K. Ponnuvel, Kasipaiyan @ Lakshmanan and Seva Gounder Thambi Paiyan @ Chinnathambi vs State

D. Murugesan, J.—All the above appeals arise out of a common judgment of the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Salem dated

29.4.2005 made in S.C. No. 96 of 2004. By the said judgment, the appellant in Crl. A. No. 425 of 2005, who was tried as A-3, was found guilty

of the offence u/s 323 IPC (2 counts) and sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment for each count and also to pay a fine of Rs.

1,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months on each count and the sentences are to run concurrently. The appellant in

Crl. A. No. 513 of 2005, who was tried as A-4, was found guilty of the offence u/s 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo three months simple

imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The appellants in Crl. A. No. 918 of

2005, who were tried as A-1 & A-2, were found guilty of the offence u/s 302 IPC and each was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also

to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. So far as the other charges, A-1 to A-4 were acquitted.

Hence they are taken up together for disposal by this judgment.

Before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, in all, seven accused were put on trial for various charges. The learned Judge

acquitted A-5 to A-7 after holding that the prosecution has not established its case against them, but found the appellants/A-1 to A-4 guilty,

convicted and sentenced them for the offence as stated above. For convenience, the appellants are referred to as A-1 to A-4 as arrayed in the

sessions case.

The prosecution case in brief is as follows:

The prosecution party belongs to AIADMK political party and the accused party belongs to DMK political party. P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 6 & 7 are all the

residents of Mecheriyampalayam village within the Mallur police limits in Salem District. A-1 is also a resident of the same village and A-2, A-4 to

A-6 are all the residents of a nearby village called Sandhaiyur. A-3 is a resident of K. Mookkuthipalayam and A-7 is a resident of Kottaivalavu

village which is also a nearby village to Mecheriyampalayam. During the elections to the legislative assembly as well as to the local bodies that took

place prior to the occurrence, both the parties worked for the respective party candidates and due to the elections, there was political rivalry

between both the groups. On 21.10.2001, when P.W.2, Arumugam was taking some goats to Panamarathupatti shandy at about 6.30 a.m., at the

same time, P.W.1, Raja @ Sengoda Gounder, who is the father of P.W.2, was also taking some goats to the same shandy keeping some distance

from P.W.2. At that time, A-7 waylaid P.W.2 and attacked him with hands by saying that even when his party was defeated in the elections, why

does he require a place in the shandy. To escape from further attack, P.W.2 ran away from the place and informed P.W.1.

On the next day i.e., on 22.10.2001 at about 7.00 a.m., P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and the deceased by name Thangavelu went to question A-7 as to the

attack to P.W.2, they saw A-1 to A-7 standing along with 20 others and armed with sticks, stones, iron rods and koduval. When P.W.1

questioned A-7 as to the attack of P.W.2 by him, A-4 hit P.W.1 with a stone on the back of his head, A-3 hit with a stick on his forehead, left

hand and nose. When the deceased Thangavelu intervened, A-2 cut the deceased with Koduval, M.O.2 on his forehead and at the same time, A-

1 hit the deceased repeatedly on his head with iron rod, A-5 hit the deceased on his right leg with iron rod, A-6 also repeatedly hit the deceased

on the left side of his head with iron rod repeatedly. A-7 attacked P.W.3 with a stick on his right shoulder. The above occurrence was witnessed

by P.Ws.1 to 3, 5 and some other persons. On coming to know of the occurrence, P.W.4, a well-wisher of the injured witnesses, went to the

scene of occurrence and took the deceased and the injured in her car to the Government Hospital, Salem, where Dr. Manimegalai, P.W.9

admitted P.Ws.1 to 3 as well as the deceased for treatment. As the condition of the deceased was serious, he was taken to Gokulam Hospital,

Salem for further treatment and one Dr. Dineshi, P.W.11 admitted the deceased for treatment and forwarded the accident and injury memos to the

police.

