lodged the complaint. However, she did not write the complaint herself and categorically admitted during her cross-examination that she explained the occurrence to a third party and read the complaint before lodging it to the respondent police. After registration of F.I.R, it was sent to the Court with delay of 6 hours, for which there is absolutely no proper explanation by the prosecution. The alleged occurrence took place on 05.09.2014. The statements of P.W.3 and P.W.4 were recorded after 8 days from the date of occurrence. Subsequently, their statements were sent to the Court only after a period of one year and that too along with the final report. There is no explanation by the prosecution for the huge delay in sending the statements to the Court, which creates doubt over the credibility of the case of the prosecution. Despite this, the Trial Court convicted the appellants. The statements under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C were recorded from P.W.3 and P.W.4 only on 13.09.2014 ie, after a delay of 8 days from the date of occurrence. They are supposed to be eye witnesses as projected by the prosecution, the Investigating Officer should have examined them on the date of occurrence itself. 6.In fact, the statements recorded from P.W.1 to P.W.3 dated 05.09.2014 were sent to the Court the very next day ie., on 06.09.2014 itself. The inquest report dated 05.09.2014 was also sent to the Court on 06.09.2014. That apart, P.W.3 and P.W.4 are close relatives of the deceased, which raises doubt about their impartiality and their actual presence at the scene of crime. Further, when the Trial Court did not believe the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 concerning the other accused persons, acquitting them, it is evident that the appellants, who stood in the same footing as of the other accused persons, were convicted by the Trial Court in a pick and chose method by showing partiality. Further, when the Trial Court did not believe the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 concerning the other accused persons, acquitting them, it is evident that the appellants, who stood in the same footing as of the other accused persons, were convicted by the Trial Court in a pick and chose method by showing partiality. There should not be discrimination when considering the testimony of others and the Trial Court should have acquitted the other accused persons as well, instead of convicting the appellants alone. 7.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants further submitted that as per the F.I.R, there were only 7 named accused persons. However, the prosecution keep on adding more accused and finally, 21 accused persons were included in the charge sheet. When all the accused persons were standing in the same footing, the Trial Court ought not to have convicted the appellants alone while acquitting the other accused. In fact, there was enmity only between 10 th accused and the deceased. However, the Trial Court acquitted all the accused persons except the appellants. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the charges as against the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt and even then, the Trial Court convicted the appellants. 8.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that due to previous enmity, all the accused persons conspired together to do away with the life of the deceased. On the date of occurrence, all the named accused joined together, waylaid the deceased and indiscriminately attacked him with sickles, causing grievous injuries which led to his death on the spot. The sickles were recovered and produced as materials objects M.O.6 to M.O.8. The vehicle which was used by the accused was also produced as Material Object No.3. On the complaint, which was marked as Ex.P.1, the respondent registered the F.I.R, which was marked as Ex.P.13. Thereafter, the body of the deceased was subjected for postmortem and the postmortem report was marked as Ex.P.15. After the confession statements recorded from the accused, the respondent altered the charges and submitted alteration reports on two occasions, which were marked as Ex.P.19 and Ex.P.20. All the prosecution witnesses, including eyewitnesses, categorically deposed about the specific overt act of the appellants and the Trial Court rightly convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C . After the confession statements recorded from the accused, the respondent altered the charges and submitted alteration reports on two occasions, which were marked as Ex.P.19 and Ex.P.20. All the prosecution witnesses, including eyewitnesses, categorically deposed about the specific overt act of the appellants and the Trial Court rightly convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C . The delay in sending the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. In fact, the vital documents were immediately sent to the Court along with F.I.R. Therefore, the prosecution has categorically proved the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and the Trial Court rightly convicted the appellants and the same does not warrant any interference of this Court. 9.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 10.There was enmity between the 10 th accused and deceased with regard to the construction of a compound wall around two Mutharamman Temples situated in Rastha Village, Tirunelveli District. There were totally 21 accused and all the accused are relatives. The Trial Court split up the fourth accused and conducted a trial as against the other accused persons. Except the appellants, all other accused persons were acquitted by the Trial Court. According to the case of the prosecution, on 05.09.2014 at about 08.00 a.m., when the deceased went to attend his natural call, all the accused waylaid the deceased and attacked him indiscriminately with sickles. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot.Immediately, after the occurrence, P.W.1 lodged the complaint and the same was registered by the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 147 , 148, 341 and 302 of I.P.C against 7 named accused persons. During the investigation, the respondent found that there were totally 21 accused and laid a charge sheet. The Trial Court had taken cognizance for the offences punishable under , 148, 341, 302, 120(b), 109 r/w 34 of . After a full fledged trial, the Trial Court acquitted all the accused persons except the appellants herein. 11.The complainant, who deposed as P.W.1, is none other than the sister of the deceased. She deposed that 7 accused persons including the appellants herein along with A.11 waylaid the deceased, assaulted the deceased with sickles. The said occurrence was witnessed by P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.6. 11.The complainant, who deposed as P.W.1, is none other than the sister of the deceased. She deposed that 7 accused persons including the appellants herein along with A.11 waylaid the deceased, assaulted the deceased with sickles. The said occurrence was witnessed by P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.6. P.W.1 was informed about the occurrence by P.W.3. Immediately, P.W.1 rushed to the place of occurrence and lodged the complaint before the respondent. Therefore, P.W.1 was not an eyewitness to the occurrence and she heard about the occurrence from P.W.3 and then lodged the complaint. Another sister was examined as P.W.2. She was informed about the occurrence by P.W.3. Therefore, she was not an eyewitness and she was only a hearsay witness. One of the eyewitnesses, the husband of P.W.1 was examined as P.W.3. He categorically deposed that totally 7 persons assaulted the deceased with sickles. According to him, A.11 also possessed a sickle and assaulted the deceased. The relevant portion of his deposition is as follows: Thus, it is clear that according to P.W.1, there were totally 7 accused persons, who assaulted the deceased with sickles. However, the prosecution recovered only three sickles, which were produced as Material Objects M.O.6 to M.O.8. The other accused persons were also standing in the same footing of the appellants. 12.Another eyewitness was examined as P.W.4. He also deposed that all 7 accused persons waylaid the deceased and assaulted him with sickles. According to P.W.3 and P.W.4, the deceased was travelling with motorcycle. However, the prosecution failed to recover the motorcycle and produce it before the Trial Court to prove that the deceased arrived at the scene of crime by motorcycle being waylaid and assaulted by the accused. The relevant portion of his deposition is as follows: Thus, it is clear that all the accused persons were standing in the same footing and had specific overt acts. 13.One of the witnesses who was present along with P.W.3 and P.W.4 was examined as P.W.6, but he turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Now, the entire case of the prosecution depends upon the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4, who were eyewitnesses to the occurrence. The Trial Court disbelieved their evidence insofar as the other 5 accused persons, except the appellants. Now, the entire case of the prosecution depends upon the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4, who were eyewitnesses to the occurrence. The Trial Court disbelieved their evidence insofar as the other 5 accused persons, except the appellants. In fact, all the accused persons were acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 341 of I.P.C , since there was no evidence to show that all the accused persons waylaid the deceased and restrained him from escaping from the scene of crime. Further, the Trial Court also concluded that the offences under Sections 120 (b), 148, 341, 302 r/w 109, 302 r/w 34 of were not proved by the prosecution as against other accused persons except the appellants herein. 14.In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi Vs. State of Gujarat [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 782] , wherein it is held as follows: “14. Assuming that PW-25 and PW-26 identified accused nos.2, 3 and 4 by stating that they were members of the mob; once a Coordinate Bench of this Court discards their testimony in its entirety being unreliable, the benefit of the said finding will have to be extended to the accused nos.2,3 and 4 as they are similarly placed with accused Nos.1,5 and 13. Moreover, except for PW-25 and PW-26, no other witnesses have ascribed any role to the accused nos.2, 3 and 4. 15. When there is similar or identical evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them the same or similar role, the Court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other. In such a case, the cases of both the accused will be governed by the principle of parity. This principle means that the Criminal Court should decide like cases alike, and in such cases, the Court cannot make a distinction between the two accused, which will amount to discrimination.” 15.The above case is squarely applicable to this case on hand. When there is similar evidence of eyewitnesses against all the accused persons by deposing that all the accused persons had specific allegations and same role in the occurrence, the Trial Court cannot convict the appellants alone while acquitting other accused persons. All the accused will be governed by the principle of parity. When there is similar evidence of eyewitnesses against all the accused persons by deposing that all the accused persons had specific allegations and same role in the occurrence, the Trial Court cannot convict the appellants alone while acquitting other accused persons. All the accused will be governed by the principle of parity. Hence, the Trial Court should decide cases alike, and in such cases, the Court cannot make a distinction between the accused, which would amount to discrimination. 