On receipt of intimation from the hospital, P.W.16, the Inspector of Police attached to Mallur Police Station, went to the Government Hospital,

Salem and recorded the oral complaint, Ex.P-1 at 10.00 a.m., given by P.W.1 and registered a case under Sections 147, 148, 31, 324 & 307

IPC against A-1 to A-4 and 20 others. He prepared the printed First Information Report, Ex.P-34. As the deceased died at about 11.00 a.m.,

and was informed through the death memo, Ex.P-27, he altered the offence of Section 307 IPC into one of Section 302 IPC and sent the express

report, Ex.P-35 to the Judicial Magistrate, Salem and to the higher police officials. He thereafter went to Gokulam Hospital, Salem and conducted

inquest in the presence of the witnesses on the body of the deceased between 12.00 noon and 12.30 p.m., and prepared the inquest report, Ex.P-

He gave a requisition under Ex.P-30 and sent the body of the deceased through the Head Constable, P.W.14 for conducting post-mortem.

P.W.13, Police Surgeon attached to Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College and Hospital, Salem, commenced post-mortem

on the body of the deceased at 4.25 p.m., on 22.10.2001 and he noted the following ante-mortem injuries:

(1) A gaping cut injury present over left fronto parietal region of scalp 8 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep with cut fracture of bone present beneath.

(2) A gaping lacerated injury present over middle of forehead 5 cm x 2 cm x bone deep with a depressed fracture of frontal bone present beneath

it 4 cm x 1 cm.

(3) A gaping lacerated injury present over left side of frontal region of scalp 2.5 x 0.5 x bone deep.

(4) A gaping lacerated injury on left tempero parietal region of scalp 7 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep.

(5) A gaping lacerated injury over right side of occipital region of scalp 5 x 0.5 cm x bone deep.

(6) A lacerated injury over left side of frontal region of scalp 2 m x 0.5 cm x bone deep.

(7) A lacerated injury present over right leg 4 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm.

(8) Subdural and subarachnoid haemorrhage present over both cerebral hemisphere.

(9) Comminuted fracture of anterior crenial fossa present.

He issued the post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-31 with his opinion that the deceased died of effects of head injuries.

In the meantime, P.W.15, the Sub Inspector of Police attached to Mallur Police Station, on receiving intimation from the Government Hospital,

Salem, went to the hospital at 11.20 a.m., and recorded the oral complaint, Ex.P-32 given by A-6 alleging that in the same occurrence, himself and

the other accused sustained injuries at the hands of the prosecution witnesses. He registered a case in Cr. No. 770 of 2001 for the offence under

Sections 323 and 324 IPC and sent the printed First Information Report, Ex.P-33 to P.W.16 as well as to the Court.

P.W.16, continuing with his investigation, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He went to the occurrence place at 5.00 p.m.,

and prepared the Observation Mahazar, Ex.P-2 in the presence of P.W.7 and other witnesses. He also recovered the bloodstained earth, M.O.4

and sample earth, M.O.5 under the mahazar, Ex.P-3 in the presence of the same witnesses. He also went to the Government Hospital, Salem

where A-4 to A-7 were taking treatment and remanded them to judicial custody after recording their statements. On 27.10.2001 at about 7.00

a.m, he arrested A-1 to A-3 at Yervadi bus stop in the presence of P.W.12 and recorded their statements. In pursuance of the admissible portion

of the confession of A-1 under Ex.P-28, he recovered two sticks, M.O.1 series, koduval, M.O.2, iron rods, M.O.6 series and another iron rod,

M.O.7 from the house of A-3 under the mahazar, Ex.P-29. He remanded A-1 to A-3 to judicial custody. On the basis of the requisition given

under Ex.P-21, he received the chemical analyst''s report, Ex.P-23 and the serologist''s report, Ex.P-24. He examined the doctor, P.W.9 who

treated P.W.1 as well as A-4 to A-7 and one Kandayee, wife of A-4, and recorded his statement. He conducted investigation relating to Cr. No.

770 of 2001 and after examining the witnesses in that case, filed the final report under Ex.P-38 to the Court by referring the case as mistake of

fact. On completing investigation on 10.1.2002 in Cr. No. 769 of 2001, he laid the charge sheet against A-1 to A-7 for the offence under Sections

148, 341, 324, 324, 302 read with 149 IPC before the Court.

To prove the charges against A-1 to A-7, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses, marked 38 exhibits and produced 9 material objects.

When A-1 to A-7 were questioned u/s 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code as to the incriminating materials appearing against each of them,

they denied each and every incriminating material as false. A-2 to A-4 also filed their written statements. No witness was examined and no

document was marked on the side of the defence.

Mr. K. Selvakumaraswami, learned Counsel for the appellants/A-1 & A-2 would submit that the prosecution has not come out with true

version as to the occurrence and the very genesis of the prosecution case is highly doubtful. In support of the above submission, the learned

Counsel has extensively taken us through the entire evidence. According to the learned Counsel, due to political rivalry, on the date of occurrence,

the witnesses namely, P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and the deceased have gone to question A-7 as to the attack said to have been made by A-7 on P.W.2. The

above witnesses and the deceased are only the aggressors. While A-7 was questioned, there was a clash between two groups and in the

occurrence, not only the prosecution party but also the accused party sustained injuries. In fact when the complaint, Ex.P-34 was given by P.W.1,

the same was registered in Cr. No. 769 of 2001. A counter complaint in Ex.P-33 was also given by A-6, which was also registered in Cr. No.

770 of 2001. Though both the complaints were enquired into, only to support the prosecution party, the Investigating Officer, P.W.16 filed a final

report, Ex.P-38 in Mallur Police Station Cr. No. 770 of 2001 given by A-6 after referring the case as mistake of fact. Even in the said report, he

has admitted that the accused party also sustained injuries in the same melee. While that being so, none of the eye-witnesses namely, P.Ws. 1, 2,

3, 5 & 6 have spoken about the injuries sustained by the accused party as well. The suppression of the same would throw a serious doubt about

the veracity of the evidence of the eye-witnesses, as they have not come with true version of the entire occurrence. He would submit that the

doctor-P.W.9, who treated P.Ws.1 & 3 immediately after the occurrence, has also treated A-4, A-5, A-6 & A-7 and one Kandayee, wife of A-

The said doctor has deposed that he was informed that the injuries sustained by both the witnesses and the accused are at the same time and in

the same occurrence. The injuries sustained by the accused are serious, particularly, A-5 and one Kandayee, wife of A-4, were treated for nearly

10 days and 20 days respectively as in-patients. The learned Counsel would submit that it is not only a case of mere non-explanation of the injuries

sustained by the accused, but also the prosecution witnesses have suppressed the actual occurrence namely, suppressing the injuries sustained by

the accused in the same occurrence, throwing a serious doubt about the very genesis of the prosecution case itself. He would also draw our

attention to the vital discrepancies between the evidence of the eye-witnesses, especially the injured witnesses namely, P.Ws.1 & 3, while they first

informed the doctor, P.W.9 as to the persons who have assaulted them. While P.W.1 has stated that he was assaulted by 20 persons, P.W.3 has

stated that he was attacked by 3 persons. He would also submit that the prosecution party being the aggressors, the entire prosecution case is

foisted only on the accused party and the death had occurred in the fight between two parties and the case of the prosecution is that A-1 and A-2

have alone caused the fatal injury on the deceased Thangavelu. Hence A-1 and A-2 are entitled to an acquittal.

Mr. B. Kumaraswamy & Mr. B. Vasudevan, respective learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/A-3 & A-4 also adopted the arguments

of Mr. K. Selvakumaraswami, learned Counsel for the appellants/A-1 & A-2.

Mr. V.R. Balasubramanian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would submit that the Investigating Officer, P.W.16, after

investigation, has rightly referred the complaint given by A-6 as mistake of fact and A-6 has not questioned such a report and has allowed it to

become final. The Court has therefore taken cognizance of the complaint given by P.W.1 implicating the accused for the commission of the

offence. He would also submit that Ex.P-38, the final report filed by P.W.16 is the explanation as to the injuries sustained by the accused. The

learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that merely because the injuries sustained by the accused are not spoken to by the eye-

witnesses, it cannot be construed that there was no explanation as to the injuries sustained by the accused and the final report, Ex.P-38 by itself

would be sufficient for such an explanation and therefore the contentions made on behalf of the appellants are unsustainable. He would also submit

that the information given by the witnesses to the doctor as to the number of persons has no relevance to discard the entire case of the prosecution,

as the doctor is expected only to give treatment to the injured persons in order to save their lives and any endorsement made by the doctor as to

the manner in which the occurrence had taken place and the names of the assailants have no credibility, as there is every possibility for the

witnesses to give false information to the doctors. Hence the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are no discrepancies in the

evidence of the eye-witnesses namely, P.Ws.1 to 3, 5 & 6 and the prosecution has established its case beyond any reasonable doubt against the

accused.