16.When other accused persons were acquitted by the Trial Court, the appellants should also have received the benefit of parity. If the relief is denied to the appellants, their rights guaranteed to them under Article 21 of the Constitution of India will be violated. Further, it will also amount to doing manifest injustice. It is the duty and obligation of the Court to extend the same relief to the appellants. 17.Further, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants pointed out irregularities committed by the prosecution and it suspects the entire case of the prosecution. According to the case of the prosecution, P.W.3 and P.W.4 were eyewitnesses to the occurrence. The alleged occurrence took place on 05.09.2014 at about 08.00 a.m. On the same day, P.W.1 lodged a complaint which was marked as Ex.P.1. Immediately after registration of F.I.R, the Investigating Officer went to the scene of crime and prepared the observation mahazar. P.W.1 categorically stated in her complaint that she was informed by P.W.3 and P.W.4 about the occurrence and the specific overt acts of all the accused persons. Even then, the respondent failed to examine the eyewitnesses who had deposed as P.W.3 and P.W.4 on the date of occurrence or next day of occurrence. Both the eyewitnesses were examined only on 13.09.2014 ie., after 8 days from the date of occurrence. There was absolutely no explanation from the prosecution for the huge delay in recording their statements under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. Though the respondent had recorded their statements after 8 days from the date of alleged occurrence, the statements were reached only along with final report that too after one year. When the respondent had sent all the other documents to the Court immediately after the occurrence, the prosecution failed to explain the delay in sending the statements to the Court that too after a period of one year. The Investigating Officer had deposed as P.W.18. When the respondent had sent all the other documents to the Court immediately after the occurrence, the prosecution failed to explain the delay in sending the statements to the Court that too after a period of one year. The Investigating Officer had deposed as P.W.18. He categorically deposed as follows: Thus, it is clear that P.W.3 and P.W.4 were examined only on 13.09.2014 and their statements were sent to the Court after a period of one year. 18.That apart, the vehicle which was used by the deceased was not recovered by the respondent. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased came to the scene of crime by motorcycle and was subsequently waylaid by the accused persons in order to do away with his life. 19.In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Jafarudheen and others Vs. State of Kerala [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 403] , wherein it has held as follows: “28.The Investigating Officer is expected to kick start his investigation immediately after registration of a cognizable offense. An inordinate and unexplained delay may be fatal to the prosecution's case but only to be considered by the Court, on the facts of each case. There may be adequate circumstances for not examining a witness at an appropriate time. However, non- examination of the witness despite being available may call for an explanation from the Investigating Officer. It only causes doubt in the mind of the Court, which is required to be cleared. 29. Similarly, a statement recorded, as in the present case, the investigation report is expected to be sent to the jurisdictional Magistrate at the earliest. A long, unexplained delay, would give room for suspicion.” 20.Therefore, the inordinate delay in recording the statements of material witnesses casts a cloud of suspicion on the credibility of the entire warp and woof of the prosecution story. 21.This circumstance, looming charge in the background inevitably leads to the conclusion, that the prosecution story was conceived and constructed after a good deal and deliberation of delay in a shady setting, highly redolent of doubt and suspicion. Not only there was delay in sending and recording the statements of eyewitnesses, there was delay in sending the F.I.R to the Court. Not only there was delay in sending and recording the statements of eyewitnesses, there was delay in sending the F.I.R to the Court. Though the police station and the jurisdictional Court are situated in the same campus, there was a delay of 6 hours in sending the F.I.R to the Court. There was no explanation by the prosecution in sending the F.I.R to the Court belatedly. The circumstances in this case led such significance to this delay. Further, there is no corroboration of P.W.3 and P.W.4's evidence from any independent source. When the Trial Court concluded not to believe the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W. 4, insofar as other accused persons, it becomes unsafe to rely upon their evidence to uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellants herein. 22.In view of the above, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants in S.C.No.200 of 2017 dated 24.09.2025 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. 23.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the Judgment made in S.C.No.200 of 2017 dated 24.09.2025 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges. The bail bond, if any, executed by the appellants shall stand cancelled. The fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to the appellants. The appellants shall be set at liberty forthwith, if they are no longer required in connection with any other case. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.