We have given our careful and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. We have also perused all the records placed before us

including the judgment under appeal.

Before we delve upon the issue as to whether the prosecution has explained the injuries on the accused, we would like to survey the law laid

down by the Apex Court on the issue. In the often-quoted decision of the Apex Court in Lakshmi Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar 1976 SCC

(Crl.) 671, the Apex Court has held that ""it is well settled that fouler the crime, higher the proof, and hence in a murder case where one of the

accused is proved to have sustained injuries in the course of the same occurrence, the non-explanation of such injuries by the prosecution is a

manifest defect in the prosecution case and shows that the origin and genesis of the occurrence had been deliberately suppressed which leads to

the irresistible conclusion that the prosecution has not come out with a true version of the occurrence"".

In the above judgment, the Apex Court has quoted with approval the earlier two judgments in Mohar Rai and Bharath Rai Vs. The State of

Bihar, and in State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima 1975 SCC (Crl.) 384. In Mohar Rai''s case, the Apex Court, while considering the non-explanation of

as many as 13 injuries on Mohur Rai, the appellant, and 14 injuries on the other accused, has held that ""it is the duty of the prosecution to explain

those injuries and the failure of the prosecution to offer any explanation in that regard shows that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses relating

to the incident is not true or at any rate not wholly true"".

In Bai Fatima''s case, while considering the non-explanation of the injuries on the person of an accused, the Apex Court has held that whether

such failure on the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of an accused would be fatal to the prosecution case depends upon the facts of

each case. Such non-explanation may result as follows: (1) that the accused had inflicted injuries on the members of the prosecution party in

exercise of the right of self-defence; (2) it makes the prosecution version of the occurrence doubtful and the charge against the accused cannot be

held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt; (3) it does not affect the prosecution case at all. One of the reasons of non-explanation of the

injuries observed by the Apex Court is that such non- explanation makes the prosecution version of the occurrence doubtful and secondly, the

charge against the accused cannot be held to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Apex Court in Lakshmi Singh''s case has also held

that ""it is well settled that it is not necessary for the defence to prove its case with the same rigour as the prosecution is required to prove its case,

and it is sufficient if the defence succeeds in throwing a reasonable doubt on the prosecution case which is sufficient to enable the Court to reject

the prosecution version"".

In State of Rajasthan Vs. Madho and another, , the Apex Court, while again considering the non-explanation of the injuries on the accused,

had agreed with the view of the High Court in brushing aside the evidence of the prosecutrix when the witnesses failed to explain the injuries by the

accused and consequently, did not interfere with the judgment of the High Court in acquitting the accused on that ground.

In Raghunath v. State of Haryana and Anr. 2003 SCC (Crl.) 326 the Apex Court, while considering the non-explanation of the injuries on the

accused, has observed ""that the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused which are grievous in nature, renders the prosecution

story not wholly true"".

In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mishrilal (dead) and Ors. 2003 SCC (Crl.) 1829, the Apex Court has reiterated the same law by observing

that ""none of the prosecution witnesses explained the injuries sustained by the accused, the prosecution has not presented the true version on the

most material part of the case and their evidential value does not inspire confidence of the Court and it cannot be accepted on its face value and

therefore the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by the accused proved fatal to the prosecution case"".

On the other hand, our attention is also drawn by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to the judgment of the Apex Court in Abdul Rashid

Abdul Rahiman Patel and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 2007 (3) SCC (Crl.) 323 and submitted that the non-explanation of the injuries on the

accused by itself would not be fatal. That was a case where the Apex Court was considering only a case of simple and minor injuries sustained by

the accused which were possible by accidental blows from the accused upon themselves while they were attacking some other persons and in that

view of the matter, it was held that the non-explanation of such simple and minor injuries cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also rely upon yet another judgment of the Apex Court in Krishan and Ors. v. State of

Haryana 2007 (2) SCC (Crl.) 214 for the same proposition that even when the prosecution has failed to explain the injuries on the accused, the

same cannot be the solitary ground for doubting the prosecution case, if otherwise the evidence relied upon is found to be credible. The Apex

Court has observed that only when the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is found to be credible, the non-explanation of the injuries would not

be a solitary ground to reject the prosecution case.

The survey of the law on the issue will lead to the following conclusions namely, the failure of the prosecution to offer any explanation as to the

injuries sustained by the accused is not fatal to the prosecution case, if otherwise the evidence relied upon by the prosecution is found to be

credible. Similarly, failure to explain the injuries on the accused which are minor and simple and the possibility of the accused sustaining such

injuries in the course of the occurrence by themselves, may not lead to the conclusion as to the falsity of the prosecution case. However, a different

consideration will arise, if the injuries are grievous in nature. In such circumstances, the burden on the prosecution to discharge the failure to explain

the injuries on the accused will be greater. The prosecution case could be disbelieved in the event of failure to explain the injuries and also the

absence of either other acceptable evidence or incriminating materials against the accused. In the event the prosecution witnesses suppress the very

fact, namely the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence, their evidence on other aspects as well must be held to be untrue as the

witnesses are untrustworthy. Even in cases where the injuries are minor or simple, unless there is a possibility of the accused sustaining such injuries

in the occurrence, and such possibility is not spoken to by the prosecution witnesses, the non-explanation would throw serious doubt about the

prosecution version resulting in the benefit of doubt to the accused.

As the issue namely, the non-explanation of the injuries on the person is not a question of law but is a question of fact and depends on facts

and circumstances of each case, let us now discuss the prosecution case to find out as to whether the accused had sustained injuries and that too in

the same occurrence and if so, whether such injuries are grievous or simple or minor in nature and whether the prosecution has explained those

injuries and if those injuries are not explained, whether the same would affect the prosecution case.

It is an admitted case on either side namely, the prosecution and the defence, that the motive for the occurrence is the elections held prior to

the occurrence and both parties belong to two different political parties. Just one day prior to the date of occurrence i.e., on 21.10.2001, P.W.2

was assaulted by A-7 due to the political rivalry. When the same was reported to P.W.1, the father of P.W.2, P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and the deceased

have gone to A-7 to question him on 22.10.2001 at about 7.00 a.m., and there was a scuffle which resulted in exchange of attack as could be

seen from the two complaints registered by the police on the same day namely, Ex.P-34 in Cr. No. 769 of 2001 at the instance of P.W.1 against

the accused and Ex.P-33 in Cr. No. 770 of 2001 at the instance of A-6 against the prosecution party. This is also evident from Ex.P-38, the final

report filed by P.W.16, the Inspector of Police in Mallur Police Station Cr. No. 770 of 2001, wherein he has stated that the accused also

sustained injuries and the prosecution party namely, the witnesses are the aggressors. When the accused were questioned u/s 313 of the Criminal

Procedure Code, each of the accused has specifically stated that in the occurrence, they also sustained injuries. P.W.16, the Investigating Officer in

his evidence has also admitted the injuries sustained by the accused in the same occurrence, as he has registered the case in Cr. No. 770 of 2001

and examined the injured namely, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7 and one Kandayee, Wife of A-4, in the hospital while they were taking treatment. He has

also admitted that he enquired P.Ws.1 & 3 also at the same time in the hospital and recorded the complaint registered in Cr. No. 769 of 2001.

From the above, it could be seen that both P.Ws.1,3 and the deceased on one side and A-5, A-6, A-7 & one Kandayee on the other side have

sustained injuries in the same occurrence and P.W.9, the doctor, has also stated that he was informed that all the injuries sustained by all of them

are in the same occurrence. Hence we hold that the injuries sustained by A-5, A-6, A-7 and Kandayee are all in the same occurrence where

P.W.1, P.W.2 and the deceased sustained injuries.

The next question to be considered is whether the injuries sustained by the accused are simple, grievous or minor. P.W.9, the doctor, who has

admitted P.Ws.1 & 3 as well as A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7 & one Kandayee, has also deposed that he examined A-4 at 9.45 a.m., and issued the

accident register, Ex.P-11 and wound certificate, Ex.P-12, A-5 at 9.45 a.m., and issued the accident register, Ex.P-13 and wound certificate,

Ex.P-14, A-6 at 10.05 a.m., and issued the accident register, Ex.P-15 and wound certificate, Ex.P-16, A-7 at 9.35 a.m., and issued the accident

register, Ex.P-17 and wound certificate, Ex.P-18, and Kandayee at 10.15 a.m., and issued the accident register, Ex.P-19 and wound certificate,

Ex.P-20. He has also deposed that A-5 was treated for the injuries as in-patient for 10 days and Kandayee, wife of A-4, was treated as in-patient

between 22.10.2001 and 11.11.2001. The doctor has opined that as far as the injuries sustained by A-5 is concerned, the injury is on the right

parietal region with 5 x 3 x bone depth, necessarily meaning the same as grievous. Though the doctor has stated that the injuries are simple in

nature in the wound certificate, Ex.P-14 and from her evidence it is seen that A-5 was treated as in-patient for 10 days, we are of the considered

view that the injuries sustained by A-5 on the head are grievous. Similarly, the injuries sustained by Kandayee is on right parietal region and the

doctor has though opined in Ex.P-20 that the injuries are simple in nature, from her evidence, it is clear that the said Kandayee has been admitted

as in-patient and treated for nearly 20 days. The fact that both the above accused were treated as in-patient for 10 days and 20 days respectively,

would go to show that the injuries are not simple, but are grievous. Hence we hold that the injuries sustained by Kandayee and A-5 are grievous.

This leads us to the further question as to whether the prosecution has explained those injuries. Admittedly, P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6, who have

deposed as to the implication of the accused and were present in the occurrence place, have not whispered even a single word as to any of the

injuries, whether simple or grievous, sustained by the accused. The reason is obvious namely, they have not come forward with true version of the

prosecution case. Strangely, the Investigating Officer, who has registered the counter case, after examining the injured witness and the accused on

the same day in the hospital, has referred to the complaint given by A-6 against the prosecution witnesses as mistake of fact solely on the ground

that one of the persons from the prosecution side had died, leaving the prosecution witnesses to go scot-free for the offences they had committed

in causing injuries on the accused. The evidence of P.W.16, the Investigating Officer also goes to show that the accused had sustained injuries in

the same occurrence. The explanation so offered by the Investigating Officer and the failure on the part of the prosecution witnesses to speak

about the injuries do not go together. The failure on the part of the eye-witnesses creates a reasonable suspicion in the mind of the Court as to the

veracity and the truthfulness of their evidence. When once it is found that the eye-witnesses have suppressed a portion of the occurrence to their

benefit, the witnesses are not trust-worthy and their evidence do not inspire confidence in the Court giving serious doubt and suspicion as to the

evidence. This creates a suspicion as to the very prosecution case itself. Further, there are no other materials to show that the injuries sustained by

the accused have been explained by the other evidence. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the evidence of the eye-

witnesses namely, P.Ws.1 to 3, 5 & 6 are untrustworthy, lacks credibility, throwing suspicion as to the entire prosecution case. Therefore, the

prosecution has not come forward with true version of the occurrence and consequently, the genesis of the prosecution case itself is doubtful.

If the evidence of the above eye-witnesses are disbelieved, there are no other materials to hold that the accused have committed the offence.

In the absence of any evidence to prove the case of the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt, the benefit of doubt should be given to the

accused.

For all our discussions and findings, the judgment of the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Salem dated 29.4.2005 made in S.C. No. 96

of 2004 is set aside and the criminal appeals are allowed. The appellants/accused Nos. 1 to 4 are acquitted of all the charges. Bail bonds executed

by the appellants shall stand terminated. Fine amount, if any, paid by them is ordered to be refunded.